What is a Negative Ad?

OK, the Grayson ad is a very good ad. Dems are so starved for something more creative than, "I'll protect social security..." from Congressional campaigns, that this Allan Grayson ad is becoming folklore.

Sure, it has a clear, resonating message. It has tremendous imagery and production quality (other than Grayson's clownish tie... that thing is the equivalent of about 30 lapel pins). But it's missing the same piece that the vast majority of Democratic candidate ads lack: what is his opponent's stand on this issue? More specifically, why is Grayson's position/plan to address the issue superior to his opponent's malfeasance or misfeasance?

But we like this sort of "positive" ad, right? We want more of these, don't we?

Well, I don't.

The worst thing that can happen to an ad like this is for an opponent to follow right on its heels with "proof" that they've been fighting that same fight. And since Grayson hasn't cast his opponent's effort, focus, experience, or attention as either "against" or "indifferent to" fraud justice, he's left the door wide open for an easy rebuttal - a rebuttal that can take this very nice ad and render it impotent.

Does anyone expect the Republican candidate to say he thinks fraud is OK? Does anyone expect the R to cede the issue?

On the other hand, does anyone think that the Rs will now pony up some sort of bill or silly parlor trick on the floor of the House to pivot into an ad that makes him look like he's the drum major of the push for justice against the thieves who've stolen our tax dollars?!?

There are a lot of angles available to call into question the incumbent's ability on the issue. Is s/he on any committees that could have made a difference? Has s/he done anything about pushing for investigations into the fraud and waste? Anything on his/her web site that is cavalier - or is it completely ignored? Any mention anywhere else? Isn't there something that Grayson could say to show that the incumbent has done nothing on the matter?

There has to be something to contrast with Grayson's stand. If there isn't anything - that is, the incumbent has fought hard to prosecute fraud cases - then Grayson needs another issue to focus on in the campaign. Assuming the incumbent R is a typical hack, I think Grayson has a great issue to show how he's a superior candidate to the R.

But how do we know who to be angry at? Should we be angry at the incumbent? Why should we be angry at the incumbent? When the incumbent tries to claim to have fought fraud and abuse, how will we know if s/he's telling the truth? How do we know who's lying? How will you fight the fraud and bring people to justice? If your opponent says you have no plan to fix the problem, how will we know s/he's wrong?

I've seen comments characterizing this ad as strong - but unless it shows how his position contrasts with the repugs, it's really no different than the "typical" Dem ads that focus entirely on answering the question that really only some Dem voters ask, "do you have a great idea?"

The problem is that most voters want to get an answer to, "why should I vote for you instead of the other person?"

How is this Negative?

I've heard that this sort of approach is "negative" campaigning because it doesn't only say positive things. But it's not "negative" campaigning.... it's "effective" campaigning! If you've ever gone door-to-door as a candidate running for office as I have, you'd understand. Try doing that and NOT talk about your opponent. It isn't possible to avoid it (and you better have a much more impactful answer than, "I agree with ___ a lot and s/he's a wonderful person," or you have wasted your visit!).

Look, if you want to get right to it, you're implicitly saying mean, rotten things about your opponent when you announce that you are running! THINK ABOUT IT! You claim you are "better" when declaring your candidacy, and therefore it logically follows that the opponent is "worse" simply by you deciding to line up on the ballot. There's nothing wrong, evil, or "negative" about it... it's simply the point. If you felt otherwise, why would you waste everyone's time running?!

And if you find yourself saying, "No, I'm not 'better,' I just have different solutions," you're just hiding from reality and have probably been associated with campaigns that have lost.

I've seen campaign after campaign after campaign for seats at all levels fail because Dems are too nice. The attitude that it's "negative" to compare your approach to solving or identifying problems to your opponent is one of the most common causes that I've seen. But the fact is that those who believe this are simply the worst campaign advisers.

Or perhaps they're just oversensitive because too many campaigns resort to gross distortions of a politician's record in drawing the comparisons about which I'm writing. I can understand if it's the latter. It can be a fine line between honest characterization of one's positions/record and filthy lies. However, a confident, well-informed candidate won't need to resort to lies and distortions to make their point.

Voter Decisions

Voters who aren't polarized one way prior to a race, want to weigh each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. They may have some slight bias one way or other.

If one candidate says that s/he is great due to A and the other says s/he is great due to B, then the voters will have a harder time - "they're both so wonderful." The R machine understands this.

If candidate Repug adds that his/her opponent is bad due to reason "C," and C is unchallenged or proved publicly, then the person tagged with C is going to get hurt - especially if never is heard a discouraging word about Repug.

Then the Rs will say your running a negative campaign anyway.

True, it's easy for these to spiral out of control. The person who wins these shootouts is the one who uses credible, meaningful comparisons of their own and opponent's positions in an intelligent, rational manner which highlights why they are superior to their opponent. In fact, when one side goes over the top, the recipient of irrational attacks has for his/herself a very solid campaign issue in its own right!

But when it's one-way only, like in 2000 and 2004 Gore and Kerry campaigns, the targets of attacks don't fare well.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pushes Back On David Brooks

About Barack Obama

Open Letter to Barack....

You know what, Obama? Way too jovial. Way too casual. Way too calm.

Why does that matter?

Well, you make yourself a target that way. Simple schoolyard math, sir: if you don't bloody someone's nose in public (last two words are key) when they pick on you, all the "tough" guys are gonna come after you.

And keep coming after you.

As Bob Cesca calls them, "the very serious media," has a big problem. You are a vastly superior candidate at a time when most sentiment is leaning in your direction anyway. But a landslide victory isn't the story they want to cover. The consolidated ownership of media wants a different story - a story that will consequently help their ratings, sell advertising, while improving their odds of maintaining a very supportive FCC.

That story is that there are two solid candidates waging a tight, tough, close campaign.

To do that, they need to help Mr. Mccain directly. This is one of the latest examples, where CBS edited out stupid comments in order to help him out. They show all the "good" sides and then harp on your "bad."

The second course of action is for them to keep alive through repetition, every attack that the mccain camp asserts against you. This is why you've gotten the same stupid question about the same stupid, non-existent "issue" every time you sit in front of these cackling media jackasses (i.e. "reporters"). Answering it with dignity and respect, gives the question and the cackling media jackasses who spit them out, dignity and respect.

These clowns aren't doing a journalist's job - they are sellout shills. They do NOT deserve - have not earned - a shred of dignity and respect for what they are doing when it comes to serving up the mccain talking points. OK?!?!

They aren't reporting, they're building a big-picture story line for their conglomerate's edification. It's one thing to be polite and considerate. It's another to needlessly subject yourself to baseless attack (you do remember the last 24 years of presidential election results, don't you?).

If you can't see that, you're more naive than people assert. If you don't do anything about it - like bloody someone's nose (not literally, sir) in public, then you are a fool.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Republic Article: Obama a Meanie to Media!

The media is not looking to "report." They are looking for something "hot." They want "sensational." They want conflict, intensity, and drama - as if the world is a real-time TV show.... which in the case of today's media is EXACTLY what it is. The more drama, conflict and insanity they create/inject, the better their ratings and, hence, revenue. No candidate can shape or change that - only a president instituting a new, improved Fairness Doctrine can fix it.

A campaign wants to get messages to voters. In particular, many Dems want to inform and inspire/motivate. Some Dems and all Repigs want to smear, inflame, and misinform. Since the gopers are far more in sync with what the "media/press" wants and are, they're given the most deference.

So the only thing a campaign can do to control their message is to do its best to counter the smut that the MSM propagates. Obama shrinks from a lot of combat in public, but I think he can do a lot more in taking them on. For example, he had every right to skewer gibson and steph. on those stupid debate questions, but didn't. If one of Obama's campaign efforts was to ostracize the media for its sloppiness and pettiness, I think he will find a very sympathetic ear and call into question their credibility to his advantage

Oil Gone Wild

An entry posted at HuffPo laid out some recommendations for helping get on a fast track toward energy independence, focusing on vehicles, and suggesting that a major public investment in re-tooling the auto industry would be a good plan...

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I suppose this is where I lose my cred as a liberal.

But the laziness, stubbornness, and greed of the American auto industry darn near killed it in the 1970s. These same brilliant traits are now helping to deliver another set of disasters revolving around fuel inefficiency.

I'm sorry, but I'm done giving these jackasses any more breaks. Any bit of public financing support MUST include a COMPLETE upper management (i.e. the "deciders") purge. NO auto industry insiders, no family of board members - no more anointing more incompetent, irresponsible heirs to the industry thrones. It's done nothing but cause disaster in this nation.

The other thing that ticks me off is this constant drone of "create millions of new jobs" by converting to non-oil-based industries. Every politician and pundit crows this misleading line. The reality is that we are REPLACING EXISTING jobs with NEW jobs - not ADDING jobs to the economy. The net may be a little higher or a little lower, but it's not going to be some sort of magical BOON to the economy.

Embracing logical concepts of sustainable lifestyles is the proper goal. We need is to change the basics of our energy consumption. It is just as silly to claim that moving from unsustainable behavior to a sustainable behavior will destroy the economy as it is to imply that it will drive massive prosperity.

The reality is that the economy is in shambles for reasons beyond oil. Until those problems are honestly addressed, the corporations grown around new energy solutions will soon be pushing for subsidies or demanding to move their manufacturing to India or whatever place has the most affordable slave labor to abuse. So whereas the technology may become available, the economy will still be strained by its current structure.

The last thing I can fit here is the concept of plugin cars. We make the electricity by burning stuff - mainly gas, oil, and coal. This is part of the problem, too, and you are not only failing to address it, but amplifying it.

In short, your plan is weak.

Now Dems Considering 'Compromise' On Offshore Drilling

Someone posted an entry at HuffPo that encouraged drilling offshore....

Drawing down our reserves is a bad long term idea. We need oil to serve us between now and the point when we are almost independent of oil. What's to stop those with large reserves from jacking the price up to $500 a barrel 15 years from now? What about the opposite - they drop the price to $70 a barrel when we're about to turn the corner on work needed to adopt technologies to ween us from oil and the pressure to mothball energy independence explodes?

When they see that we have nothing at all under our own soil, there's nothing to stop them from wielding huge influence on our economy. Keeping hold of the oil (or at least being able to pretend that we have some oil in the ground) is the only thing that can keep the blackmailers at bay.

This isn't something to "compromise" on. Closing the speculator loopholes will give FAR more immediate, effective relief, it will be much faster than drilling, and will have no potential adverse environmental impact. THAT is a [portion of a] solution to the problem. More domestic drilling just creates other problems while in no way dealing with the current problems. Worse, it's a tacit admission of being wrong on ANWR drilling... it's a lose-lose-lose to the nation and the Democratic party.

The ONLY winners in this "compromise" are the neocons.... totally lopsided and stupid from all angles. Here again is another opportunity for Obama to LEAD.... will he?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How to spot an idiot - a Flag Lapel pin?

Barack Obama can squash that stupid lapel pin crap by including in ads and/or appearances/debates a comment about what it means. Something like:

"In the last 8 years, America has amassed record low points in the economy, health care, world stage, and the overall health of our military, courtesy of bush, cheyney, rumsfeld, gonzo, rice, and mccain. One thing they all have in common is their insistence on wearing lapel pins. Now, those of you not involved in republican politics wear a lapel pin to show your pride in the flag. But many republican party members wear them as a shallow, superficial illusion to trick you into identifying with them - hoping you'll be more comfortable with them.

"Well, let's look back 8 years. How much devastation, poverty, and civil rights abuses do you need to pile up before we realize that a lapel pin is NOT an actual qualification for patriotism or competency? These have been some of the worst years in our nation's history. And to those who have spit on the flag with signing statements, rejected the founder's checks and balances, flung our children needlessly into harms way in a far-away land are worse than hypocrites.

"Hardened, old-school republicans have forfeited their right to credibly challenge any American's patriotism. They have wrought more damage to this country than any middle eastern dictator or angry fundamentalist zealot has. All while pompously trying to shroud themselves in the shadow of the sacred symbol of our republic.

"A highly controversial man, to put it mildly, Larry Flynt, in the 1970s went to court wearing the flag as a diaper. I submit to you that the swift boater who incorrectly and hideously attacked John Kerry and now work for john mccain, karl rove, donald rumsfeld who glad-handed saddam hussein in the 1980s when the reagan administration enabled the transfer of chemical and biological weapons technology to Iraq, and all the rest of the larger than life attackers of our nation and our Constitution may as well be wearing the flag as a diaper."

OK, maybe the last paragraph isn't Obama's style... but it doesn't mean it's wrong!

It's 1968 Revisited. And It's Not The Liberals' Year.

About Barack Obama
At a philosophical level, I can see the logic of your analysis and it appears sound.

But at a pragmatic, rubber hitting the road where you have a bona fide conversation with a "conservative" instead of a series of poll questions, I think the situation takes on a different hue. The media keeps burning the fire of superficial and dishonest "left vs. right war." But that's not the real world... only the extremists on the neocon side buy into that perception.

What people are looking for is someone to trust to do the right thing. People will vote for someone whose platform conflicts with half of their preferences if they feel that person is good, strong, and empathetic. I think you have to be associated with at least 2 of those characteristics to win any election.

Kerry lost because he was painted as weak and bad - and he proved the former by not fighting back against the rovian and swift boat nonsense. boosh won because he seemed good (just say "Jesus" enough times, and that's all some people need) and strong, even though he had no empathy. Clinton won because he had empathy and was strong.

Part of being perceived as "strong," is to stick to your beliefs. If Obama "tracks to the center" (which I don't think he's done as much as a few people on the fringes of both parties seem to feel.... the media has tried to frame it as such), it will make him appear weak. It is a much better strategy to stick with a plan that is 'too progressive' or 'too liberal' than it is to start off with a progressive plan and then cave on it. mccain's stupid flip-flop accusations can be easily rebutted in a way that makes mccain look both bad and weak. All Obama needs to do is take principled stands and rebut mccain's vacuous stupidity (policy and antics) and he can win in a landslide.

On the other hand, stepping away from his committed positions can kill him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Faith-Based Initiatives Won't Pass the "Lemon Test"

About Barack Obama
This was posted in response to a person on HuffingtonPost.com who chastised me for not having enough "trust" in government...

If trust of government and institutions is your ideal concept, then you are indeed far from home (monarchy or theocracy is more for you). The structure of the republic's fundamental institutions is based on checks and balances. "Trust" is NOT - and history has proved this to be incontrovertibly true - a trait that facilitates effective governance. And based on the scandals that have befallen so many high-profile religious people over the last few years, it sounds like it's not the greatest trait for running a church, either.

Also, please don't patronize me about getting involved in politics. I've been elected to local government and run [only] successful election campaigns. Few people trusted me during my term, which was absolutely fine to me. Everyone should be checking politician's math. There's a massive space between blind faith and paranoia - it's not an either or condition. So yeah, it's just you.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose

About Barack Obama

"...[S]trength isn't about what you vote for (national "security"), it's about how you act." -- Ian Welsh

That is the key to winning elections. Plain and simple - 12 words says it all.

You must act with candor and principle to win. You have to defend yourself against lies. You can't be afraid of someone calling you names when you make a decision. And at some point - stop polling and stick to your guns. If your solution is right, stay with it.

It's fascinating how many HRC apostles are here saying this wouldn't be a problem for her. But the clintons clearly demonstrated on innumerable instances (Iraq, creating DLC, etc.) that you can only win by portraying yourself as a lighter version of an R. For example, if she had spent the last 4-6 years in the Senate repudiating earmarks that her NY corporate welfare recipients clamored for instead of fighting to give them tax dollars for questionable need, she'd have appeared MUCH stronger. Instead, she chose to appear like a super-R, slogging down the largest piles of earmark dollars.

Two weeks ago I was predicting a landslide for Obama. Even after the last bunch of gaffes, I don't think mccain can beat him.

However, Obama can absolutely find a way to lose if he continues to blast away at the credibility he's amassed over the last few years. It's his race to lose.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dem "Strategists": Learn How to Discuss Taxes or Don't Go on TV

About Economy
This post was a comment to a very well-written, uh, 'advice' column to help guide the talking heads that appear on national news venues with labels of "Dem Strategist" at the bottom of the screen. The link to the original article on Huffington Post is at the end...

Number 8 (1929 wealth concentrations) must precede #5. Precede 5 with the fact that bush and mccain lowered taxes for them 7 years ago. We're taking back the undeserved gift. Cite the amount of money bush and mccain have personally saved with those tax cuts.

This needs to be coupled with citation of the corporate tax loopholes that have been exploited. We have to close them - and pre-accuse the neocons of calling this a "tax increase". These off-shore weasels are scofflaws. We all have to pay a share of the bill to protect this country (which includes it's "markets," right??) and manage infrastructure, and since corporations are technically people, they MUST be held to the same standard that we are all held too.

Oh, the other thing that will be said by neocons about raising taxes on the wealthy is, "investment will stop overnight!" Not only did the 1990s prove that wrong, but research reported at HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/its-our-turn-now_b_102345.html) shows that investment is at an all-time low right now. This either tells you the sacred correlation between taxes and investment is bulls--t (which it is) or we have to eliminate all taxes on the wealthy so that they can start creating jobs for us.... because no one else can create a job except them, apparently.

If these jerks were so much smarter than everyone, the economy would ALWAYS be great. Wealth does NOT equate to brains, skill, wisdom, or future success. In fact, after you hang around a few sickeningly wealthy people, you start to notice that there's more of an inverse relationship. That is, the more money you have, the less wisdom you tend to have. And when the wealthy person lived in wealth from his/her birth, it's a good 90% certainty that he/she will have significantly diminished skills and actions - which I attribute to the delusions of grandeur that has to be very difficult to prevent when raised in the lap of luxury. I pity those people. But I sure don't have to give support to the notion that they ARE superior and need beneficial tax treatment.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bye, Bye Bill Gates... Oh and Windows XP

About Microsoft
This comment was regarding a fairly typical, flattering post about Bill Gates.

Good lord.

This sort of column is a symptom of the larger problem we have in this nation - laziness. We're too lazy to fact check the "media" and politicians. We're too lazy to realize that someone acquiring massive wealth isn't congruent with "goodness." We're too lazy to do a little accounting to realize how much money we spend paying a tax to microsoft virtually every time we buy a computer... then pay the tax to the police-ware vendors for anti-virus, adware, and other "security" tools.

We're too lazy to learn something new. We're too lazy to learn how these things work so we will stop being gouged for unnecessary "upgrades." We're so lazy and scared that we turn a blind eye toward the only successful modern monopolist - worse, people throw the guy accolades as if he's actually created technology that has improved anything for anyone!

There are people with so little going on upstairs that they actually believe that if Bill Gates didn't live, we wouldn't have anything better than solar powered calculators to help us do our work. People have, in effect, said this to me! Literally, someone told me, "If it weren't for Bill Gates, you wouldn't have a job [in the computer networking field] today." Skipping past the personal affront, this couldn't be a more clear declaration of ignorance - especially given the fact that the speaker was also a systems engineer and should have known better!

Bill Gates formed a monopoly and used that power to make massive amounts of money. Sorry, but that's not even close to the respect Mendoza line for me... which isn't to say that I have unique or special expectations - it's just that people who break the law and make money in the process are normally not roundly embraced and loved by advanced societies.

I guess we're so envious of the obscenely wealthy to ask ourselves, "Can any human being ever really be worth $100 Billion?" Isn't there really something wrong when a red flag like that pops up? What in the world did this guy do to advance mankind that he deserves this much money?

(Hint: if you try to answer that last question, realize that there were large and small computers running operating systems long before there ever was a microsoft... MS-DOS was virtually a wholesale copy of CPM... oh, never mind... there are entire books on the subject... go to Amazon!)

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost