If John McCain's campaign wasn't actually doomed from the outset, it was very close. The political climate, carefully nurtured for years by the leftist media machine, was overwhelmingly tilted against the Republican party. But whatever slim opportunity McCain might have snatched he squandered. How?
Negativity.
You see, John McCain spent the year, in public, talking endlessly about honor, patriotism, restoring respect to government, and so forth. But all along, and especially as October rolled on and it became increasingly clear that Barack Obama was far ahead and pulling away, the messaging of McCain's advertising was distinctly negative. Allow me to clarify what I mean. I don't mean that McCain was 'negative' in the sense that he spent a lot of his energy attacking Obama (though that is true). What I mean when I say McCain's campaign was 'negative' is that the message was never why I should vote for; it was always I should vote against. The Democratic party committed exactly the same blunder in 2004: They set up the election so that instead of George Bush vs. John Kerry (or whoever the Democrats wanted to nominate), the choice offered to the voters was George Bush vs. Not George Bush. The theme was never "vote for John Kerry, because he will do this, this and this"; it was "vote against George Bush, because he's doing this and this". And the Democrats--I am still to this day astonished by this--managed to lose that election.
In 2008, the Republican party fell into the same trap. Instead of Barack Obama vs. John McCain, the Republicans turned the election into Barack Obama vs. Not Barack Obama. Almost every day for a month before the election, my wife (a Republican) received glossy mailings from the McCain campaign, and every one of them ran the same theme: Barack Obama is not who he says he is. Barack Obama wants to steal astonishing amounts of your money. Barack Obama is secretly in league with Muslim elements. Barack Obama can't be trusted to lead the country in an age of terrorism.
Every day I read argument over argument for why I shouldn't vote for Obama. Almost never did I see any argument for why I should vote for John McCain. And you know what? It worked--I happen to think all the McCain campaign's arguments have merit, and I didn't vote for Obama.
I didn't vote for McCain either.
Why should I? He never told me why I should. Bob Barr offered many reasons why I should vote for him, and that's what I did. I know numerous Republicans who bought the McCain campaign's messaging. They didn't vote for Obama.
They didn't vote at all.
Why? They're disenchanted with the Bush administration--which, especially in the past two years, has stabbed its conservative support base in the back repeatedly--and they don't trust John McCain. They don't even know John McCain, because all McCain wanted to tell them was how dangerous Barack Obama is. McCain's relentless advertising attacks against Obama were intended to scare the tradiational, conservative Republican base into getting out and voting for McCain, to stop the terrorists from taking over the White House. It didn't work, and what's worse, it predictably didn't work, because--and the Obama campaign understood this from day one--that's not how you energize masses of people to vote for you (or better, to go out and convince other people to vote for you). You do that by giving them positive thinking. We can make a difference. We can work together on this. We can change the country for the better, yea, revolutionize our government. Let's work together to usher in a new, better age. That was the Obama campaign's message from the start, and that message enabled them to overwhelm the formidable Clinton political machine and stampede over the clueless Republican establishment like a herd of buffalo over a sand castle.
That brings us to what we, the Libertarian Party, can learn from this.
I believe we're standing on the brink of the best opportunity we've ever had to step up and become an impact force on the American political scene, because I believe the Republican party is on the brink of collapse, and many of its members are quietly looking around for an alternative.
But, friends, our messaging tends to be negative. Not always; I especially admire Bob Barr's penchant for making positive arguments (positive meaning a for argument rather than an against one, not upbeat or cheerful necessarily) during his limited airtime. But most of the time when I read Libertarian-themed writings or listen to Libertarians talk, publicly or privately, the arguments are negative. The government is enslaving us. Our politicans are corrupt. Our schools are cranking out drones and hacks like so many Model T's. Our gun and drug control policies are destructive and accomplish precisely the opposite of their stated intent (promoting safety).
I write and say these things all the time, because they're absolutely true. I'm not disputing that. But it's not what people want to hear. I'm not advocating telling pleasant lies, but I'm telling you that we need to take control of the discussion and frame it in such a way that we're presenting the public the many wonderful things we can do for them, and the greater good they can accomplish by joining us.
This article will soon be followed by another, "Why I Am a Libertarian," in which I hope to demonstrate what I mean. The public is dissatisfied with its government. That is very unlikely to change over the next few years; the economy is unlikely to improve and the federal government is only going to grow more oppressive under Democratic domination. But people already know this, even if they can't articulate it themselves, and they don't especially want to be reminded of it in so many words.
What people want is a clear alternative. That's what we're selling. It's always been what we've sold, but it's time to upgrade the packaging.
The Libertarian party, unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, thinks enough of your intelligence to let you run your own life, make your own choices, and spend or save your own money. You name a problem facing the country now, and we offer a solution. Gang violence? The end of Drug Prohibition would mean the end of gangs; it would yank the economic rug right out from under their feet. Education quality that straddles the line between the comedic and the tragic? That's an easy one--de-bureaucratize education and watch it improve. Public school students are vastly outperformed on knowledge tests by private school students, who themselves are absolutely blown away by homeschooled students. Struggling to make ends meet? Hey, we hear you -- how about we let you keep the 30% of your income the government takes from you? Would that help?
Collectively, we all need to make solutions the theme of our campaigning and our evangelizing. Liberty is the core value, of course, of Libertarianism, but let me be frank here--as a theme to sell, Liberty falls flat. The Democrats and Republicans talk about liberty, too. They either have no idea of the meaning of the word or are simply lying, but instead of constantly pointing that out, let it drop. Instead, explain to people why the Libertarian party is advancing their best interests--not why the Republicrats are out to screw them.
Many, many people out there--especially discouraged Republicans, and friends, there are many of those--are looking for an alterative. Let's give them one! They already know there's something seriously wrong with the Republicrats. So skip explaining it to them and give them solutions. They will come.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Just So You All Know...
I, for one, welcome our new Marxist overlords.
You'll note my use of the word 'new', so as to differentiate from the old ones.
You'll note my use of the word 'new', so as to differentiate from the old ones.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Hey, I LIKE Bizarre Dreams
Last night, at about 1:30 AM, I ate some apples with caramel dip. They were delicious.
Last night, at about 2:15 AM, I went to sleep.
Various important people in my life have asserted to me, as though it were plain universally understood gospel truth you're just born knowing, that if you eat shortly before you go to bed, and especially if you eat something that's not particularly good for you--something sugary, or fattening, or salty--you'll have strange dreams. You believe this, right? Not because you read a five year study completed by the Harvard School of Culinary Arts and Sleep Medicine, but because that's what people have always told you. It's one of those things everybody believes but no one really knows why, like 'Alex Rodriguez isn't clutch' or 'Republicans are different from Democrats'.
As some of you know, I type deposition and hearing transcripts for a living. So I spend a good six, eight, ten, now and then 14 hours a day listening to the blasted things. Last night was the first time I can clearly remember that I dreamed about participating in one.
It seemed to be a pretty important deposition. It took place in a makeshift area that appeared to have been converted from the inside of a K-Mart entrance, and I was the representative of a team of about four attorneys suing this guy for some reason. I was in charge of his deposition. Big, muscular, bald black guy; I don't remember a name or anything. I do remember that I had trouble getting the deposition off the ground. Even though it's the last problem I'd expect myself to have in real life, I was talking too slowly, pausing too long to take notes after each answer he gave--which is ridiculous since my entire job exists so lawyers can go through a deposition's transcript with a fine toothed comb--and generally wasting too much time. I started off asking him if he'd been involved in a lawsuit before. He paused for a bit and said, yes, he'd been in four.
Pause. Take notes.
How many times, out of the four, were you the Plaintiff?
Pause.
Once.
Pause. Write notes.
And how many times were you the Defendant in a lawsuit?
Pause.
Twice.
Pause. Take notes. Become vaguely aware my three colleagues are becoming annoyed.
And on it went for a little bit, and then, while I was taking more notes exactly 42 minutes into the deposition, the court reporter--and I swear on my life, that's who the court reporter was, and he looked and talked just like him, and he walked right up, with that dainty Jack Sparrow swagger, leaned over to me, and said: "Hate to break it to you, mate, but... that's it." Then he made that little face twitch. I was out of time.
Which, of course, you can't run out of time in a deposition. There is no time limit on depositions (technically; there is definitely an unknown time limit, but you can usually see it approaching, before the deponent starts to become very grouchy.)
And then I woke up.
So earn your Psychology Ph.D. and make sense of that one. I dare you.
Last night, at about 2:15 AM, I went to sleep.
Various important people in my life have asserted to me, as though it were plain universally understood gospel truth you're just born knowing, that if you eat shortly before you go to bed, and especially if you eat something that's not particularly good for you--something sugary, or fattening, or salty--you'll have strange dreams. You believe this, right? Not because you read a five year study completed by the Harvard School of Culinary Arts and Sleep Medicine, but because that's what people have always told you. It's one of those things everybody believes but no one really knows why, like 'Alex Rodriguez isn't clutch' or 'Republicans are different from Democrats'.
As some of you know, I type deposition and hearing transcripts for a living. So I spend a good six, eight, ten, now and then 14 hours a day listening to the blasted things. Last night was the first time I can clearly remember that I dreamed about participating in one.
It seemed to be a pretty important deposition. It took place in a makeshift area that appeared to have been converted from the inside of a K-Mart entrance, and I was the representative of a team of about four attorneys suing this guy for some reason. I was in charge of his deposition. Big, muscular, bald black guy; I don't remember a name or anything. I do remember that I had trouble getting the deposition off the ground. Even though it's the last problem I'd expect myself to have in real life, I was talking too slowly, pausing too long to take notes after each answer he gave--which is ridiculous since my entire job exists so lawyers can go through a deposition's transcript with a fine toothed comb--and generally wasting too much time. I started off asking him if he'd been involved in a lawsuit before. He paused for a bit and said, yes, he'd been in four.
Pause. Take notes.
How many times, out of the four, were you the Plaintiff?
Pause.
Once.
Pause. Write notes.
And how many times were you the Defendant in a lawsuit?
Pause.
Twice.
Pause. Take notes. Become vaguely aware my three colleagues are becoming annoyed.
And on it went for a little bit, and then, while I was taking more notes exactly 42 minutes into the deposition, the court reporter--and I swear on my life, that's who the court reporter was, and he looked and talked just like him, and he walked right up, with that dainty Jack Sparrow swagger, leaned over to me, and said: "Hate to break it to you, mate, but... that's it." Then he made that little face twitch. I was out of time.
Which, of course, you can't run out of time in a deposition. There is no time limit on depositions (technically; there is definitely an unknown time limit, but you can usually see it approaching, before the deponent starts to become very grouchy.)
And then I woke up.
So earn your Psychology Ph.D. and make sense of that one. I dare you.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On the Revving Up Presidential Drive
This is just something I posted somewhere in response to somebody else... thought it was worth posting here.
My opinion is the Republican Party picked John McCain because they know they're going to lose no matter who they nominate and they're ready for him to go away, much like what happened with Bob Dole in 1996.
That said, Obama... eh. Anytime someone criticizes him, his stock response tends to be along the lines of "this is the kind of divisive attitude that's the biggest problem in our country. We need to be united!" Well... I don't have a hard time interpreting that to mean "you, the minority, will agree with us, the majority."
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about what Obama's real intentions are. He and his people have done an excellent job, in my opinion, obscuring the fact that he is among the most liberal politicians in the U.S. But the problem is... you'd rather have John McCain and a continuance of the status quo? Really?
By the way, I saw a McCain ad on TV today... the first words were "John McCain stood up to the president..." I can't even remember anymore what the context of the ad was; I think something environmental. But that's exactly what the commercial was trying to accomplish; it's those first seven words. McCain's first move, now that the campaign run has really started, is to distance himself from Bush. The problem is, that isn't going to work, because Obama's going to bash his brains in with IraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWar. That's the context in which Obama and his people are going to communicate to us, loud and clear, that McCain is just like Bush, even if it's not so (and it's not) on many issues other than the war.
My opinion is the Republican Party picked John McCain because they know they're going to lose no matter who they nominate and they're ready for him to go away, much like what happened with Bob Dole in 1996.
That said, Obama... eh. Anytime someone criticizes him, his stock response tends to be along the lines of "this is the kind of divisive attitude that's the biggest problem in our country. We need to be united!" Well... I don't have a hard time interpreting that to mean "you, the minority, will agree with us, the majority."
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about what Obama's real intentions are. He and his people have done an excellent job, in my opinion, obscuring the fact that he is among the most liberal politicians in the U.S. But the problem is... you'd rather have John McCain and a continuance of the status quo? Really?
By the way, I saw a McCain ad on TV today... the first words were "John McCain stood up to the president..." I can't even remember anymore what the context of the ad was; I think something environmental. But that's exactly what the commercial was trying to accomplish; it's those first seven words. McCain's first move, now that the campaign run has really started, is to distance himself from Bush. The problem is, that isn't going to work, because Obama's going to bash his brains in with IraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWarIraqWar. That's the context in which Obama and his people are going to communicate to us, loud and clear, that McCain is just like Bush, even if it's not so (and it's not) on many issues other than the war.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Farm Bill Rage!
Where should we start?
Let's start with the statistics of the salmon industry. We'll quote from this article on the subject:
Now, if the salmon industry is a disaster at the moment, which is what they claim, that it's disaster relief; it's supposed to be an earmark in the farm bill (which Speaker Pelosi pushed through herself with no vote) as disaster relief. Of course, all the northwestern senators who stand to benefit by votes from the salmon industry in general were happy to push it through. Essentially, they're buying votes with your money. Now, if it's really a disaster, if it's a temporary thing, then of course giving some relief would make sense, but they've been doing this regularly for the last few years because they're overfishing. There are too many fishers.
Overfishing is just one of a whole plethora of things which essentially is just the salmon industry destroying itself. Then doesn't it make sense that the salmon fishermen, having fished the salmon halfway to extinction, should find another job? Instead, they expect to sit here with their outstretched palm to the rest of us, saying "give me free money; what am I supposed to do?" You're supposed to find another line of work like the rest of us do.
Here in Pennsylvania, what would happen if hunters hunted deer into extinction? Well, Justin points out, that doesn't happen because the state regulates hunting; you're only allowed to shoot so many deer a year. Exactly! That's exactly my point! This isn't done with the salmon fishermen... why? Look: If there are too many fishermen for the fish population, then some of the fishermen need to do something else with their lives. This is called common sense.
And this is something that the farm bill does not address. All they do is throw the money out there; they don't fix the problem. They just say here, take some money for a year. It's the quick fix, just pay them. Pay them to do nothing.
I don't know how many times I hear people talk about people in America not being able to put food on the table, etc. (Editor's Note: There are no hungry people in the U.S. But David disagrees, so let's go on.) But some people in America obviously can't afford food, or else we wouldn't have something called food stamps; right? (Editor's Note: But they can afford cable TV and cigarettes.) So they're receiving food stamps, and this bill basically pays for the food stamps, and then they give the food stamps to the people, is essentially what's happening. Yet the same bill is paying farmers to not grow crops when they could be. Why? Because obviously we need to keep the supply of food down in a world where people starve to death every day. Maybe we should just take all the extra food we grow, send it down to the Mexican border and tell them to take the food and stop climbing over the fence.
With the world food program that we contribute to every year, do we give them food or do we give them money? Money. So we're paying our farmers not to grow crops, and then we're paying the food program to buy food. It's almost as if our government wants to waste money. Can you imagine? As an extra discussion question: How much of that money do you think is actually being used to buy food? (Editor's Note: $10 says it's less than 10%.)
And if that doesn't tweak you enough, just think about how this is only one of dozens of bills that Congress happily sends through every year that siphon ever-increasing amounts of money out of our pockets. And they're wondering why we're on the verge of a depression?
At what point are you going to stand up to our government's flagrant financial irresponsibility and tell them enough is enough?
Let's start with the statistics of the salmon industry. We'll quote from this article on the subject:
Now, call me crazy, but even an elementary school student can figure out that the numbers don't quite add up for one year. This means that the taxpayers are paying the salmon industry over twice as much as what they make in one year to do absolutely nothing. Now, if you can find any possible place where I have erred in this conclusion, please fill me in.
Consider that the lost salmon catch amounts to $22 million dollars. Federal officials put the economic ripple effect including businesses like charter boats and ice houses at $82 million.
But taxpayers are being forced to shell out $174 million. That's on top of $60 million given out last year.
Now, if the salmon industry is a disaster at the moment, which is what they claim, that it's disaster relief; it's supposed to be an earmark in the farm bill (which Speaker Pelosi pushed through herself with no vote) as disaster relief. Of course, all the northwestern senators who stand to benefit by votes from the salmon industry in general were happy to push it through. Essentially, they're buying votes with your money. Now, if it's really a disaster, if it's a temporary thing, then of course giving some relief would make sense, but they've been doing this regularly for the last few years because they're overfishing. There are too many fishers.
Overfishing is just one of a whole plethora of things which essentially is just the salmon industry destroying itself. Then doesn't it make sense that the salmon fishermen, having fished the salmon halfway to extinction, should find another job? Instead, they expect to sit here with their outstretched palm to the rest of us, saying "give me free money; what am I supposed to do?" You're supposed to find another line of work like the rest of us do.
Here in Pennsylvania, what would happen if hunters hunted deer into extinction? Well, Justin points out, that doesn't happen because the state regulates hunting; you're only allowed to shoot so many deer a year. Exactly! That's exactly my point! This isn't done with the salmon fishermen... why? Look: If there are too many fishermen for the fish population, then some of the fishermen need to do something else with their lives. This is called common sense.
And this is something that the farm bill does not address. All they do is throw the money out there; they don't fix the problem. They just say here, take some money for a year. It's the quick fix, just pay them. Pay them to do nothing.
I don't know how many times I hear people talk about people in America not being able to put food on the table, etc. (Editor's Note: There are no hungry people in the U.S. But David disagrees, so let's go on.) But some people in America obviously can't afford food, or else we wouldn't have something called food stamps; right? (Editor's Note: But they can afford cable TV and cigarettes.) So they're receiving food stamps, and this bill basically pays for the food stamps, and then they give the food stamps to the people, is essentially what's happening. Yet the same bill is paying farmers to not grow crops when they could be. Why? Because obviously we need to keep the supply of food down in a world where people starve to death every day. Maybe we should just take all the extra food we grow, send it down to the Mexican border and tell them to take the food and stop climbing over the fence.
With the world food program that we contribute to every year, do we give them food or do we give them money? Money. So we're paying our farmers not to grow crops, and then we're paying the food program to buy food. It's almost as if our government wants to waste money. Can you imagine? As an extra discussion question: How much of that money do you think is actually being used to buy food? (Editor's Note: $10 says it's less than 10%.)
And if that doesn't tweak you enough, just think about how this is only one of dozens of bills that Congress happily sends through every year that siphon ever-increasing amounts of money out of our pockets. And they're wondering why we're on the verge of a depression?
At what point are you going to stand up to our government's flagrant financial irresponsibility and tell them enough is enough?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Oversize Load Trucks = No
The busiest road in Altoona, Plank Road, is two lanes for each direction, and the speed limit is 40 MPH (so people generally drive 45-50 when given the chance). I just drove the length of it at 15 MPH behind an Oversize Load truck that was taking up both lanes.
These trucks should absolutely not be permitted to exist, period. They significantly decrease the end cost of the goods they carry (usually pieces of modular homes or complete trailers), but really, the only people who benefit from their existence is the companies building the goods. They're taking extra profit at the expense of everybody else that drives.
If you put a referendum on the ballot, "Should Oversize Load trucks be allowed to use the roads of [fill in district or state]?" the result, I promise, would be about 96% NO. They are universally despised, and yet, in what is purportedly a republic, they are allowed to clog up the roads, increasing stress, increasing travel time, and decreasing safety. Why? So a very tiny minority can make more money, some of which is, no doubt, finding its way into politicians' pockets.
As your president, I will immediately pursue legislation outlawing any vehicle that cannot comfortably fit in one standard lane. Together we can do this!
These trucks should absolutely not be permitted to exist, period. They significantly decrease the end cost of the goods they carry (usually pieces of modular homes or complete trailers), but really, the only people who benefit from their existence is the companies building the goods. They're taking extra profit at the expense of everybody else that drives.
If you put a referendum on the ballot, "Should Oversize Load trucks be allowed to use the roads of [fill in district or state]?" the result, I promise, would be about 96% NO. They are universally despised, and yet, in what is purportedly a republic, they are allowed to clog up the roads, increasing stress, increasing travel time, and decreasing safety. Why? So a very tiny minority can make more money, some of which is, no doubt, finding its way into politicians' pockets.
As your president, I will immediately pursue legislation outlawing any vehicle that cannot comfortably fit in one standard lane. Together we can do this!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
House of Randomness, Vol. 33
You know what gets on my nerves? Doctors pompously throwing around unnecessarily large words just to remind everyone how smart they are. It's not your right arm, you know; it's your right upper extremity. I've sat here and listened to some doctors call the right arm the right upper extremity, I don't know, about two or three times per minute on average.
Doctors: Get over yourselves.
Doctors: Get over yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)