Thinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo Blogito
Conventional wisdom dictates the campaign with the most money and the most experienced staff outperforms the underfunded and inexperienced campaign. But anything can happen in a campaign and often does. A couple of days, let alone weeks or months can be a political eternity when it comes to having to live with the consequences of choices made by campaigns. Which is why campaigns like money and experience. It helps cut down the number of opportunities to gaffe your way into a concession speech instead of a victory speech.
But it doesn’t always work out like that. Consider these two campaigns. One is in California, one in Pennsylvania. One is a US Senate race, one a US House race. One candidate has lots of money and political experience and the other is running her first race on a shoestring budget. Both of them put out web videos. One of them is excellent and the other … well, not so much …
On September 12th, 2009 a crowd estimated at 500,000 to 2,000,000 gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their wishes known to Congress. They wanted irresponsible spending stopped. They wanted an end to unconstitutional legislation. They were ignored. Everyone I spoke to who took part in that rally labeled it one of the most personally inspiring events of their lifetime. Unfortunately, they hadn’t gone to Washington for a “mountain top” experience. They went to effect political change. At the time, it was all people could talk about. Today, just a few months later, I hear next to nothing about it.
By contrast, in the middle part of the last decade, a small number of wealthy men quietly flipped the state and federal delegations of one state from Republican to Democrat and did it without leaving home. Tim Gill and a few others dropped $10 million dollars into a couple of consecutive election cycles in Colorado. They, too, wanted to effect political change. No doubt many questioned their sanity and tactics. Those who ignored them did so to their detriment. Today, years later, I still hear about what is known as “the Colorado model”. Not because it moves men’s hearts; but because it changed a state.
The bottom line is “giving” is more effective than “going” – at least in politics.
These two stories from the past, one success – one failure, illuminate what’s at stake in the present. Let’s assume 1,000,000 people marched on Washington, DC last September spending 48-72 hours and $500 each to do so. Simple math reveals a pool of 48,000,000 to 72,000,000 man hours and a whopping $500,000,000 in cash. That’s enough to put 1 to 1.5 million man hours into phone banking, envelope stuffing, and door knocking to go along with $10,000,000.00 in giving to candidates in each state in the Union! In a single election cycle, in all 50 states, we can duplicate activity proven in one state to produce the political change we want.
I’m not saying marching on DC is a bad thing. In fact, I believe the 9-12 March helped solidify the national legitimacy of our political opposition to the agenda of those who would steal away our Liberty. It brought us together in a needed way. But it failed to put Government in its place.
There are already calls to return to DC in 2010 in even bigger numbers and to gather for a variety of causes. In this election year, I think that’s a mistake. Take the $500 you would spend and the hours you would invest and spend and invest them at home. Find and support – with your time, talent and treasure – candidates and organizations that represent you. Not only will that produce the political success we went to Washington to accomplish, it will produce the “band of brothers” relationships we’ll treasure for years as well.
Cross posted from 2010 is the year to “give”, not “go” at Raising It Right. Raising It Right is a new website helping Liberty loving candidates, organizations and merchants to fund raise online. If you head a group or are running for office and are interested in online fund raising, please consider allowing Raising It Right to help.
As a general rule, Conservatives and those folks who tend to fall in the “Right of Center” category aren’t known for participation in or endorsement of pornography. Just the opposite, in fact. Much of the beating the Right takes, sometimes even from within its own ranks, is from those who see no harm in a little skin or engaging in a bit of “adult” behavior. It’s a shame all those uptight Christians are messing up the good thing the Right has going on, don’t ya’ know …
So why the fascination with the Tiger Woods? I get it that Fox News has to have something for Nancy Grace and Geraldo to blather on about endlessly. But Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Here in Nashville it’s Phil Valentine and Michael DelGiorno. Who knows how many other hosts, columnists and pundits are hanging on the story as if it were relevant to the lives of Americans. It’s not.
The only people impacted by what Tiger Woods has done are his wife, family, sponsors and fans. Moral failings on the part of political and social leaders are relevant to the day-to-day existence of Americans. If a politician cannot be trusted to keep his promise in the most important of personal relationships, how can he be trusted with the personal relationship that exists between politician and constituent? If a social leader such as a preacher or a teacher cannot be trusted to honor vows made to remain faithful to their spouse, what of the vows, overt and implied, to those they promised to serve?
I expect the response will sound something like, “Well, it’s news!” Really? Says who? The MSM? Don’t we routinely criticize the MSM for failing to follow up on important stories like ClimateGate, the crisis that H1N1 isn’t, the true grassroots nature of the Tea Parties, ACORN and so many more? If the MSM is so out of step with us why appeal to the ones driving this story, agreeing it is worthy of our time? Are we now adopting the standards of CBS, ABC and NBC? The longer we roll around in bed (almost literally in this case) with the MSM using the premise of newsworthiness to do so, the more cover we give them when they ignore stories they should cover. The more we perpetuate the conversation and validate it, the more credibility we bestow on the MSM for being able to pick the right stories to report on. Instead, we should be voicing our displeasure with the MSM that, once again, they distract us from what is really important by focusing on fluff.
Tiger Woods cannot do a single thing that impacts my life. He does not vote on legislation that limits my individual or economic Liberty. I do not look to him for advice or guidance on how to live my life or conduct my affairs (no pun intended). I’d listen to him about backswings but there are others I can listen to if he’s not available. My favorite golf gear will have a celebrity endorser tomorrow if a sponsor drops Tiger today. I’m out nothing and my life is neither better or worse because of his behavior.
Unless I’m free to use Tiger’s misfortune to engage in endless talk about things I’d never talk about on the radio, around the water cooler or at home. Things like: male conquests of multiple partners; what these women were doing that lured him from his home; these women were attractive with large breasts; there must be pictures online! This is what radio hosts, writers and pundits who focus on politics are talking to their audiences about.
Why? Are there not enough excesses going on in Copenhagen that may destroy the world’s Economy? Have the Senators in DC taken a break from their efforts to destroy the US Economy? As I mentioned, I expect breathless, interminable discussion of Tiger and his affairs from Nancy Grace and Geraldo. But why from political commentators? Why indulge in discussing, dissecting and deriding an athlete’s sex life?. And with all the attention being showered on these women, how long before one of them sells salacious secrets to a tabloid? How long before one gets a reality series? How long before one or more of them actually poses for Hustler or Playboy? Are we not responsible for prolonging the discussion and creating new stories and opportunities?
And it’s not just Tiger Woods. Kobe Bryant, Dennis Rodman, Madonna, Brad Pitt, Michael Jackson … on and on. We can’t get enough of the dirty details. While not pornographic in the traditional sense of the word you can see it from there. So much so that I wonder if we’ve not forgotten sound advice like “Whatever is pure, lovely and of good reputation - think on these things!” Instead, those of us traditionally seen as supporting good and decent behavior have immersed ourselves in gossip, speculation and as close as many of us are going to get to involvement with porn. Of course, when you factor in that famous rabbi’s teaching that it’s what’s in the heart that drives our behavior, perhaps we’re not so immune to pornography after all.
When discussing scientific things with a friend of mine, a scientist himself, the notion of Science as the dispassionate, neutral observer willing to fearlessly proceed wherever the evidence leads - even if it leads in a personally distasteful direction - colors his conversation. In truth, that’s probably how we all view Science. More to the point, it’s how we should view Science because it’s how Science should be. We should be able to trust its conclusions.
But what happens if the scientific community, for whatever reason, abandons its neutrality concerning the conclusion the evidence is pointing to and decides to actively promote a conclusion unsupported by the facts? It takes no great leap to imagine that, in such a scenario, some evidence would be suppressed and other evidence would be gussied up. Not with a view to finding the Truth. With a view to manipulating the conclusion.
If Science is, indeed, the dispassionate neutral observer, the best conclusion would seem to be to keep on studying and make no definitive statements. A scientific version of “We can neither confirm or deny the existence of either AGW or an imminent Ice Age.” New evidence has emerged, however, which seems to show the scientific community did just the opposite.
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
The trap my scientist friend falls into with his belief in Science as an arbiter of knowledge and Truth is not that Science sometimes comes to conclusions that are later shown to be wrong. The very quest that Science embarks on recognizes there are things we now believe that are wrong. That’s why Science exists, to ferret out the Truth.
My friend errs in trusting scientists. Human nature, as it exists in scientific leaders, political leaders, religious leaders and others engaged in the quest to improve the life and condition of their followers, is not exempt from the call and response of greed, deception, hypocrisy and hubris because their cause is noble.
As with Politics and politicians; as with Theology and theologians; so with Science and scientists. When looking for Truth, our greatest concern should not be the analysis of the conclusions being reported. It should be an analysis of the character of those doing the reporting.
The Speaker of the House actually says it is UNFAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of POSSIBLE illnesses to the rest of us and then opines it is FAIR for people not to have health insurance and pass on costs of PURPOSEFUL provision of health insurance to the rest of us. This level of ignorance is intentional.
WGNO, ABC 26 News is reporting there have been two fundraisers canceled in the week since Cao became the lone Republican to support what many believe to be an irresponsible and reckless increase in federal spending. They are also reporting some previous donors, unable to cancel their fundraisers or choose not to attend one are asking for their money back.
Cao’s actions have obviously angered supporters in his district. He is a freshman Congressman who barely edged out his incumbent opponent, Democrat William Jefferson, best known for being caught with almost $100,000 in bribe money in his freezer. Around the country, Republicans and Conservatives are also angry with Cao as his single GOP vote has enabled Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic caucus to claim their victory was bi-partisan in nature based on the votes of 219 Democrats and Congressman Cao.
ABC 26 News notes that GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, while disappointed, has no plans for “political retaliation” against Cao. Given the vital importance money plays in political campaigns and given the mood with donors back home, it appears Cantor won’t need to worry about that at all. Cao’s supporters will take care of that for him with their own vote on reforming his campaign finances.
The Tennessean today reported that Tennessee 5th District Democrat Jim Cooper testified at a Senate hearing and said “… that the country’s huge debt is a “fiscal cancer.””
The Tennessean goes on to report that Rep. Cooper has authored a bill to address the issue and “… create a bi-partisan commission that would look at entitlement programs that are driving deficit spending and make recommendations that Congress could approve or disapprove but not amend.”
This from a Congressman who voted, less than 72 hours before to expand the country’s debt and usher in a deficit spending entitlement program the likes of which were contemplated only in the dreams of die-hard Democrats.
The full text of Cooper’s remarks are even more astonishing. Again, despite having voted for the health care bill on Saturday in the US House, on Tuesday Cooper told the US Senate, “I believe that the greatest threat to our nation’s economic security is our long-term fiscal imbalance.” He is referring to 2008’s $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities currently facing our Economy which are likely to grow to $60 trillion in 2009. Those are Cooper’s numbers.
Identifying the source of these problems, Cooper says of the cancer he is warning against, “The President and Congress have acknowledged that the bulk of our budget problem is in health care. That’s why both the House and Senate reform proposals make an effort to reduce the deficit now and in the future.” He follows that up by stating, in testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, “I am not satisfied that the House bill passed this weekend meets these goals.”
He concludes, “So, how can we fix it? The best course is more direct spending cuts, but we all know how likely those are. The second-best solution is a top-level commission to force congressional action.”
Only in Washington, DC does this pass for wisdom and responsible governance. Were I to put the Congressman’s words into the language of normal Americans it would go like this:
“Senators, our country is in a huge amount of trouble because we have spent money we do not have for years. This behavior is like a cancer that is killing us and it’s getting worse. I should know. Just 3 days ago I added over $2 trillion dollars to the $55 to $60 trillion dollars of unfunded mandates in the area of health care alone that threaten to cripple our Economy. The President and Congress all understand that it is precisely that sort of health care spending that has put us in this mess and so we’re going to fix it. Yessirree … we’re going to reduce that pesky deficit spending. We all know the best and most effective way to do that would be to reduce deficit spending. So, we’re not going to push for that because it might be hard on our chances to get re-elected. What we should, therefore, do as a fall back position is to have another Congressional panel to make non-binding recommendations to Congress telling them they should cut spending while not actually insisting that they do. That way everyone acknowledges the problem, we are all seen as doing something about it and nothing really has to change. And by the time the country implodes, we’ll all be out of office. Any questions? Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.”
The idea already has some weighty Senate co-sponsors in Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). Brownback was even a GOP candidate for President in 2008. To actually become a part of the Constitution, however, it will need a few more Senate votes and then some. To pass, a Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote of approval in the House and Senate and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Given the current make-up of the federal chambers and the dependency the Democrats have on long serving members such as Durbin, Frank, the late Senator Kennedy and so many more, it is highly unlikely these “public servants” will be swayed to legislate themselves off the gravy train.
Yet, for the country to move forward, it may be a necessary step. As DeMint notes in his presser,
Some say only long-serving, seasoned elites have the skills to lead the people, but that’s exactly what we have today and how do you think it’s working out for us? It wasn’t the ‘people’ who gave us a $12 trillion debt, an IRS tax code seven times longer than the Bible, over 1,700 departments of the federal government, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, $100 trillion long-term shortfall in Social Security and Medicare, the Wall Street and auto bailouts, and the pending health care takeover.
This nation can no longer afford these entrenched men and women who enjoy lives of luxury wholly insulated from the consequences of their major policy failures.
Notably and importantly, the title of DeMint’s proposed amendment is indicative of his attitude. Term Limits for All means that DeMint supports term limits as a legislative or constitutional mandate but not self-imposed term limits chosen by individual legislators. Not only do Democrats never choose to do it, in DeMint’s words,
… demanding that reformers adopt self-imposed term limits is a recipe for self-defeat on this issue. We lost the battle for term limits after the 1994 Republican Contract with America because we forced our best advocates for reform to go home, while the big-spending career politicians waited them out. We must have term limits for all or term limits will never succeed. Only when we apply the same rules to all will we be able to enact vital bipartisan reforms.
The larger goals DeMint has in mind for his amendment are to
… increase legislative turnover, expand the field of candidates who run for office, and instill transparency and accountability in our public officials. By ratifying this amendment, we can end the tremendous advantage enjoyed by incumbents in Washington, break long-lasting ties to special interests and lobbyists, and transform Congress from the body of career politicians that it has become, to a chamber of true citizen legislators.
If the proposal has no chance of passing under the current Beltway leadership, a revolution of the sort some are predicting in November, 2010 may bring about a federal legislature more willing to ratify such a notion and **gasp** take the extraordinary step of putting the idea of Term Limits out in the public to be debated and weighed in on by, if not the People themselves, then at least legislators a whole lot closer to the people than the career federal politicians the amendment would turn out. Not only that but it gives challengers and incumbents alike a great campaign platform plank over the next few months.
In my inbox this morning was an email from the President of the United States. He is a black man, or at least black enough that he feels compelled to cast his election in terms of America’s repudiation of racism. Obviously, such a position has its taproot sunk deeply into the history of slavery in our country. Which begs the question.
If Barack Obama, the black man, and Democrats, many of whom are black, are so opposed to and horrified by the notion of slavery in our country and are determined to move the country beyond it, why then did they just vote to become the most grotesque slave owners in history? Other despots in our history merely hated America and the Liberty she stood for and wanted to destroy the United States. Barack Obama and his fellow slave owners hate America and the Liberty she stands for yet do not want to destroy us; they want to compel us to work against our will to provide for them. The very definition of slavery.
According to Dictionary.com, slavery is: “The condition of a slave; bondage. The keeping of slaves as a practice or institution. Severe toil; drudgery.”
Its synonyms and their meaning are even more damning to Democrats:
Thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master … Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor … Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty …
That Barack Obama and Democrats may be offended by this truth or deny it is irrelevant. They are slave owners, now. They have subjected millions of Americans to work to provide for them involuntarily. They own this nation’s Producers and control them. They determine what will be produced and will require millions to labor to produce it for millions more under penalty of fines or imprisonment. No one has the right to fail to participate.
What they are forced to participate in is not the recognition of a human right such as Life or Liberty. That would make those orchestrating the conflict liberators and visionaries. What they are being forced to provide under threat of serious penalties is a consumer good. Like the cotton of the first American slave owners, health care will now be produced by today’s slaves for sale to eager consumers willing to be purposefully ignorant of the circumstances under which it is produced. This brings profit to the slave owners and happiness to the consumer on the backs of the slaves. The analogy is both proper and complete. Barack Obama is not a liberator. He is a slaver. His legacy will be that a sitting President of the United States - once the symbol of Liberty around the world - trafficked in human flesh for his own profit.
What remains to be seen is how this Master deals with the inevitable slave’s rebellion. It is coming and it will not take decades. Because I will not submit to shackles. I will not be compelled to labor for the comfort of others. I will not live a single day as less than a free man. It is my heritage and my birthright as both a Christian and an American. I am free and will remain so. I will not be a slave. I am not alone in this. If Barack Obama and Democrats think they have won some sort of victory here they are as ignorant of history as they are of human nature.
I will be free or I will die fighting for my freedom. Barack Obama calls for me to lay down my Liberty. I dare him, if he is man enough, to come and take it from me himself.
There is a lot to be excited about that has happened over the last week. There were two Governor’s races that were won and Doug Hoffman came within a Scozzafava of going to DC as the Congressman to represent NY23. There has been a lot to be concerned about as well. For those paying attention, we saw that Bill Owens is well and truly a Democrat. The NY23 Congressman, who pledged on the stump that he could not support a Health Care bill that contained a public option, cut Medicare benefits, taxed health care benefits or increased taxes on the middle class, has come out in favor of Obamacare. Of course, all the things he said he would oppose are features of the House bill he now says he’ll vote for.
The current crop of Democrats in power in Washington, DC simply cannot be trusted. Should they tell you the sky is blue, I suggest you check for yourself. It is easy to imagine those who support such faithless men and women dismissing my charge as being what one would expect from political opponents. Except one would choke on the evidence supporting my position if one ever sat down to start to take it in. What about promises from Pelosi and Obama that legislation would be available to the people ahead of time for them to examine it before any votes were taken? What about promises of transparency and then shutting Republicans out of the process? What about pledging not to sign a bill that funded abortions with taxpayer dollars or to make health care available to non-citizens and then lobbying for a bill that does both of those things? What about saying the idea was to be fiscally responsible and then spending an ESTIMATED $1.5 TRILLION dollars when the GOP alternative weighs in at a mere $60 BILLION as analyzed by the Congressional Budget office? And all of this has happened in just the last 7 days!
Which brings us to the point. We cannot let up the pressure until the vote is over and either the dangers inherent to the US Economy in the Democrats ignorant and ill advised intentions are defeated or we succeed in making the Democrats completely own this abomination of a bill. There is all manner of reporting going on that Blue Dog Dems are rebelling against being strong armed into supporting a bill the vast majority of the country does not want. It may even be true. But we cannot take success for granted and we must keep our federal representative’s feet to the fire until the vote is over. Then we must hold them accountable for their votes between now and November of 2010.
For those of you in Districts where your Democrat has pledged to vote “No!”, keep the pressure on. Call them or call them again and tell them you don’t want this irresponsible financial disaster to be laid at the country’s doorstep. But there are still other Democrats that have not made their intentions known. These are still on the fence and need to hear from you if you live in their District. The following list is of potential swing votes that may still have enough allegiance to the idea of “representative” government that your calls will have an effect.
Michael Arcuri (NY-24th) (202) 225-3665
Steve Dreihous (OH 1st) (202) 225-2216
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8th) (202) 225-2542
Debbie Halverson (IL-11th) (202) 225-3635
Steve Kagen (WI-8th) (202) 225-5665
Betsy Markey (CO-4th) (202) 225-4676
Tom Perriello (VA-5th) (202) 225-4711
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47th) (202) 225-5711
Vic Snyder (AR-29th) (202) 225-2506
Zack Space (OH-18th) (202) 225-2965
If you are in their Districts, call them and tell them you want them to vote “No!” on Obamacare. I know it’s late on Friday or Saturday and the vote is in just a few hours or maybe a few minutes. Call anyway! It doesn’t matter what your Congressman has said or what he might say. It only matters how he votes! Your calls will help him make the right decision. Thanks!
The thoughts and opinions expressed here at Blue Collar Muse are completely and solely those of Ken Marrero, exercising his 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances.
This is true despite the fact that my views are similar, and in many instances identical, to a large number of rational and thoughtful people, fictional and real, living and dead.
So, for the record, I and I alone am responsible for the thoughts, views and opinions shared here.
They are not to be seen, in any way imaginable, as those of my family, friends, employer, childhood imaginary companions or anyone else (Although it is true The Much Younger Trophy Wife made me say this. Seems she did some research and there was no promise in our vows, stated or implied, to the end of "in Right Wing, Bigoted, Hateful, Intolerant, Wingnut Idiocy and in Mental Health". She just wanted to be clear). They are especially not those of handlers operating from the bowels of the VRWC (As if I'd admit it if they were. There are confidentiality agreements involved after all!). Just pay no attention to that guy behind the curtain.
If you like what you read here, pat meon the back! If you disagree, kick mein the shins. But it's me, me, me - it's all about me! That seems rather appropriate, don't you think?
On September 12th, 2009 a crowd estimated at 500,000 to 2,000,000 gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their wishes known to Congress. They wanted irresponsible spending stopped. They wanted an end to unconstitutional legislation. They were ignored. Everyone I spoke to who took part in that rally labeled it one of the most personally inspiring events of their lifetime. Unfortunately, they hadn’t gone to Washington for a “mountain top” experience. They went to effect political change. At the time, it was all people could talk about. Today, just a few months later, I hear next to nothing about it.
Entries (RSS)