A number of media stories have cropped up lately that are very critical of Rudy Giuliani. The attacks have taken a variety of forms, but there has been a unifying theme; that Giuliani as Mayor was a mean son of a bitch. Since the New York media leans hard left, I understand why they would be pushing this stuff.
I don’t know if it’s true. I wasn’t there when he was Mayor. I only know the image he is presenting now on the campaign trail, a down to earth guy with a self depreciating sense of humor. But maybe it’s all true. Maybe Giuliani was willing to throw elbows, play hardball and run roughshod over people to get things done.
In the fat, lazy 1990’s, that wasn’t what we wanted. We wanted a happy President who felt our pain, but the 1990’s are gone. Now we’re in a global war with radical Islamic terrorists who are willing to blow up their own children if that’s what it takes to come here and kill us.
In this new age where our survival hangs in the balance, I want my President to be tough as nails with the determination of a pit bull.
The New York Times says that Rudy is really a son of a bitch. I hope they’re right.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
It’s Time to Choose
I write editorials fairly frequently. I enjoy writing and it’s nice to see them published. I usually try to write something witty and insightful. But not today.
Today, I’m writing because I’m scared. America, the country that I love, is headed for disaster and no one seems to care.
Medicare is going to bankrupt my country. Yeah, I know. “Medicare? That’s sooo boring! I want to read about something exiting and emotional like Iraq or illegal immigration.” Today, quite frankly, I don’t care what you want to hear. Today, I’m writing to tell you what you need to hear.
We have written into law promises that we can not pay. Medicare is facing a deficit of 60 Trillion dollars. In case that number is too big to have any meaning for you, that’s five times the value of everything America produces in a year, all goods, all services, everything.
We have hard choices to make and we need to start with the basics. Why was Medicare created? It was created because some elderly American’s couldn’t afford decent health care. Instead of focusing on that limited problem, we have created a system that promises to pay all the medical bills of everyone over 65 and in doing so, we have insulated American health care from the normal market forces that enforce financial discipline in every other sector of our economy.
This has happened not because it’s good for the country, but because it’s good for politicians. Every politician knows that they can get votes by promising more benefits to voters. The fact that they are destroying the country in the process is irrelevant. They know that when the bill comes due, they will be long gone. If you try to take a benefit away, voters will take your job away. If you try to save future generations from disaster, well, the young usually don’t vote and generations unborn aren’t in your district.
I know this sounds cynical. It’s very hard to believe that our leaders would care more about their jobs than about their country. Is it really possible that they want a partisan political weapon more than to see future generations prosper?
I’m very sorry to tell you this, but the answer is yes.
Don’t believe me? There is an easy test to find out for yourself. If you ever have the opportunity to ask your congressman a question, ask this: “Do you think someone making $20,000/year should pay Bill Gates medical bills when he turns 65?” They will dance around the question and make a variety of convoluted excuses, but the basic answer will be Yes.
For the future of our country, this is insane. For politics, it makes perfect sense.
You have a choice. You can rise up and threaten candidates with your vote. You can demand they put the good of the nation ahead of their partisan political self interest. Or you can ignore a problem that seems so abstract, so far off, and let the disaster come.
Choose now.
Today, I’m writing because I’m scared. America, the country that I love, is headed for disaster and no one seems to care.
Medicare is going to bankrupt my country. Yeah, I know. “Medicare? That’s sooo boring! I want to read about something exiting and emotional like Iraq or illegal immigration.” Today, quite frankly, I don’t care what you want to hear. Today, I’m writing to tell you what you need to hear.
We have written into law promises that we can not pay. Medicare is facing a deficit of 60 Trillion dollars. In case that number is too big to have any meaning for you, that’s five times the value of everything America produces in a year, all goods, all services, everything.
We have hard choices to make and we need to start with the basics. Why was Medicare created? It was created because some elderly American’s couldn’t afford decent health care. Instead of focusing on that limited problem, we have created a system that promises to pay all the medical bills of everyone over 65 and in doing so, we have insulated American health care from the normal market forces that enforce financial discipline in every other sector of our economy.
This has happened not because it’s good for the country, but because it’s good for politicians. Every politician knows that they can get votes by promising more benefits to voters. The fact that they are destroying the country in the process is irrelevant. They know that when the bill comes due, they will be long gone. If you try to take a benefit away, voters will take your job away. If you try to save future generations from disaster, well, the young usually don’t vote and generations unborn aren’t in your district.
I know this sounds cynical. It’s very hard to believe that our leaders would care more about their jobs than about their country. Is it really possible that they want a partisan political weapon more than to see future generations prosper?
I’m very sorry to tell you this, but the answer is yes.
Don’t believe me? There is an easy test to find out for yourself. If you ever have the opportunity to ask your congressman a question, ask this: “Do you think someone making $20,000/year should pay Bill Gates medical bills when he turns 65?” They will dance around the question and make a variety of convoluted excuses, but the basic answer will be Yes.
For the future of our country, this is insane. For politics, it makes perfect sense.
You have a choice. You can rise up and threaten candidates with your vote. You can demand they put the good of the nation ahead of their partisan political self interest. Or you can ignore a problem that seems so abstract, so far off, and let the disaster come.
Choose now.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Politics 101 - How to Make Everyone Hate You
Welcome class.
Today we will discuss how to alienate voters in a political campaign. Please open your textbooks to Chapter 12 - John McCain.
At the top of page 85, it lists the cardinal rule of politics: Know Your Target Voter. Let’s examine how McCain selected his target voters.
In the 2000 campaign, McCain targeted Republican and Independent voters who rejected the religious right and politics as usual. He appealed to this audience in a speech in February 2000:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
His target was the “Reform Voter”. In a general election, this would have been a winning strategy, but was not quite enough to overcome the influence of traditional conservatives in the primaries.
Approaching the 2008 race, McCain shifted to target the traditional conservative base. He embraced Jerry Falwell and tried to portray himself as the establishment candidate. He thought he could add this voter block to the reform voters he attracted in 2000.
Does anyone in class know why this was destined to fail? Anyone? …No Mr. Spicoli, it’s not lunch time, put your hand down.
The answer is that in politics, as in life, you can make an enemy much faster than you can make a friend. By abandoning his maverick image and embracing the establishment right, he immediately lost the support of reform voters, but could not attract traditional Republican base voters, who still remembered their opposition to him from 2000.
Is everyone following me? I still see some confused faces, so I’ll give you an example.
Let’s say you meet two strangers. You give the first one a candy bar, and you punch the second one in the face. You now have one friend and one enemy. Ten minutes later, you punch the first one in the face and give the second one a candy bar. Do you still have one friend and one enemy, just with the rolls reversed? No, you now have two people who are angry at you, and don’t trust you.
McCain compounded this dual alienation by shifting again in the middle of the campaign to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of a punch in the face for the traditional base, this was a kick to the groin.
By not remaining focused on his target voters, McCain lost both the reform voters he attracted in 2000, and traditional base voters in 2008.
I see we’re about out of time for class today. For next Thursday, please write a 10 page paper contrasting McCain’s voter targeting with the Giulani campaign’s consistent targeting of defense/fiscal conservatives and social moderates.
Class dismissed.
Today we will discuss how to alienate voters in a political campaign. Please open your textbooks to Chapter 12 - John McCain.
At the top of page 85, it lists the cardinal rule of politics: Know Your Target Voter. Let’s examine how McCain selected his target voters.
In the 2000 campaign, McCain targeted Republican and Independent voters who rejected the religious right and politics as usual. He appealed to this audience in a speech in February 2000:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
His target was the “Reform Voter”. In a general election, this would have been a winning strategy, but was not quite enough to overcome the influence of traditional conservatives in the primaries.
Approaching the 2008 race, McCain shifted to target the traditional conservative base. He embraced Jerry Falwell and tried to portray himself as the establishment candidate. He thought he could add this voter block to the reform voters he attracted in 2000.
Does anyone in class know why this was destined to fail? Anyone? …No Mr. Spicoli, it’s not lunch time, put your hand down.
The answer is that in politics, as in life, you can make an enemy much faster than you can make a friend. By abandoning his maverick image and embracing the establishment right, he immediately lost the support of reform voters, but could not attract traditional Republican base voters, who still remembered their opposition to him from 2000.
Is everyone following me? I still see some confused faces, so I’ll give you an example.
Let’s say you meet two strangers. You give the first one a candy bar, and you punch the second one in the face. You now have one friend and one enemy. Ten minutes later, you punch the first one in the face and give the second one a candy bar. Do you still have one friend and one enemy, just with the rolls reversed? No, you now have two people who are angry at you, and don’t trust you.
McCain compounded this dual alienation by shifting again in the middle of the campaign to lead the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. Instead of a punch in the face for the traditional base, this was a kick to the groin.
By not remaining focused on his target voters, McCain lost both the reform voters he attracted in 2000, and traditional base voters in 2008.
I see we’re about out of time for class today. For next Thursday, please write a 10 page paper contrasting McCain’s voter targeting with the Giulani campaign’s consistent targeting of defense/fiscal conservatives and social moderates.
Class dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)