Beautiful Day

What a beautiful day here, I decided to take the rest of the day off, and go down to the beach, and just be a bum.

What we can do in 2010

Politics is no longer a spectator sport. Those in the grandstands must leave their seats and come down on the playing field to help their side score. That is the key lesson of the Obama campaign. He didn't just have supporters. He had campaign workers--millions of them.

The Internet has made each of us the center of our own political campaign. We are the campaign. The days when the candidate and a small group of professionals ran things--and the rest of us chipped in money, showed up at rallies, and voted--are over. Now each of us must conduct our own campaign within our own circle of acquaintances, until the circle spreads to include thousands of voters.

Too many of us still labor under the delusion that politics is a top-down game, driven by the manager and candidate whose initiatives filter down to the lowly campaign workers, the foot soldiers on the ground. We wait for our phone to ring or an e-mail to arrive telling us what to do to help win the election.

But in today's politics, those initiatives have to come from us, not from on high.

This means one thing: you are the campaign! You can be your own campaign media guru, strategist, and manager. You don't need money. You don't need fame. You just need to be able to produce cogent and effective campaign messages to send to your friends and associates by e-mail and to the world at large on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever else is invented between now and when you read these words.

Conventional top-down media-driven political campaign isn't working anymore because we don't believe what we hear from strangers.

Our politicians suffer from a huge credibility gap. Advertisers face an even wider gap. So it's no surprise that we attach virtually no credibility to paid political ads. After watching our politicians disappoint us for decades on end, we're all reluctant to believe the promises they make in their campaigns. (And, after listening to Obama's pledge to be a candidate who was above party and would bring Washington together, we're just that much more cynical about believing anything a politician says.)

And here's an interesting corollary: The more we disbelieve those we don't know, the more we do believe, and rely upon, those we do know. The old regimen of media propaganda is swiftly being supplanted by old-fashioned word of mouth--recommendations from friends, trusted colleagues, and established, credible commentators--as our main source of information.

In this new era, we--the party's and candidate's supporters--must do the heavy lifting. It is we, not the candidate or his staff, who have to get the message out. The campaigns themselves--with their budgets and exposure--become ammunition factories producing shells for us to fire. Why? Because we have credibility they do not.

We each have our areas of expertise. A doctor or nurse's opinion of Obama's health-care bill will carry great weight with his or her peers, relatives, and friends. A small business owner will be very credible discussing the problems he's facing in the marketplace and how Obama's policies are stopping him from expanding his business or creating new jobs. The opinions of soldiers and their families carry great weight when they report on how Obama's Afghanistan policy is hampering the war effort and emboldening the opposition. A construction worker's opinion of the housing market will get our attention. When a banker or investor describes the chaos Obama has caused in the markets, everyone listens intently.

We are all experts. We are all media creators now. We are all the campaign.

Our audience is a large circle of people and we're at its center. We have school and college buddies, office colleagues, family members (even if we have to climb pretty far out on the family tree), members of civic and fraternal groups, clients, social friends, and other associates. We have the parents of our children's friends, people we know from their schools. There are people we forward jokes to, or share articles about our favorite sports teams with, or send out Christmas cards or letters to every year.

If you want to make a difference in 2010, now's the time to start reaching out to all those people to spread the word. They are your constituents--your electronic precinct.

The Internet allows us to reach our circle with little effort and no cost. You do it all the time. The only difference is, in 2010 you should make it part of your campaign.

In the old political-machine days, campaign workers were each assigned an election district or precinct to canvass. Their political task was defined geographically, and our politically minded ancestors walked from one house to the next spreading the message--identifying favorable voters, working on the undecided, answering arguments or questions, resolving doubts, and, finally, making sure their party's supporters actually voted.

Now our precinct is an electronic network that can spread across the nation. It includes everyone we know and those strangers who we can reach. They don't live in one neighborhood; but they are our beat nonetheless.

They are the votes we need to deliver on Election Day.

So follow the example of the precinct workers of old Tammany Hall: Make a list of your constituents and go talk to each of them--by e-mail, by Twitter, by YouTube, by Facebook, even by phone.

Sound them out about their political preferences. Learn what issues matter to them. Make notes on their criticisms of Obama--and their positive ideas, too. Figure out what gets them motivated.

Then craft a strategy for each voter on your list. Formulate a plan to win them over. Work on what issues to push, what themes to strike, and how to approach each voter.

Remember to think of yourself as a publisher. The job of the campaign staff, and the candidate, is to produce ammunition in the form of issue positions, statements, and campaign material. Yours is to fire it off, distributing it to the right people. You've probably been trying your friends' patience by forwarding jokes or baby pictures via e-mail. Now you can use the same tool to send something they may actually be interested in: videos of a promising candidate or stories about his or her campaign speeches. Surf the Web for articles and other materials that are helpful to your campaign. Reach out to other sources of information that might generate good material for your campaign. Search far and wide for ammunition--material to send to your list, aiming each blast at the right targets.

So it's up to the grassroots--which means us. Don't wait for instructions. Don't look for leaders. Take politics into your own hands and mobilize your precincts!

Financial Ruin

If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes law, President Obama and his Treasury Secretary will acquire the right to take over any financial institution they wish to, provided that, in their sole opinion, it is both "too big to fail" and on the brink of insolvency. The House bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions. Once the government takes over such a company, it will acquire the right to replace the entire board of directors, fire the management of the company, wipe out stockholder equity and even sell off divisions of the company. Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk and with no poison pill or other counter-measures possible. This legislation, essentially, confers on the federal government police powers that, under our system, are the exclusive preserve of state and local government. The blank check the bill gives the feds to take over any financial institution is really more of an exercise of eminent domain than it is an extension of traditional federal regulatory power. This grant of power to the executive branch is unprecedented and potentially totalitarian. Consider: Will Obama, or any future president, target companies that are particularly vocal in their opposition to his policies or generous in funding his political opponents? Will the fact that Obama would have this power force companies, investors, CEOs and managers to self-censor their opinions and political involvement because they fear the wrath of a vengeful president? Will this grant of authority force companies to hesitate before they grow and expand? Will it function the same way the antitrust powers of the Justice Department do in making companies re-examine mergers and acquisitions with a view toward what Justice will think of their resulting market share? In antitrust situations, where a specific action brings companies under scrutiny -- like a merger -- such concern is not unreasonable. But when the simple act of making money, showing a profit and expanding in size puts a company in federal crosshairs, does this not have the potential to attenuate the capitalist focus on growth? In an environment where the feds are looking over the shoulder of every financial institution to see if they should take it over and shut it down, will this not force financial companies to follow the most risk-averse lending policies possible? Doesn't this mean that it only makes sense to buy government paper, since consumer loans, mortgages and business lending could be considered risky and lead to a federal takeover? Isn't this policy precisely the opposite of what we need to catalyze economic growth? In a political world where contributions from financial institutions are sought and widely given, doesn't this power give the president and his party unlimited fundraising ability, simply by baring its teeth and showing the power it has to take anybody over and fire anybody? Given the fact that Goldman-Sachs was the second-largest donor to Obama's campaign, giving $954,795, doesn't this new power raise the specter that the federal government could take over financial institutions so as to make the competition lighter for its donors? Already, there is considerable evidence that Goldman profited handsomely from the decision of its former CEO -- Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Now that the Treasury secretary will have the takeover power, might it not be used as irresponsibly and with as many bad consequences as Paulson used his power in the Lehman crisis? While the focus on the regulatory bill has been on the consumer protection provisions, which I tend to support, there has been far less scrutiny on these horrific expansions of federal power. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could only dream of this power.

The Offering

Tonight, I read an article from Mr. Moronica, and in it he is offering to lay down the gauntlet, I am not sure how I will react?
But one thing I do know, I will not stand by, and read, or listen to individuals mock the Constitution, or to step around it as this Administration has. The process for which they used in the Senate to pass the Health Care Bill was called the up and down vote ( 51 votes instead of 60 )it's intent when approved back it the 70's, was to be only used in case there was a stalemate of the budgetary process. It was NOT intended to be used to change 1/6th of the economy.
I am not a violent person, and I will voice my opinion, and when the time comes this November, I will vote for who I think will help in leading us back to prosperity.
One last thing Mr. Moronica, I will try, but there no guarantees in life.

Too Mr. Moronica

I too am against violence, but more intrusions on on freedoms, and the redistribution of wealth is called Socialism, or didn't they teach that in your school. I to believe the less fortunate need help, but where in the Constitution does it say it's a right.
So Mister Moronica please can you produce actual footage or pictures of proof that the Tea Party is causing all of what you are saying, or haven't you stopped long enough to think maybe, just maybe that it might be from the other side too, why would a Tea Party member shoot out a window at Mr Cantor office, please explain that too me.
I do agree that Social Security, and Medicare were good ideas, and did work well, but why for the love of God would you want them to control Health care, can't you see that all Government control programs are now going Bankrupt let me list a few, Social Security,
Medicare, Post office, and in the near future Health care.
Do you believe those idiots will keep there hands off that huge pile of money they gather up, I say they will use some of it in other programs, and when the time comes there will be hardly nothing left to start funding the program.
I think with all that, and the tremendous amount of added debt that this Country will go bankrupt.
Now on this other subject that you brought up about, over in Europe you seem to think there are better off than we are, I think you should read up on that matter cause you are way off.
Now Canada on the other hand does have cheaper prescription drugs than we do, and that's a real good thing for us cause we have the best of both worlds.
Now it's your turn explain this, why on the other hand are they, and everyone else in the world come over here for treatment, Please Please tell me? Let me give you a hint, it's because our Medical knowledge is superior over all, and you don't have to wait 6 months for treatment.
Now Mr. Moronica I to vote, and I will do everything I can to help in the repeal of this Bill, and if, and when this happens, I will be the first one to yell out, and say start over, and get Health care done the right way which won't cost us trillion's of dollars of debt.
Now please will you move, or get back in your pod, and go back where you come from.