Healthcare Independent Expenditure idea
(I wrote this up and sent it to a few friends who I thought could tell me if it was a decent idea or not. Only one responded, and even then without saying whether it was a good idea or not. I'm getting the feeling that I'm either past my prime or unable to get any political scheme funded or people interested anymore. So, I'm posting it here in the resigned defeat of watching another political idea die on the vine.)Healthcare Independent Expenditure idea
1. Get a voice artist who sounds similar to President Obama
2. Identify and rent lists of elderly likely voters in key areas
a. Senate
Colorado – Bennett
Arkansas – Lincoln
North Dakota – Dorgan
b. House
South Dakota – Herseth
(other potentials)
c. Legal limitations
Check for states where the most favorable regulatory regime exists:
http://winningcalls.com/statelaws.html
3. Record a short spot using the voice artist:Sterile female voice:Please hold for a fake message from the President Barack Obama
Obama voice artist:Good afternoon seniors,
I want to talk to you for a moment about healthcare reform. I know many of you are concerned about losing Medicare and Medicaid benefits and likely cuts to Social Security that will be necessary to pay for my healthcare reforms. However, I want to ask you to end the divisiveness on this issue and support me. I know what’s best for you and even if we do take your benefits, tax your healthcare plan or increase taxes, it will be worth it to provide healthcare to those who can’t afford it. So, please stop opposing me and trust me.
Thank you.
4. Robocall lists with this message. Distribute .mp3 file to other organizations with robodialers.
Labels: activism, election, healthcare, obama, politics
Naomi Wolf, activism and right and wrong
I watched
these awful comments by
Naomi Wolf about activism and "fake" activism. It always intrigues me to hear people talk about activism, because they usually only mean the most rudimentary political action. "Activism" is present tense, more than just the method of taking action and yet most of these people mean one simple thing, with one trite and cute simple idea. In Wolf's case she wants "massive protests" but it betrays her sheltered life to show that her idea of progress in politics is not much more than mass displays of humanity. The March for Life, as I noted below, has a mass display of humanity and yet it is almost wholly disconnected from directly ending abortion. It's tough to watch Wolf and not read too much into her mannerisms and ways of her speech: seeming so stilted and full of herself. It reminds me of people arguing in student government: the overgeneralizations, the vague indictments, the reflexive reactionary solutions that are without nuance, skill, thought or planning. Not to mention that she's just so plainly wrong. Wolf's entire premise is that the "system" has evolved higher and higher opportunity costs to political action in order to keep "the people" from ruling. Would that it were so it would validate her ideas about a conspiracy by "the man" to keep "the people" metaphorically "down." But anyone who spends 5 minutes in applied politics, who deals with these bureaucrats, realizes that more often than not these rules evolve out of well-meaning bureaucrats who try to prevent a specific special interest from abusing the system to take advantage of a loophole. Wolf cites the rules against false voter registrations, but when her preferred candidate loses by a slim margin with thousands of questionable voter reg. filings the day before the deadline, she'll be saying death is too good for whomever denied her the opportunity. We have no patience for problems, no tolerance for mistakes, and we contribute to this awful bureaucratic system and its inane rules. We rail against bureaucrats and then fail to consider how often we tell others that "we'd like to help, but..." and then use some arcane rule to justify our inaction. I question the sincerity of her commitment to true openness, to true competition. Many states have silly laws that hurt political action, removing those laws would be a good thing. I doubt that Wolf will carry forward on this and not just write another book about feminism or retreat back into New York City. Incidentally, I also tend to confuse this Naomi with
Naomi Klein, who is, as well, almost equally as feminist, socialist and wrong.
Labels: activism, election, politics, theory
Data, Lists and Elections
A good
article in Business Week discusses Obama's use of data in his campaign. What I like about the article is that it reminds the reader that politics is rarely about the stump speech or the ideas as much as it is a battle of competing technology and resources. It's not quite a game, but it's not the contest where the best man wins or the best ideas prevail.
Labels: election, politics, technology
Slate: Getting it wrong as usual
Daniel Gross at Slate wrote an article "
What's the Matter with Greenwich?" in which he tries to answer the question as to why the Republicans are losing the upper class. And in so doing, he presents a classic straw man that gets knocked down with another false notion: that the social conservatism is driving away the upper class. This is just classic leftist piling on during Republican defeat. This is a careful application of a stupid narrative: that conservatism lost on Tuesday and not the incompetent campaign of John McCain.
The truth is, contrary to popular opinion, that the Republicans have never been a successful advocate for the wealthiest Americans. One need only look at the Senators with the greatest wealth to see that liberal Democrats are always the wealthiest. Sure, being wealthy lends one's self to rationally pursue conservative economics but by the virtue of being rich one gets to loose themselves of the economic truths that got them rich.
John McCain is pro-amnesty, he was a war hero, he was adored at one point by the press, he was not a radical, did not talk about religion, and was not friendly to the gun groups or the pro-life groups. He was very pro-homosexual. So, what, exactly, is the substantive point of Daniel Gross other than to confuse the truth and twist the narrative to suit his purposes?
It would be accurate to say and observe that the wealthiest now have their own social agenda-- pursuing silly things like "environmentalism" even when the science and common sense don't add up, or "inequality" between inherently unequal things, postracial nonsense and other inanities. The left has figured out, aided and abetted by their media allies, how to dupe the rich into voting against their interests. Congratulations to the left for finding this magic elixir and potent political recipe, but don't expect me to buy the bull on why it's happening and find a way to blame conservatives who have nothing to do with it.
Slate is completely disreputable.
Labels: Economics, election, media bias, society
Stanek: Life will not go on
I thought this article by Jill Stanek
pretty well summed things up. There has to be a major reconsideration on pro-life strategy in this country. The fabled court strategy for the last 10-20 years has just exploded, and there is nothing in its place.
Also, in general, I think
Dan Flynn has the right idea by pointing out that we should live our lives free from politics, not dependent upon it.
Labels: election, pro-life, pro-life movement
Banned SNL skit & "free speech"
Here's the infamous banned SNL skit. Personally, I stopped watching SNL years ago, and didn't particularly find this skit hilarious. But its topic was so on point that it obviously caused our central Politburo for "truth" to get their minions at NBC to pull the clip. More than that, interestingly, is that they've managed to get it pulled from Youtube and other distribution networks as well. Here is the censorship, here is a world where ideas are dangerous. And where, I ask, is the ACLU or other free speech 'watchdogs'? Nowhere to be found.
Labels: election, humor, obama, politics
11 thoughts on the election
1. This race was always winnable
2. The media is evil and should always be opposed
3. Moderate Republicans are entirely worthless
4. Bush has been a total failure
5. Certain people need to be written out of the movement
Tom DeLay
Newt
John McCain
6. Our donors need to get excited again
7. We need to prepare for an insurgency until we retake the control of government
8. No more playing nice or acting like bipartisanship is anything other than us getting screwed
9. No compromise, no surrender
10. Use this time to recruit and train, and also attack their support networks
11. Our people need to savage the other side when they misstep and overreach
Labels: election, policy, politics, theory
Election!
So, I just got back from voting. Having cast a write-in vote four years ago for
Pat the Prophet, I decided to go with Chuck Baldwin today. Bob Barr just seems so mediocre. I will say that I considered writing in Baldwin and Palin since Gov. Sarah grows on me day after day as the media savages her. But, alas, I supported America's only real party: the Constitution Party. Down ballot, keeping with a personal pledge never again to support Republicans, I wrote in Jeff Beatty which might be a cop-out, but I wanted to support the man running against John Kerry. Other than that, there were zero Republicans on the ballot, one or two Green party people, and the rest were members of the party of death. So, I ended up writing in some local pro-life leaders, some local pro-life professors and a local author. Even though none of the people I supported "will win", that's really not what my voting is about anymore... I am truly casting my vote for whom I believe will govern the best, damn the consequences of giving it to the media-appointed front-runner. We too easily cede our principles and our souls to what the media expects of us, and we forget that our actions bear most upon our own souls. And for my soul, I sure as hell was not going to support John Amnesty/StemCell/CampaignFinanceReform/JudgeTraitor McCain. Friends, Countrymen, we should all vote our consciences once again.
Labels: election, politics, Worcester
Thoughts on beating Obama
Watching the news and reading stories, I have two thoughts on how to deconstruct Barack Hussein Obama:
1. Destroy the brand
As much as I hate the politics of personal destruction, Obama's been a master of it in the past getting his surrogates to unseal a divorce proceeding of a former opponent, Jack Ryan, from many years ago. His stature has been blown up so big, that it just needs one solid cut to make a terminal wound in his brand. He needs something that really has a burnt-tongue aspect to the narrative he's crafted. He's a community organizer? Then show somehow that he cheated a welfare mom. He's a Harvard Law Review editor? Show his legal inexperience. Do what it takes to show that the Obama myth is all hope, and in so doing change people's perceptions.
2. Attack his greatest strength: speeches
Disruptions, like this one where they interrupted his speech, are effective at taking apart that carefully constructed moment. If Republicans actually cared about winning, they'd unplug his teleprompter no matter what it took-- hell, get arrested but just make sure he's seen as the empty suit he is when the teleprompter goes dark. He doesn't know what he's saying, he's just reading the scripts.
Now, having said all this, of course I need to restate that I won't be voting for McCain under any circumstances because of stem cells and amnesty. It's important never to forget that Obama may be awful, but McCain still isn't worth voting for when he has no problem killing kids and keeping the borders open.
Labels: election, obama
Peggy Noonan: Is my man the right one? What if both sides say no?
the best quote: "The economic crisis brings a new question, unarticulated so far but there, and I know because when I mention it to people they go off like rockets. It is: Do you worry that neither of them is up to it? Up to the job in general? Is either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama actually up to getting us through this and other challenges? I haven’t heard a single person say, "Yes, my guy is the answer." A lot of shrugging is going on out there. This is a read not only on the men but on the moment."
from
Peggy Noonan's "Why It's Getting Mean"
Labels: election, mccain, obama, politics
Cynicism towards Ben Ladner's Obama optimism
It would be too easy to outline the hypocrisy of former AU President Ben Ladner in his recent opinion piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on "
No Reason to be Cynical of Celebrity" in regards to Obama. Ben Ladner spent 11 years ruining American, inflating tuition, running roughshod over the faculty Senate, charging every bill he could to the university and then making sure to cut off his pound of flesh from the body of the University in the form of his severance package. Now he spends his retirement, and the millions he stole from American, on
his 40+ foot boat in South Carolina. I don't like Obama, but at least his hypocrisy is light years less than Ladner's.
Labels: Ben Ladner, election, obama, politics
"Message" a.k.a. Political words that mean even less than political promises
So,
Politico is saying that Obama supporters are worried that his 'message' isn't resonating compared to McCain's. All that McCain seems to have done differently is to choose Sarah Palin, who actually had a discernable record. Funny enough, though McCain's numbers have gone up, typically among Republicans, Obama's have stayed roughly in the same place. What this article fails to note is that neither candidate has a message or any serious vision. Neither one offers a voter any real choice, rather, just two disparate images of 'character' and 'leadership' and 'vague words that mean nothing' in place of "issues." And while Democrats complain about being "defined" in the "messaging" by "Republicans" they forget that Republicans have a natural advantage: they can readily screw over their base, like McCain, and the base will still vote for them! Obama has none of the same flexibility. McCain can talk about gun control, being pro-choice, being pro-union, and raising taxes, and he'll only shave off a point or two but will gain ten. Obama can't deviate on any of the major issues without risking a real revolt: he can't kick big unions, admit that abortion is murder or even admit obvious facts about Israel, race, entitlements, social services or even foreign policy. In terms of the "message", the constraints are not due to Republican chicanery, it's due to the ferocious strength and political acumen of the varied interests on the left. McCain can play the populist and Obama's stuck in a message box held together by his "friends" to always toe the leftist line. No wonder why he's stuck at 45%.
Labels: election, mccain, messaging, obama
Palin, Politics and a Proper Polity
There's no need to recant the many crazy things going on in the past few days regarding the Vice Presidential pick of Sarah Palin. I will say, though, that the level of animosity and attack politics is really amazing-- that it would target children and individuals, a new low. We all know that affairs have been a political matter even since the revolutionary times when that scourge Alexander Hamilton's sexual peccadilloes were the subject of political discussion. But, to use a teenager as the focus of such attacks is something new. As well, the references to how abstinence education relates to this situation are egregious and distasteful. There's zero evidence for it, but the left cannot resist using individuals to make crass political points. This child isn't even of age, doesn't have a platform to respond, and yet she's a tool to advance their agenda. Who on the right uses and promote John Edwards' moral failings as an argument in a political debate? Who would say that Rielle Hunter shows that women need better sexual harassment protection? It doesn't even enter our minds because we're separating the policy from the opportunism. And the use of these things shows that our body politic is well infected with such a level of vitriol that I doubt it can recover. Perhaps financial collapse will cause us to focus elsewhere, but I don't see the system dialing down its intensity anytime soon and that's sad. If for no other reason it's sad, it is because it attacks children and rationalizes the act.
Labels: election, politics
Reasons to love Sarah Palin and know that she’s one of us
Reasons to love Sarah Palin and know that she's one of us
She hates other Republicans – Check
She's more conservative than the country club crowd – Check
She probably shops at wal-mart to stretch her dollar – Check
She doesn't have a law degree or PhD – Check
She doesn't spend summer vacations in Tuscany – Check
She wasn't on the Harvard law review – Check
She's been attacked by the media – Check
She has at least worn a Buchanan button without shame – Check
She has now dealt firsthand with Democrat hypocrisy in about eight different ways - Check
Labels: election, Palin, politics
Ridiculous Republicans
There are a whole host of possible causes and reasons
why two corrupt Alaska Republicans can win renomination in their primary battles, but the causes are unimportant. The effect of their win: to stymie reformers, to prevent upstarts, and to encourage this disgusting Republican trait of nominating whoever is the establishment candidate is frustrating beyond description. It's Alaska's decision to make, I suppose, but it's sad to see that our fellow countrymen can tolerate such indecency.
Labels: election, politics, Republicans
President Hillary further undermined by media bias?
Granted, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I do have to say that the media was incredibly biased in favor of Obama. They repeatedly wrote Hillary off, and cast her aside. Which, from a certain point of view, was entertaining because of how often the media does it to the right. Nevertheless, the media bias covering up John Edwards' love-child
might have had a secondary motive-- to drive votes away from Hillary? Jill Stanek is where I read it first. Will we call this a vast-left-wing-media conspiracy? At least in this case she'd be right in suspecting it.
Labels: election, hillary, media, media bias, obama
McCain revealed, again.
So
John McCain isn't as conservative as we were told? Color me shocked! That the party would lie to conservatives? Not possible! On every key issue:
guns,
God,
babies,
taxes, John McCain is anathema to the core constituencies of the party. Which may mean that
he polls well in very generic national polls, but who will be stumping for McCain on election day,
other than Sam Brownback? People within the GOP hitched their star to McCain's wagon and we may see the results in the fall. Personally, I think very large, near huge portions of the GOP base of donors, activists, academics and intellectuals are tired of the lies, tired of the excuses and fed up with broken promises. McCain's a singular man, a maverick and has a great personal story, but people want to vote on issues and feel as though they can get results on those issues. We're more policy oriented than a generic feel-good candidate, because we've learned that those kind of leaders frankly can't be trusted to deliver.
Labels: election, mccain, obama, politics
