Can we beat the liberals at their own game?
The blogging community will play an important part in helping Lt. Col. Bill Russell defeat John Murtha. If you look on my other site (one that has the same postings as this one), you'll discover approximately 40 blogs listed as "4 Russell." All these blogs have printed material supportive of Russell; several of the bloggers have contributed to the campaign; a few are actively involved in their own fundraising efforts for the campaign; an important group of the bloggers (Douglas Gibbs, Eric Dondero, Jenn of the Jungle, and Snooper) have interviewed Bill and other people supporting him on BlogTalkRadio.
Traditionally, liberal, the "netroots" (or "nutroots," as some call them) have been better than we conservatives at online politics. That's changing -- as it must if we're to say competitive.
In 2004, Joe Trippi ran the successful Internet campaign for Howard Dean, and it was a tremendous success. In Trippi's book The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, he says that Dean's "Meetup" site had 600,000 participants. The Dean Campaign raised more than $50 million, much of it coming from people online.
No Republican Campaign has come anywhere close to those numbers, although Ron Paul is setting some records of his own. In one day, Paul raised a total of $10 mllion from people contributing online.
To defeat John Murtha (who will spend $4 million-plus in this election cycle), Bill Russell needs to raise at least $500,000 -- preferably more. As usual, the Murtha campaign will throw money at his supporters in ways that are of questionable legality. In contrast, the Russell effort will be scrupulously legal and very efficient, with every dollar aimed at finding and getting votes.
In terms of contributions, Russell is doing well online, but needs to keep doing better. Correction, those of us campaigning online have to do better. We have to keep spreading the message that Murtha can be beaten -- and will be with the supportive of the conservative online community.
Yes, John Murtha will receive many millions of dollars from lobbyists and companies that he's essentially bought and paid for with federal dollars, a percentage of which are returned to him in the form of campaign contributions. You can check out the malicious mess that is the Murtha Campaign by going to http://opensecrets.org and keying in the name "Murtha." You'll see that for the 2008 election, he'd already spent by last September 30, a total of almost $700,000. By the December 31 Federal Election Commission reporting date, Murtha will have spent more than a million dollars.
I assure you the contributions didn't come from lobbyists and shady companies committed to Good Government.
How can those of us committed to Russell overcome that avalanche of payoffs to "The Prince of Pork?" We can do it by outsmarting him in the campaign, which luckily won't be that hard. We can also do it by making the maximum use of an inexpensive medium -- the Internet. For example, this particular communication is not costing me anything, aside from the blood, sweat, and tears always involved with writing.
What do we need? At least 30,000 people online backing the Russell Campaign by advocating his candidacy (relax, we apparently have more than 1,000 already). Of the 30,000 as many as 2,000 should be bloggers. We also need 3,000-plus people to go the Russell web site and contribute money. A lot of contributions of $20, $50, and $100 will go a long way toward defeating Murtha.
Politics isn't brain surgery. It consists of the three M's: message, mobilization (of supporters), and money, which is necessary to get the message out and to mobilize thousands of people to win this race.
What can you do? Be one of those people that spreads the message; also, be a person who asks others to join you in volunteering to help Russell.The third part is the most important.
We conservatives need to start out-contributing the liberals. Go the Russell web site and so what you can to make sure this outstanding candidate has the support he needs. Trust me: you'll feel good about it.
Showing posts with label Howard Dean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Howard Dean. Show all posts
Friday, December 28, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
ABORTION & THE DECEITFUL DEMOCRAT
I wrote a column yesterday in which I confessed I was very suspicious about whether the concept of "pro-life" was really meaningful to Congressmen John Murtha and Jason Altmire I pointed out that Democrats who run for Congress in Pennsylvania – especially those outside Philadelphia – had better say they’re pro-life (and pro-guns) if they want to get elected.
After I wrote the piece I came upon comments by Democratic strategist Joe Trippi (the Internet guru of Howard Dean campaign fame). Here’s what Trippi says in The Revolution Will Not be Televised, p. 33:
“I remember working on a [Democratic] congressional campaign in the mid-1980s. We were meeting with the candidate to film a commercial about his views on abortion. . . [Then] the guy casually informed me that he wanted to film two spots.”
“I was confused. Two?”
“That’s right. He wanted to make a pro-choice ad, then – as long as we had the crew and everything – just ‘turn the camera around’ and make a pro-life spot. That way, he explained, he’d have one of each ready when his polling people told him which way to go.”
Trippi adds, “After it was all over, I think we all wanted to go home and take a shower.”
Who was this poll-driven (as opposed to conscience-driven) candidate? Trippi doesn’t identify him by name.
Could it have been Dick Gephardt, the congressional power, who also ran for President – and employed Trippi? When Gephardt was a Missouri congressman, he was, like most Missouri congressman, he was a staunch pro-lifer. Later, of course, when he began to contemplate a national office, he switched to joining the Democratic "mainstream" and being pro-choice.
Or could it even have been Al Gore? When he was in Congress and the Senate from Tennessee – a bastion of pro-lifers – he was strongly for what’s called “the sanctity of life.” But when the vice-presidency and the Presidency loomed before him, his own "inconvenient truth" is that he switched his views.
A more interesting question: could it have been John Murtha? As far as I know, Trippi never worked for “The Prince of Pork.” Probably not. And certainly not Jason Altmire who, in the 1980s, was playing high school football.
However, like Trippi’s sleazy candidate, Murtha is very much driven by polls. When the American people were strongly for the war in Iraq, so was Murtha. When the War’s “poll numbers” dropped, Murtha bailed out, calling for “redeployment” of the troops to Okinawa of all places. The early evidence suggests that Altmire is same kind of poll-obsessed individual.
Trippi’s candidate was a slimeball. So, for that matter, is Trippi himself. Notice that he doesn’t say he stepped from the lucrative campaign slot. Instead, literally and figuratively, he took a shower. After reading Trippi’s book, my assessment of him is that he might consider spending the rest of his life in the shower.
People who look carefully at the votes of people like Murtha and Altmire – as I did in previous columns – have a hard time understanding exactly where they stand. The fact is that people obsessed with polls – Trippi’s client, Murtha, Altmire – don’t really "stand" much of anywhere.
If anyone knows who Trippi’s pro-life/pro-choice candidate was, please let me know. Until then, I’ll just assume it could have been one of many Democrats.
Note: Columns here through the end of January will be cross-posted on my new main site at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com.
After I wrote the piece I came upon comments by Democratic strategist Joe Trippi (the Internet guru of Howard Dean campaign fame). Here’s what Trippi says in The Revolution Will Not be Televised, p. 33:
“I remember working on a [Democratic] congressional campaign in the mid-1980s. We were meeting with the candidate to film a commercial about his views on abortion. . . [Then] the guy casually informed me that he wanted to film two spots.”
“I was confused. Two?”
“That’s right. He wanted to make a pro-choice ad, then – as long as we had the crew and everything – just ‘turn the camera around’ and make a pro-life spot. That way, he explained, he’d have one of each ready when his polling people told him which way to go.”
Trippi adds, “After it was all over, I think we all wanted to go home and take a shower.”
Who was this poll-driven (as opposed to conscience-driven) candidate? Trippi doesn’t identify him by name.
Could it have been Dick Gephardt, the congressional power, who also ran for President – and employed Trippi? When Gephardt was a Missouri congressman, he was, like most Missouri congressman, he was a staunch pro-lifer. Later, of course, when he began to contemplate a national office, he switched to joining the Democratic "mainstream" and being pro-choice.
Or could it even have been Al Gore? When he was in Congress and the Senate from Tennessee – a bastion of pro-lifers – he was strongly for what’s called “the sanctity of life.” But when the vice-presidency and the Presidency loomed before him, his own "inconvenient truth" is that he switched his views.
A more interesting question: could it have been John Murtha? As far as I know, Trippi never worked for “The Prince of Pork.” Probably not. And certainly not Jason Altmire who, in the 1980s, was playing high school football.
However, like Trippi’s sleazy candidate, Murtha is very much driven by polls. When the American people were strongly for the war in Iraq, so was Murtha. When the War’s “poll numbers” dropped, Murtha bailed out, calling for “redeployment” of the troops to Okinawa of all places. The early evidence suggests that Altmire is same kind of poll-obsessed individual.
Trippi’s candidate was a slimeball. So, for that matter, is Trippi himself. Notice that he doesn’t say he stepped from the lucrative campaign slot. Instead, literally and figuratively, he took a shower. After reading Trippi’s book, my assessment of him is that he might consider spending the rest of his life in the shower.
People who look carefully at the votes of people like Murtha and Altmire – as I did in previous columns – have a hard time understanding exactly where they stand. The fact is that people obsessed with polls – Trippi’s client, Murtha, Altmire – don’t really "stand" much of anywhere.
If anyone knows who Trippi’s pro-life/pro-choice candidate was, please let me know. Until then, I’ll just assume it could have been one of many Democrats.
Note: Columns here through the end of January will be cross-posted on my new main site at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
TWO VIEWS OF MIKE HUCKABEE: MATT & STEVE
Note: As the week goes on, I'll talk about a few of the many columns I've written on Gov. Sarah Heath Palin and why I think she would be a dynamic -- and successful -- candidate for the nation's highest offices. On my blogroll you'll find dozens of bloggers who support Sarah for the nation's highest offices. If you'd like to "sign-up" as a Sarah supporter, please contact Adam Brickley at his site (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/)
Before that, however, I'll talk about correspondence I've received from Matt in Washington state (http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com/) and John Hawkins in Florida (http://theforgottenstreet.com/)
In response to my recent column indicating that I believe the Mike Huckabee's effort to get the Republican nomination cannot not succeed, Matt in Washington state sent me the following e-mail:
Stephen, I saw your posting in which you say you withdraw Mike Huckabee from consideration. I understand your reasons why, and let me add some [about] why I support Huckabee. It is because he has articulated so eloquently things I have been thinking of for quite some time. Things I would expound on if I were running for political office. Positions I would collectively call " Practical Conservatism." He seems to be trying to lead the conservative movement away from vitriol and rhetoric to more practical solutions to problems. That is where you and I are.
As for his winning, well, he could just be another Goldwater. He'll blaze the trail for another person who will come along and say the same things to a more receptive audience. I think that some of his ideas are light years ahead of what is currently being preached as policy, particularly in the realm of health care. Because he thinks outside the box, and because he holds to his principles while still being likable, he is the one I am truly fired up about. Some had the same feeling for Bobby Kennedy.
But I am realistic, I will be satisfied if Giuliani or McCain get in (hopefully with Gov. Palin). Giuliani being president won't mean that we'll have more abortions in this country, and I doubt that the current status would change even if Huckabee got in. Giuliani comes across as urbane and sophisticated; heck, he's from New York! Sure he's had issues in his personal life that make me have a few questions. But we've had a divorced man as Commander in Chief -- Reagan, who also was Republican -- so that should be put to rest. Giuliani has crossover appeal, and could actually put my state (Washington) in play.
I want to run for office someday, and I think that a variation of Huckabee's platform would appeal to the large number of Independents we have here. I'd have to be looked at as a moderate if I wanted any chance of winning statewide office as a Republican.
This e-mail has run longer than I originally wanted, but I wanted to say check out my newest posting today on "Gun Control for Criminals" and let me know what you think.
Thanks for listening . . .
Matt (E-mail at: corpsole2@olypen.com)
Steve's Response: Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of the man. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (Admittedly, in the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.)
What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states). Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.
Can Mike Huckabee possibly have a dramatic surge among primary voters? In that regard, one candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9% in late November, 2003 and was at 52% in February, 2004. (Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.)
In the race for 2008, the only real movement in the polls over the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.
By the way, one national poll showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who say they aren't going to vote for Rudy in the primary still have a favorable view of him.
I've read that nearly six-out-of-ten Americans haven't seen so much as ONE debate. The current campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be gravitating toward Rudy. Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing.
Also, he's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.
Overall, Mike Huckabee should have a bright political future. With Fred Thompson, I believe his political career is behind him.
If I had to go way out on a limb, I'd guess the Democratic ticket will be: Clinton-Richardson. The Republican ticket may well be Giuliani-Palin.
Steve (e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com)
Before that, however, I'll talk about correspondence I've received from Matt in Washington state (http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com/) and John Hawkins in Florida (http://theforgottenstreet.com/)
In response to my recent column indicating that I believe the Mike Huckabee's effort to get the Republican nomination cannot not succeed, Matt in Washington state sent me the following e-mail:
Stephen, I saw your posting in which you say you withdraw Mike Huckabee from consideration. I understand your reasons why, and let me add some [about] why I support Huckabee. It is because he has articulated so eloquently things I have been thinking of for quite some time. Things I would expound on if I were running for political office. Positions I would collectively call " Practical Conservatism." He seems to be trying to lead the conservative movement away from vitriol and rhetoric to more practical solutions to problems. That is where you and I are.
As for his winning, well, he could just be another Goldwater. He'll blaze the trail for another person who will come along and say the same things to a more receptive audience. I think that some of his ideas are light years ahead of what is currently being preached as policy, particularly in the realm of health care. Because he thinks outside the box, and because he holds to his principles while still being likable, he is the one I am truly fired up about. Some had the same feeling for Bobby Kennedy.
But I am realistic, I will be satisfied if Giuliani or McCain get in (hopefully with Gov. Palin). Giuliani being president won't mean that we'll have more abortions in this country, and I doubt that the current status would change even if Huckabee got in. Giuliani comes across as urbane and sophisticated; heck, he's from New York! Sure he's had issues in his personal life that make me have a few questions. But we've had a divorced man as Commander in Chief -- Reagan, who also was Republican -- so that should be put to rest. Giuliani has crossover appeal, and could actually put my state (Washington) in play.
I want to run for office someday, and I think that a variation of Huckabee's platform would appeal to the large number of Independents we have here. I'd have to be looked at as a moderate if I wanted any chance of winning statewide office as a Republican.
This e-mail has run longer than I originally wanted, but I wanted to say check out my newest posting today on "Gun Control for Criminals" and let me know what you think.
Thanks for listening . . .
Matt (E-mail at: corpsole2@olypen.com)
Steve's Response: Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of the man. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (Admittedly, in the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.)
What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states). Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.
Can Mike Huckabee possibly have a dramatic surge among primary voters? In that regard, one candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9% in late November, 2003 and was at 52% in February, 2004. (Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.)
In the race for 2008, the only real movement in the polls over the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.
By the way, one national poll showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who say they aren't going to vote for Rudy in the primary still have a favorable view of him.
I've read that nearly six-out-of-ten Americans haven't seen so much as ONE debate. The current campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be gravitating toward Rudy. Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing.
Also, he's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.
Overall, Mike Huckabee should have a bright political future. With Fred Thompson, I believe his political career is behind him.
If I had to go way out on a limb, I'd guess the Democratic ticket will be: Clinton-Richardson. The Republican ticket may well be Giuliani-Palin.
Steve (e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
