You Tube Debate: Mismanaged and Unproductive

Democrats run away from a Fox News hosted debate because of "bias" but Republicans participate in a CNN You-Debate hosted by none other than Anderson Cooper in which proponents of Hillary, Barack and John Edwards are chosen to ask questions of the Republicans. Does this sound right to you? Why aren't republican voters chosen as question-askers? It is the republican primary the candidates are campaigning for after all.

Oh, and then you have Anderson Cooper and CNN not doing the slightest bit of research on the questioners... Major Garrett reported on Fox this morning that a simple Google search tells you that the democratic questioners are supporting the respective candidates. Hmm.




And then there's the fist-fight that almost broke out.

Did anyone else notice that when Huckabee wanted to respond to Romney's accusations and ask Romney to allow him a chance to respond, Romney let him. But when it Romney's turn to respond, Huckabee wouldn't let him finish. Interesting.

And as for those of you who think Romney just says what will get him elected or that he doesn't answer the questions... let me remind you of this:

1. Huckabee constantly refers to his Christianity
2. Rudy's answers always come back to:
"George Will said I ran the most conservative government" (too bad the American Conservative Union endorsed Romney)
"I cut taxes 23 times"
"crime went down"
and "9/11."
3. Fred Thompson's wife is really the one running
4. Duncan Hunter only talks about the fence he built
5. Tom Tancredo focuses on immigration
6. McCain relies on his military service
7. Ron Paul is all about pulling the troops out of Iraq

Oh, and when Romney responded to the ad by Thompson, Romney at least gave a humble answer: "I was wrong." And he expanded to say that when it came time to make executive decisions about matters of life, that was when he sided with life. Not when he decided to run for president.

Anyway, the candidates have to say what they want to say during the short amount of time they have to say it because there are too many people running. Half of the candidates on the stage (Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo, McCain) shouldn't be wasting our time. If there were less people participating in the debates, there would be more time for substantive answers to the question at hand.

Oh, and why were Giuliani and Thompson placed in the middle? Does CNN not know that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney are the 3 leaders?

Finally...

As I've been saying for a good while now, if any other Republican candidate was leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and doing well in South Carolina, he would be considered the frontrunner. However, because it is Mitt Romney who is in this position, the GOP nomination is considered "wide open," or narrowed down to Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.

Why?

Because Mitt Romney hasn't polled well in national polls and he has very little name recognition especially when compared to Rudy.

But...

National polls don't mean anything. They don't take into account the electoral college... they disregard the fact that a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. In the primary the early states are incredibly important, which is why the candidates focus their time and money campaigning in them.

Anyway, the Talking Points Memo has an article on an "epiphany" the writer had about how well Romney is doing.

Face it, Rudy is really only doing well in Florida, Thompson is wasting his time campaigning in states where the primary isn't so important and McCain, well, there's been a lot of talk about his resurgence but he had his time as the frontrunner (way back when before the presidential campaigns really got started).

Oh, and Huckabee? The TPM says, "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace. And that may simply be due to the fact that in a large field it gets harder to keep up the rate of increase in support as you near 30% of the total."

The italicized sentence is really important and something that no one has touched upon when talking about Huckabee's performance in Iowa.

On the Democratic side in Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama is going to prevail. My question: why do we even care what Gingrich says? He was the Speaker during the 1994 Republican "revolution" and he's written a few books, but his place is in policy-making, not in election-predicting.

On an ending note, it seems that the American public's view of the military effort in Iraq has become more positive over the last few months...

Does anyone think anymore?

2 things...

1. Selective Pregnancy Reduction (aka abortion) is the thing to do when you decide you have the right to play God. If you get pregnant by "accident" and decide the baby's life is not worth having (even though adoption is always an option), remember this phrase and you'll feel better about yourself and your ability to have a choice.

2. John Howard, former PM of Australia and Bush-ally, lost his re-election bid. So, should liberals be jumping up and down for joy? Not really since the new PM, Kevin Rudd, is likely to follow Howard's foreign policy route. In a summary of the election, Time writes:

"A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ’similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line."

More importantly:

"On Iraq, Rudd has moderated Labor's earlier "pull-out-now" policy. He says he will bring home the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq and the Gulf gradually, in a "negotiated, staged withdrawal." He is prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan."

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008 is becoming more and more interesting...

I've reported on the Democratic boycott of Florida and I've gotten some feedback from people (both from FL and not from FL) saying that I've been too harsh on the democratic presidential candidates and whatever else.

Well...

The Miami Herald has a story on the latest Mason Dixon Florida poll. The poll contains a lot of information but in general election match-ups...

Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary by 7 points.
Fred Thompson beats Hillary by 4 points.
Mitt Romney beats Hillary by 1 point.

Most interesting, though, is that more independents (54%, 47% and 45% respectively) selected the Republican candidate over Hillary.

Why? The Democratic boycott of Florida.

26% of independents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who "refuses to campaign in Florida in advance of the primary in order to placate voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."

According to the Sunshine Independents Blog, more than 2 million Floridians (19% of Florida voters ) are registered as independents. So, if 2 million independents vote, then roughly 520,000 of them would vote for the Republican candidate only because of the boycott. That's a lot more than the 527 votes that won Florida, and ultimately the presidency, for George W. Bush in 2000.

In 2004 John Kerry received 54% of independent votes to Bush's 41%. In 2000, 47% of independent voters marked their ballots for Al Gore while 46% voted for Bush. As stated earlier in this post, the independents are already leaning more toward Giuliani, Romney and Thompson than Hillary although the Democrat has won the majority of independent votes in Florida in the past 2 presidential elections.

Looks like Florida will play a key role in the presidential election once again.

Oh yeah, the relatively newly elected democratic Congress is setting new records. According to Gallup: "By historical standards, the current [congressional] 20% approval rating is among the lowest Gallup has ever recorded. In fact, in the 173 times since 1974 that Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing, Congress' approval rating has been at or below 20% only four times."

Again, the independents play a role here as only 14% of them approve of the current Congress. That's lower than th 20% of republicans that approve.

President Bush's approval rating is at 32% with 27% of independents approving of his job performance.

Please explain...

How anyone could believe that the "rights" granted to foreigners by the constitution of the United States of America should come before the lives of Americans. !!!




Someone over at the Daily Kos would rather Americans die so that foreigners could reap the benefits of the US Constitution.

"Here's the reality. Even if it was sure to be lost in a terrorist attack today, my life is not worth the Constitution. The life of my child, is not worth the Constitution. The life of hundreds -- thousands -- is not worth setting aside the rights ensured to us by the Constitution. Because setting aside the Constitution is a defeat greater than any that can be delivered to us by any instrument of terror or war."
This is in reference to Chris Dodd's statement that National Security comes before human rights. This blogger doesn't agree. The blogger is referring to Bush's "illegal" war.

Except, the US Constitution serves to protect the American people...


The blogger furthers this outlandish post by stating:


" We no longer read [National Security] as the end of the nation itself, but as encompassing any threat -- any possible threat -- to any one of that nations' three hundred million residents. That's not "national security," that's national fear. We're not facing the possible end of the nation in rebellion and riot, we're not even facing about the certain knowledge of impending attack. We're talking about setting aside the rights enshrined in the Constitution against only the possibility of attack. If you search your dictionary, I believe you will find that to be the very definition of cowardice, and no one willing to make that trade deserves to utter the oath listed above."


In the time of war (which was arguably declared on the US by the 9/11 attacks), national security is NOT something to be taken lightly. Instead of praising the President for his dedication to protecting this nation and its people from another 9/11 (which he most likely has in the past few years), this person has the nerve to call President Bush a coward.

All of you who agree with this or believe that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008 because of this take on national security, I ask you why you think the majority of Americans would rather die than have the President protect the nation? With the issue of illegal immigration such a hot topic and people being sick and tired of sanctuary cities and illegals receiving benefits that should be saved for AMERICANS, why on earth would something like this ever, EVER go over with the American people?


And I noticed that no one answered my previous question: What has President Bush done to those of you who dislike him so much?

Apparently I'm Immoral.

Good Morning America's Bill Weir thinks that it is a "moral imperative" to believe that humans are the cause of global warming and that people need to "err on the side of planetary survival."

Besides all of the rhetoric, this questions the morality of those who don't buy into Al Gore's global warming crisis idea.

Have we forgotten that in the 1970's it was global cooling (please visit the link to read all about it) that was the problem and that these cooling fearmongers were proposing melting ice caps to solve the problem. And by the way, the 1975 article I have provided a link to is in the same magazine that hired the mind behind the Daily Kos (a person who has no real American political experience and merely sits behind a computer and complains about conservatives all day).

Partisan Politics and the Desire for '08

1. Push polling? on religion nonetheless? Despicable. However, I think this shows that Romney is the Republican candidate to beat in the primaries despite the nonsense floating about the media that the R primary is "wide open." If it was anyone else leading by the margins Romney is in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire as well as topping the polls in Michigan and Nevada, they would be deemed the frontrunner. But, because Giuliani is leading in national polls (which, by the way, mean NOTHING), and Mike Huckabee is "gaining momentum," which he really isn't, it's been decided there is no frontrunner. Any what's the real reason behind this? Conservatives are so concerned with beating Hillary (the perceived Dem frontrunner), they'll sell out their values and throw support behind the winnable candidate. Well, this can only hurt the Republican party in the long run. Maybe we should focus on spreading the message of conservatism and its benefits instead of attacking the Democrats. I'm disappointed.

2. On a lighter note, Dave reported on "Swiftkids for Truth" videos. They're actually pretty entertaining, even though they are also part of what makes people aversive of politics. Here's the video on Hillary:



3. Speaking of Hillary, Liz reported on the female McCain supporter who referred to Hillary in a very derogatory way. While I agree that elected officials should be respected, a least a little, I think Joy Behar on The View was a little ridiculous about this occurrence. Okay, she likes Hillary. Well the McCain supporter didn't. Joy doesn't like President Bush- the PRESIDENT! But it's okay for Joy to talk in an insanely defamatory way about the PRESIDENT on national television would be but it's not okay for a citizen to express her point of view? Where's all the freedom of speech talk? Amazing. And again, what should McCain do? He didn't say anything. Do the producers of The View have to apologize for Joy's comments? No. Not even when so attacks religion by saying that prayer is a distraction. Seriously...

4. Media Matters for America got all upset because the Politico and CNN's Costello reported that the Democratic leadership in Congress is 0 for 40 when it comes to doing something policy-wise on the Iraq war. Okay, so they were able to pass legislation, just for it to be vetoed. They probably knew it would be vetoed- and this is just another part of their political game in which they strive to show that President Bush, and therefore Republicans in general, are awful and shouldn't be elected in 2008. Seriously- part of being a good leader, and especially a good legislature, is to be able to get things accomplished. Not just passing legislation for it to not come to fruition. You may say the this is just rhetoric for me to say that it's the Democrats playing politics. Well- they are. Not only are they recessing early, they've been wasting time trying to reignite the Fairness Doctrine and impeach Dick Cheney and hold votes of no confidence regarding Bush administration officials. Well, there are more important things, such as MAKING SURE AMERICANS DON'T DIE IN ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK. But no, they'd rather waste time and blame everything on Pres. Bush and Republicans. Secretary Gates has said he will have to layoff people in the Army and Marines and cease operations at Army bases. DURING A WAR? This is a huge weakness - thanks to Democrats who won't just suck it up and provide the troops the money they need without the pork programs. They claim the surge isn't working - a lot of reports have come out about this being the deadliest year. Well, in case you forgot/didn't know, after the surge we had a HUGE decrease in deaths. Oh, but let's leave that part out and then claim that conservatives refuse to put things in context. Okay. And then, let's use this to not pass funding for the war so that Osama Bin Laden, who isn't a real threat anyway, will see this as a big weakness and plan more attacks on us. Oh but wait, we shouldn't err on the side of caution- this isn't a serious threat. We don't know terrorists and Islamofascists are out to get us. Seriously?!!! The democrats want so badly to win the presidency in '08 that they are willing to put us in danger and then blame it on President Bush. They've already said that they are going to make the '08 election about Pres. Bush's presidency.

What did he ever do to any of you who despise him so much?

Basically, I'm so tired of all the partisan politics and political games on both sides. However, the Dems, with their majority in Congress, are putting us in danger. And this is NOT okay.

The Interplay of Influence

So, another book I had to read for class is called The Interplay of Influence. Unlike the others, this is an actual textbook. So, obviously, it is inherently a little less engaging and interesting. However, the subject isn't geometry or chemistry, so it receives a few bonus points.

Anyway, the three main topics are advertising, news media and politics. Basically, the book talks about how the mass media work and the power it has. It also touches upon the significance of the internet. Nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless.

One particularly interesting claim is that "the primary function of the mass media is to attract and hold large audiences for advertisers." If you think about it, this isn't such an outlandish statement. One 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl is going to cost nearly $4 million for the 2008 spectacle. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Super Bowl is so heavily promoted as a "must see" event? Football in general is a telegenic sport in which commercial breaks fit in well with timeouts and whatnot.

So, here's a classic Super Bowl ad... only aired once in its original format.

Daily Kos Continues to Leave Out Important Numbers

Everytime a new Presidential Approval Rating comes out the Daily Kos reports it and, of course, adds its own commentary about how awful and stupid and [fill in the blank] President Bush is. Today the Daily Kos was quick to report that President Bush is the "most unpopular President -- EVER!" This, mind you, cites ONE polling company (Gallup) and, while I'm not disputing that Americans aren't pleased with the President, leaves out another important statistic: the Congressional approval rating.


Real Clear Politics, which averages the various results, reports that the current approval rating is 24%, with a disapproval rating of 64.5%.

President Bush's RCP approval rating average is 34%, with a disapproval rating of 60.2%.

64% is Bush's highest disapproval rating, but 70% is Congress's highest disapproval rating.
36% is Bush's highest approval rating, but 28% is Congress's highest approval rating.

Let's take some other things into consideration:

1. President Bush is not running for re-election. He can't. And he's already said that his legacy will be determined not now but many years from now, as most legacies are. The Dems, however, are running for re-election (in terms of keeping the majority in Congress).

2. President Bush has been in office for 7 years. The Dems have been in charge for less than one year.

I'm not going to make any claims about what this all means, you can think about that for yourself. However, (and this is especially meant for all of you who cry out for 'context') think about the situations surrounding these numbers, not just the numbers themselves. Same thing goes for national poll numbers for Presidential elections. They don't really mean anything because, as all of you should remember from 2000, it's not the plurality of people's votes that matters, its the electoral votes that get a President elected.

Here's an endorsement you don't hear much of: Borat likes "Barack Obamas"



Q: Who do you favor for President in the United States?

A: "I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A - in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun - very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier."

Book Review: Unleashing the Ideavirus

Unleashing the Ideavirus is another book that wants to change the face of marketing, it's relatively entertaining yet isn't groundbreaking.

Author Seth Godin wants products and services to be treated as though they are humans... or computer viruses. Basically, he wants us to market products to each other by using the "word of mouse."

Godin says that "the future belongs to marketers who establish a foundation and process where interested people can market to each other... Ignite consumer networks and then get out of the way and let them talk."

He presents 3 significant groups related to unleashing the virus:

1. Sneezers: those who can best spread the "virus"
2. Hives: populations in which the "virus" is willingly received
3. Smoothness: the ease with which sneezers are able to spread the "virus" through a "hive"

And, to explicate his idea, Godin uses real-world examples including Napster and Hotmail.



As I was reading this, I kept thinking about elections. What do the political candidates/parties want its supporters to do? Go door to door, make phone calls, "spread the word." This is exactly what Godin is proposing. Does it work? Sometimes. Should it replace marketing as we know it? I don't think so.

Which do you think has worked better (before 2006): Karl Rove's pinpointing marketing strategy or "spreading the word"?

I think Godin's marketing plan is a great supplement to traditional marketing, and it may even reduce the amount of traditional marketing. However, I personally don't see this strategy working for everything.

Taxes...

The New York Times' David Leonhardt wrote an article called "Plain Truth about Taxes and Cuts." In this, he poses the question, "How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn?"

What?!!!

He's talking about relieving the middle class's "economic anxiety" and wonders how important it is for people to keep the money they earn???

Last time I checked, it's very important.

Not only is taxing legalized theft, it can hurt the people Mr. Leonhardt seems to be concerned for: the people who need the money.

He talks about how the tax rates on the rich have been falling in recent history... but he even points out that they pay (all together) at a tax rate of 30%. Yes, you can say "well they don't need it," but I stand by my statement that taxing (read: taking money from one person to give it to another) is legalized theft.

Don't get me wrong- I know we need taxes for the country to survive... especially for things, such as defense, that benefit everyone. However, I think it's a ridiculous argument to say that we are spending too much on the war and not enough on social programs. This is based entirely on the fact that the defense of this country (ex: the war- whether you agree with it or not) benefits everyone. (I know many of you will want to bring up stories of soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying because of an "illegal" war- which it is not, but that's for another day, however- you may be forgetting that Pres. Bush has probably stopped many attacks on this country... attacks we don't know about for our own sake). So, like or not, President Bush is our commander-in-chief and therefore he gets to decide what is best for our country in terms of defense (which, I emphasize, benefits everyone). You may not think he knows what he's doing and you may even think that he is crazy, but he's still the re-elected President. However, federal funding for social programs only benefits a certain segment of the population.




Mr. Leonhardt claims that the Medicare budget is a "much bigger" problem than social security. Granted, Medicare is facing financial a huge financial crisis, but doesn't he know that the SS "money" is actually a bunch of IOU's in a warehouse? The Social Security system faces a $13.4 trillion shortfall- a number that can only grow larger because of the "pay as you go" system. Basically- my generation will most likely never see what the government has taken out of our paychecks for social security. So we're paying for other people to retire yet we have no help from the government. Great. (I could go on and on... but I'll stop here) He also says that the Medicare budget problem "could be held in check if the government figured out how to say no to some expensive medical procedures." Umm... isn't it the "expensive medical procedures" that most people need help paying for?

Just to clarify- I'm not against helping people. I myself give blood very often, I've volunteered with the United Cerebral Palsy organization, I've volunteered for Meals-on-Wheels over summers and on Thanksgiving, and the list can continue. I just don't think the government has the right to dictate what cause my money helps to further. Not to mention that most of the federal social programs have serious problems.

In an ideal world- social government programs would help the people that really, desperately need help. In the real world, the people who need the help don't get it or they abuse the system. (Trust me, I have many stories of this- like people with children spending the money they are given by social programs to fix their un-livable houses to go on trips to Disney World. So basically- the money that is taken from our pockets is given to people who blow it on stuff they DON'T need and then expect more money from us ... does this sound right to you?)

Oh, and this would be a good time to say that I don't like the FairTax idea.

I like this one.