by David Kilpatrick
Thanks to the fine work of the mainstream media, the American electorate went into the 2008 elections with a fraction of the information needed to make an intelligent decision... and Obama won. Three cheers and a monkey for us!
According to Zogby, 512 Obama voters were asked 12 multiple choice questions regarding the 4 candidates Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin and a shocking .5% (that's one half of one percent) aced the quiz. The point of the poll is NOT to say Obama supporters are stupid, but to demonstrate how "in the tank" for Obama the media coverage was in that news unfavorable to Obama was largely not broadcast.
Zogby Results:
42.6% could correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
28.2% could correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing).
17.4% could correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing).
11.6% could correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing).
43.9% could correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
The results, when asked about negative stories of Sarah Palin and John McCain, were startlingly different:
86.3% could identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes.
93.8% could identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter.
86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, the comedian, who said that!!
Sure, we can point to media bias, after all, journalists voted for Walter Mondale by a 2 to 1 margin over Ronald Reagan (58% to 26%) which was a substantial victory for Reagan as only 9% of journalists identified themselves as Republican. Today, self identified liberals in the media outnumber conservatives by 7 to 1. For anyone to say there is no liberal bias in the media would mean that person is... well... very liberal and the coverage of this last year's election is very revealing in the Zogby poll: The media simply did not educate the public. Do Obama supporters know about Obama's foreign policy ideas? No, but they do know about Palin's wardrobe... as if that has any bearing on how a nation would be governed. We all know about Palin's pregnant daughter, but only 11.6% know that Obama said he will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Which will effect our country more? When your heating bill doubles, will you be thinking about a pregnant teenager? No, but that was all the media reported.
George Washington said, "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened," in his farewell address on September 19, 1796. Public opinion should be "enlightened" meaning "informed" yet, Americans have fallen victim to malpractice by a media who has failed miserably to surpass anything more than tabloid status.
To help us all:
1. The congress is controlled by Democrats and has been for two years.
2. Joe Biden was the one guilty of plagiarizing a speech.
3. Barack Obama is the one that launched his political career in a confessed terrorist's home.
4. Barack Obama had his opponents removed from the ballot during his first campaign.
5. John McCain could not say how many houses were under his name.
6. Barack Obama said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs.
7. Sarah Palin was the one whose campaign wardrobe cost $150,000 (that was actually for the entire family).
8. Nobody said they could see Russia from their house. That was a comedian named Tina Fey.
9. Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter.
10. Joe Biden was the one that said Obama would be tested by our enemies within his first 6 months in office.
11. Barack Obama is the one who claimed to have campaigned in 57 states with one more to go.
12. Barack Obama is the one who said that the government should redistribute wealth.
Now, if you watch CNN and Zogby calls you on the phone, you can help CNN look better than they really are.
We continue to learn all the time, I suppose, but the video is painful to watch.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Let Us Pray.
by David Kilpatrick
Let us pray that Obama does NOTHING that he promised he would.
1. Raising taxes on small businesses
Inherently a bad idea as small businesses employ 84% of the population and Obama seems to be completely unaware of a startlingly obvious dynamic in economics: BUSINESSES DON’T PAY TAXES! They simply collect revenue from consumers and pass on taxes to the government. So, the tax increase on the business owner may not be a tax increase on you, but when the cost of goods goes up, you are the one paying the bigger bill. This is also a sure-fire way to ignite inflation… remember President Carter? Inflation was in double digits because the Democrat super-majority in congress and the president didn’t understand that simple dynamic. A tax on business is a tax on everyone, and here’s the part nobody wants to hear: rich people are business owners. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich… it hurts their customers and employees.
2. Carbon credit trading
Obama readily admits that coal-fired plants will be bankrupted… even clean-burning coal will face heavy levies in the cap-and-trade schemes that will force electricity producers to pay penalties for the carbon emissions of the electricity generation plants, and Obama admits that the price of energy will skyrocket. This will also lend to inflation as higher energy costs effect the prices of all goods sold and the poorest of the poor will be the hardest hit as they will face heating and cooling costs that will be the highest in history. To offset the cost of government regulation on coal, we could turn to nuclear as France and many other nations have, but Obama is against nuclear power. Sadly, this leaves the United States with few options and the U.S. will remain the only country on the planet that is at war with its own energy producing industries.
3. The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in both the Senate and the House will certainly try to push through the “Fairness Doctrine” which will be the first time in history that commercial broadcasters will have their content regulated by the Federal Government. This is the beginning of “change” that most Americans didn’t bargain for, but it is, unfortunately, part of the package. The Fairness Doctrine will require that broadcasters who air commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also air opposing commentators, even if those commentators make the station no money. This will cause stations to move away from talk and commentary as “Free Speech” will not be allowed without regulation. This infringement upon such a basic right would likely draw a filibuster by Senate Republicans and would surely be taken before the Supreme Court, but nobody knows what will happen. Again, we can only hope that, for the first time in his career, Obama does not follow the Democrats. The unfortunate pattern though, is that freedoms, in the mind of the far left which now runs the country, only apply to people who think like they do. Remember one thing, my liberal friends: if one person can have their rights taken away today, your rights can be taken away tomorrow.
4. The Employee Free Choice Act
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers, but the key component in this measure would make private balloting a thing of the past – thus having the exact opposite effect by allowing intimidation from either employers or union thugs and with union membership languishing at around 6% of the work force, the unions who backed Obama’s election see this as a special reward. How does preventing you from having a private ballot help you exercise your free will? With union thugs looking over one shoulder as you vote and employers looking over the other, workers will find themselves in possibly the worst no-win position in history, yet it is part of the new society Obama promises to deliver. An increase in union membership will also result in an increase in labor costs as is proven historically which is bad for the general public and ultimately the workers as it will increase inflation as employers raise prices to cover higher costs and cut jobs in an effort to keep budgets under control.
5. Increasing the Minimum Wage and Indexing it to Inflation
Increasing the minimum wage is always popular because nobody wants to see others working full time and struggling to survive. What is missing is the down-side to this never ending increase-after-increase which actually serves to make the problem of low income survival even worse.
A. To capture the broad sense, we need to take a step back and look at this issue from a global standpoint. Increasing the cost of labor in the U.S. will make our labor even more costly than in other countries, which prevents the export of American goods while increasing outsourcing. Consumers will not buy a $100 stereo made in America when they can buy the same stereo for $20 – made in China. Does this help or hurt manufacturing in the U.S.? Clearly, it hurts it, so fewer jobs become available as prices rise.
B. As labor costs increase, so does overhead for the U.S. companies which will raise prices and reduce the size of their workforce. This will cause a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment, thus a need to raise taxes to cover unemployment benefits, which will result in higher overhead (again), higher prices (again), more inflation and another round of cut-backs and so on. This is not a cycle that will improve anything economically.
C. With all the concern being on the minimum wage ever being potentially too low, at what point do we ask, “Is the minimum wage too high?” Surely, as it begins the unstoppable upward spiral, a rational person has to realize that unskilled, entry-level positions or positions sought by teenagers to get some experience while they live with Mom and Dad are not worth $20 per hour to have filled and as more and more of the unskilled or young are finding that no positions are available, many will turn to crime or other “under the radar” ways of making money. Clearly not helpful and possibly quite harmful.
D. Increasing the minimum wage also kills initiative. Why would an unskilled worker need to get an education if they can make plenty of money without one? Many of us were traditionally raised knowing that an education was the key to financial stability. If we remove that teaching from the fabric of our society, will we not be teaching our youth that an education is unnecessary? This would make our workforce less educated and further our inability to compete with labor forces in other parts of the world – a very harmful idea.
6. $1 Trillion in new spending
The argument is that “more spending” is the way to solve the economic crisis in the world today and, as Barney Frank (D-Mass) puts it, the deficit should not be considered at this time. The interesting thing to note here is that, for some reason, Obama thinks that government spending is somehow superior to private-sector spending when it comes to jump-starting the economy. If tax rates were kept at current levels or even reduced slightly, as McCain had proposed, private sector spending would be greater than it would be if you raise taxes on business owners and would not need to be supplemented by increased government spending. To say that somehow, our woes would be behind us if only the tax code was tweaked a little bit is naive at best and completely ignorant at worst. Again, let us pray that Obama was only joking about imagining that a tax adjustment is a fix to anything.
As it stands, roughly 18% of the gross domestic product is collected in taxes and amounts to roughly $2.2 trillion. To generate enough tax revenue to support this (even if they claim they don’t have to), tax receipts will need to increase by 50%. This cannot be done by only taxing the rich business owners who (will only pass the higher costs on to the consumers anyway).
Someone is going to have to pay the bill and if it won’t be us, it will be our children… or maybe not. In 1850, Alexander Tyler said, “Democracy is not a permanent form of government. It only lasts until people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.” – and we’re watching it happen.
Let us pray. Let us pray for the survival of our country.
Let us pray that Obama does NOTHING that he promised he would.
1. Raising taxes on small businesses
Inherently a bad idea as small businesses employ 84% of the population and Obama seems to be completely unaware of a startlingly obvious dynamic in economics: BUSINESSES DON’T PAY TAXES! They simply collect revenue from consumers and pass on taxes to the government. So, the tax increase on the business owner may not be a tax increase on you, but when the cost of goods goes up, you are the one paying the bigger bill. This is also a sure-fire way to ignite inflation… remember President Carter? Inflation was in double digits because the Democrat super-majority in congress and the president didn’t understand that simple dynamic. A tax on business is a tax on everyone, and here’s the part nobody wants to hear: rich people are business owners. Taxing the rich doesn’t hurt the rich… it hurts their customers and employees.
2. Carbon credit trading
Obama readily admits that coal-fired plants will be bankrupted… even clean-burning coal will face heavy levies in the cap-and-trade schemes that will force electricity producers to pay penalties for the carbon emissions of the electricity generation plants, and Obama admits that the price of energy will skyrocket. This will also lend to inflation as higher energy costs effect the prices of all goods sold and the poorest of the poor will be the hardest hit as they will face heating and cooling costs that will be the highest in history. To offset the cost of government regulation on coal, we could turn to nuclear as France and many other nations have, but Obama is against nuclear power. Sadly, this leaves the United States with few options and the U.S. will remain the only country on the planet that is at war with its own energy producing industries.
3. The Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in both the Senate and the House will certainly try to push through the “Fairness Doctrine” which will be the first time in history that commercial broadcasters will have their content regulated by the Federal Government. This is the beginning of “change” that most Americans didn’t bargain for, but it is, unfortunately, part of the package. The Fairness Doctrine will require that broadcasters who air commentators like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity also air opposing commentators, even if those commentators make the station no money. This will cause stations to move away from talk and commentary as “Free Speech” will not be allowed without regulation. This infringement upon such a basic right would likely draw a filibuster by Senate Republicans and would surely be taken before the Supreme Court, but nobody knows what will happen. Again, we can only hope that, for the first time in his career, Obama does not follow the Democrats. The unfortunate pattern though, is that freedoms, in the mind of the far left which now runs the country, only apply to people who think like they do. Remember one thing, my liberal friends: if one person can have their rights taken away today, your rights can be taken away tomorrow.
4. The Employee Free Choice Act
Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers, but the key component in this measure would make private balloting a thing of the past – thus having the exact opposite effect by allowing intimidation from either employers or union thugs and with union membership languishing at around 6% of the work force, the unions who backed Obama’s election see this as a special reward. How does preventing you from having a private ballot help you exercise your free will? With union thugs looking over one shoulder as you vote and employers looking over the other, workers will find themselves in possibly the worst no-win position in history, yet it is part of the new society Obama promises to deliver. An increase in union membership will also result in an increase in labor costs as is proven historically which is bad for the general public and ultimately the workers as it will increase inflation as employers raise prices to cover higher costs and cut jobs in an effort to keep budgets under control.
5. Increasing the Minimum Wage and Indexing it to Inflation
Increasing the minimum wage is always popular because nobody wants to see others working full time and struggling to survive. What is missing is the down-side to this never ending increase-after-increase which actually serves to make the problem of low income survival even worse.
A. To capture the broad sense, we need to take a step back and look at this issue from a global standpoint. Increasing the cost of labor in the U.S. will make our labor even more costly than in other countries, which prevents the export of American goods while increasing outsourcing. Consumers will not buy a $100 stereo made in America when they can buy the same stereo for $20 – made in China. Does this help or hurt manufacturing in the U.S.? Clearly, it hurts it, so fewer jobs become available as prices rise.
B. As labor costs increase, so does overhead for the U.S. companies which will raise prices and reduce the size of their workforce. This will cause a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment, thus a need to raise taxes to cover unemployment benefits, which will result in higher overhead (again), higher prices (again), more inflation and another round of cut-backs and so on. This is not a cycle that will improve anything economically.
C. With all the concern being on the minimum wage ever being potentially too low, at what point do we ask, “Is the minimum wage too high?” Surely, as it begins the unstoppable upward spiral, a rational person has to realize that unskilled, entry-level positions or positions sought by teenagers to get some experience while they live with Mom and Dad are not worth $20 per hour to have filled and as more and more of the unskilled or young are finding that no positions are available, many will turn to crime or other “under the radar” ways of making money. Clearly not helpful and possibly quite harmful.
D. Increasing the minimum wage also kills initiative. Why would an unskilled worker need to get an education if they can make plenty of money without one? Many of us were traditionally raised knowing that an education was the key to financial stability. If we remove that teaching from the fabric of our society, will we not be teaching our youth that an education is unnecessary? This would make our workforce less educated and further our inability to compete with labor forces in other parts of the world – a very harmful idea.
6. $1 Trillion in new spending
The argument is that “more spending” is the way to solve the economic crisis in the world today and, as Barney Frank (D-Mass) puts it, the deficit should not be considered at this time. The interesting thing to note here is that, for some reason, Obama thinks that government spending is somehow superior to private-sector spending when it comes to jump-starting the economy. If tax rates were kept at current levels or even reduced slightly, as McCain had proposed, private sector spending would be greater than it would be if you raise taxes on business owners and would not need to be supplemented by increased government spending. To say that somehow, our woes would be behind us if only the tax code was tweaked a little bit is naive at best and completely ignorant at worst. Again, let us pray that Obama was only joking about imagining that a tax adjustment is a fix to anything.
As it stands, roughly 18% of the gross domestic product is collected in taxes and amounts to roughly $2.2 trillion. To generate enough tax revenue to support this (even if they claim they don’t have to), tax receipts will need to increase by 50%. This cannot be done by only taxing the rich business owners who (will only pass the higher costs on to the consumers anyway).
Someone is going to have to pay the bill and if it won’t be us, it will be our children… or maybe not. In 1850, Alexander Tyler said, “Democracy is not a permanent form of government. It only lasts until people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.” – and we’re watching it happen.
Let us pray. Let us pray for the survival of our country.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Democrat plan to "Educate The Idiots" by targeting minorities unveiled
Democracy Alliance memo details Dem plan to "educate the idiots" and target minoritiesFiled Under: Colorado ElectionsTopics: AFL-CIO, Andrew Romanoff, Bell Policy Center, Bill Ritter, campaign finance, Colorado Democracy Alliance, Democracy Alliance, Dominic DelPapa, Evan Dreyer, Joan Fitz-Gerald
October 1, 2008
Face The State Staff Report
In a confidential internal memorandum obtained by Face The State (PDF), the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of "operatives" who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state's liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to "educate the idiots," assigned to the state's AFL-CIO union. Among the operation's intended targets: "minorities, GED's, drop-outs."
Individuals named in the document, marked "CONFIDENTIAL," "for internal use only," and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE," are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter's press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as "off-the-record or covert."
Mentioned as a "critical contact" was Dominic DelPapa, a partner at Ikon Public Affairs. DelPapa was at the center of recent controversy stemming from the February leak of a confidential memo he authored detailing a multi-million dollar "foot on throat" attack on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, among others.
CoDA is one of 18 state-based versions of the nationally focused Democracy Alliance, a self-described "investment partnership of business and philanthropic leaders" funding liberal infrastructure nationwide. For more information about the Democracy Alliance in Colorado, see day one and two of Face The State's week-long series on the group.
In a podcast released by the DNC Host Committee Tuesday, national Democracy Alliance founder Rob Stein explains the need for large, secretive donor networks. "We do not have the infrastructure that the right has built, yet," he said. "But there has never in the history of progressivedom (sic) been a clearer, more strategic, more focused, more disciplined, better financed group of institutions operating at the state and national level."
In the same podcast, Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, the newly installed executive director of CoDA, explains her organization's mission. "Our job is to build a long-term progressive infrastructure in Colorado while we're conceding nothing in the short term in terms of progressive goals at the ballot box."
Zeller had high praise for the state's liberal establishment, specifically naming America Votes, New Era Colorado, Progressive Majority, the Latina Initiative, and ProgressNow as partners in CoDA's coalition building efforts. "CoDA works with all these organizations," she said.
The Bell Policy Center, a liberal think tank that regularly plays host to CoDA board meetings, was praised for its work fighting to dismantle Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. She characterized Colorado's constitutional requirement for voter approval of tax increases as "arcane."
According to Zeller, CoDA operates "in a structure that provides privacy to members." Under current law, this structure is as a taxable non-profit organization that allows individual donors to give anonymously to shared causes. She described the structure as a "fiscal irrigation system" designed to "provide a harvest later this fall."
Stein, the DA founder, said state groups like CoDA have fired "a warning shot to conservatives in America."
"Conservatives have nothing comparable to possibly compete with it, and they better watch out," he said. Colorado was chosen as a test case for exporting DA's national model, due in part to the "significant wealth" of liberal donors living here.
"It's not just individual donors," Zeller said of CoDA's financial underwriting. "One of the things that has been crucial in making the work of the Colorado Democracy Alliance effective in Colorado has been our partnership with institutional donors and activist organizations in labor, particularly," she said. "That's been a major part of how we get our work done here."
According to Zeller, CoDA's giving is concentrated in five general funding categories: leadership development, communications, "research and ideas," "civic engagement" and "constituency development."
"We embrace the 'progressive' label in our giving and the strategic role we play in Colorado politics," she said.
Despite sweeping gains for political liberals both in Colorado and nationally, Stein believes his coalition can do a better job of communicating with voters.
"It feels scary, because we don't have the message down right," he said. "[But] We're being more businesslike - we're being more professional."
October 1, 2008
Face The State Staff Report
In a confidential internal memorandum obtained by Face The State (PDF), the Colorado Democracy Alliance outlines a roster of "operatives" who worked for Democratic victory in the 2006 general election. The document outlines specific tasks for various members of the state's liberal infrastructure, including a campaign to "educate the idiots," assigned to the state's AFL-CIO union. Among the operation's intended targets: "minorities, GED's, drop-outs."
Individuals named in the document, marked "CONFIDENTIAL," "for internal use only," and "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE," are high-level elected Democrats including House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, former Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, as well as Gov. Bill Ritter's press aide and former campaign chief Evan Dreyer. All are specially marked as "off-the-record or covert."
Mentioned as a "critical contact" was Dominic DelPapa, a partner at Ikon Public Affairs. DelPapa was at the center of recent controversy stemming from the February leak of a confidential memo he authored detailing a multi-million dollar "foot on throat" attack on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, among others.
CoDA is one of 18 state-based versions of the nationally focused Democracy Alliance, a self-described "investment partnership of business and philanthropic leaders" funding liberal infrastructure nationwide. For more information about the Democracy Alliance in Colorado, see day one and two of Face The State's week-long series on the group.
In a podcast released by the DNC Host Committee Tuesday, national Democracy Alliance founder Rob Stein explains the need for large, secretive donor networks. "We do not have the infrastructure that the right has built, yet," he said. "But there has never in the history of progressivedom (sic) been a clearer, more strategic, more focused, more disciplined, better financed group of institutions operating at the state and national level."
In the same podcast, Laurie Hirschfeld Zeller, the newly installed executive director of CoDA, explains her organization's mission. "Our job is to build a long-term progressive infrastructure in Colorado while we're conceding nothing in the short term in terms of progressive goals at the ballot box."
Zeller had high praise for the state's liberal establishment, specifically naming America Votes, New Era Colorado, Progressive Majority, the Latina Initiative, and ProgressNow as partners in CoDA's coalition building efforts. "CoDA works with all these organizations," she said.
The Bell Policy Center, a liberal think tank that regularly plays host to CoDA board meetings, was praised for its work fighting to dismantle Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. She characterized Colorado's constitutional requirement for voter approval of tax increases as "arcane."
According to Zeller, CoDA operates "in a structure that provides privacy to members." Under current law, this structure is as a taxable non-profit organization that allows individual donors to give anonymously to shared causes. She described the structure as a "fiscal irrigation system" designed to "provide a harvest later this fall."
Stein, the DA founder, said state groups like CoDA have fired "a warning shot to conservatives in America."
"Conservatives have nothing comparable to possibly compete with it, and they better watch out," he said. Colorado was chosen as a test case for exporting DA's national model, due in part to the "significant wealth" of liberal donors living here.
"It's not just individual donors," Zeller said of CoDA's financial underwriting. "One of the things that has been crucial in making the work of the Colorado Democracy Alliance effective in Colorado has been our partnership with institutional donors and activist organizations in labor, particularly," she said. "That's been a major part of how we get our work done here."
According to Zeller, CoDA's giving is concentrated in five general funding categories: leadership development, communications, "research and ideas," "civic engagement" and "constituency development."
"We embrace the 'progressive' label in our giving and the strategic role we play in Colorado politics," she said.
Despite sweeping gains for political liberals both in Colorado and nationally, Stein believes his coalition can do a better job of communicating with voters.
"It feels scary, because we don't have the message down right," he said. "[But] We're being more businesslike - we're being more professional."
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Obama the Amateur vs. The Statesman
by David Kilpatrick
It's time for true colors to be seen. In light of the largest financial crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, McCain has decided to suspend the campaign of partisan attacks, reach across the aisle, once again, and do what needs to be done to serve the American public. After all, a Senator is a public servant, right? But, from Obama's shock at McCain's announcement that he really does put his country ahead of his party, we can see Obama's true priority: GETTING ELECTED first, while serving the country at his convenience which, with only 143 days in the Senate, he has yet to really begin doing.
For BOTH Senators to return to Washington at this time would prove their devotion to the country, but Obama will stoop to no such self-sacrificing move. He feels he would be better served if he were out giving speeches trying to motivate people to vote for him, a man with so few accomplishments, that one is really left in a sobering state of shock to realize that he could become the leader of the free world AFTER demonstrating that HIS needs and ambitions come first.
The question is simply: Is Obama still a Senator with a duty to serve the people? If so, can we ask him to do something other than vote "present" on important issues that will effect us for years to come? Or, is he already an exalted messiah that is above such demeaning things as returning to Washington to help steer the country through such dangerous and uncharted waters? He must realize, based on his past record, that if he doesn't input anything useful, he can later claim that he didn't cause the problem... and use that point to forward his career. Sadly, it's also like a race car driver refusing to steer and then claiming he could not have been responsible for the crash because his hands were no where near the steering wheel!
Obama is arguing that he can do two things at a time: maintain a back-breaking campaign/fund raising schedule AND simultaneously dedicate himself 100% to helping restore the economy. Is he so mighty? I think not. Obama is demonstrating that he is drunk with his own rhetoric! Does he imagine that his simple signature on someone else's work will suffice? Does he imagine that he is not required, as the leader of the Democrat party, to assist in finding solutions? What could be more important than attending to the crisis at had? Obama's political ambitions and quest for power? That, in his mind, is much more important than helping the country right now on Wall Street OR on Main Street and, as usual, he has no legislation offered and no ideas presented to the Senate, a body he still claims to be a member of.
One thing is absolutely certain. When this crisis has passed, as all do, thanks to the hard work and selflessness of real men like John McCain, we will not have Obama to thank. We can also be sure that if Obama is elected, we will have little to thank him for later. Simply put, his plans to raise taxes and double spending don't fit today's economic environment. On the other hand, maybe it's best that he stay out of Washington so that the real men can get things done. We can call him for his autograph later, then he can claim the credit like the clueless little boy that he is.
For Obama to remain on the stump attacking John McCain while McCain is doing what he can to help the country is a new definition of low in American politics. Obama is looking more and more like the junior mechanic who doesn't want to soil his overalls, while criticizing the man that is covered head-to-toe with the grime of getting things fixed.
It's time for true colors to be seen. In light of the largest financial crisis to face our country since the Great Depression, McCain has decided to suspend the campaign of partisan attacks, reach across the aisle, once again, and do what needs to be done to serve the American public. After all, a Senator is a public servant, right? But, from Obama's shock at McCain's announcement that he really does put his country ahead of his party, we can see Obama's true priority: GETTING ELECTED first, while serving the country at his convenience which, with only 143 days in the Senate, he has yet to really begin doing.
For BOTH Senators to return to Washington at this time would prove their devotion to the country, but Obama will stoop to no such self-sacrificing move. He feels he would be better served if he were out giving speeches trying to motivate people to vote for him, a man with so few accomplishments, that one is really left in a sobering state of shock to realize that he could become the leader of the free world AFTER demonstrating that HIS needs and ambitions come first.
The question is simply: Is Obama still a Senator with a duty to serve the people? If so, can we ask him to do something other than vote "present" on important issues that will effect us for years to come? Or, is he already an exalted messiah that is above such demeaning things as returning to Washington to help steer the country through such dangerous and uncharted waters? He must realize, based on his past record, that if he doesn't input anything useful, he can later claim that he didn't cause the problem... and use that point to forward his career. Sadly, it's also like a race car driver refusing to steer and then claiming he could not have been responsible for the crash because his hands were no where near the steering wheel!
Obama is arguing that he can do two things at a time: maintain a back-breaking campaign/fund raising schedule AND simultaneously dedicate himself 100% to helping restore the economy. Is he so mighty? I think not. Obama is demonstrating that he is drunk with his own rhetoric! Does he imagine that his simple signature on someone else's work will suffice? Does he imagine that he is not required, as the leader of the Democrat party, to assist in finding solutions? What could be more important than attending to the crisis at had? Obama's political ambitions and quest for power? That, in his mind, is much more important than helping the country right now on Wall Street OR on Main Street and, as usual, he has no legislation offered and no ideas presented to the Senate, a body he still claims to be a member of.
One thing is absolutely certain. When this crisis has passed, as all do, thanks to the hard work and selflessness of real men like John McCain, we will not have Obama to thank. We can also be sure that if Obama is elected, we will have little to thank him for later. Simply put, his plans to raise taxes and double spending don't fit today's economic environment. On the other hand, maybe it's best that he stay out of Washington so that the real men can get things done. We can call him for his autograph later, then he can claim the credit like the clueless little boy that he is.
For Obama to remain on the stump attacking John McCain while McCain is doing what he can to help the country is a new definition of low in American politics. Obama is looking more and more like the junior mechanic who doesn't want to soil his overalls, while criticizing the man that is covered head-to-toe with the grime of getting things fixed.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Emerging Obama Deficit
By Dick Morris
There appears to be a gap of between 10 and 20 points between how voters see the parties and what they think of the candidates. Between one-tenth and one-fifth of America’s voters feel that the Democratic Party would be the best for the country but like the McCain-Palin ticket better.
•By seven points, they identify as Democrats more than Republicans. But by 16 points, they say that if they faced the “toughest decision of your life” they would go to McCain rather than Obama for advice.
• They think the Democrats will do better on healthcare by 19 points, but by 20 points they think McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president.
document.
• They prefer the Democrats to deal with the economy by four points (down from 10 a few months ago) but feel — by eight points — that the Republicans better understand what it is like to live day by day in America.
• While they are more likely to vote Democrat for Congress, they rate Obama as more of a talker than a doer by 20 points and rate McCain the opposite by 15 and, by nine points, they think the Republican ticket has the better judgment than the Democratic nominees.
If this were a nonpartisan mayoral election, McCain would win in a walk. If this were a European-style proportional representation contest, Obama would be the next president by a good margin. But our system is a unique fusion, of course, of the two — a decision on the candidate and on the party.
How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him. Asked in the Fox News poll whether each candidate is a “talker” or a “doer,” voters perceive Obama as more of a talker by 15 points and see McCain as more of a doer by 24 points.
This kind of gap in the assessment of the candidates shows dramatically what a steep hill Obama has yet to climb. But the fact that the very same sample on the Fox News poll turned right around and voted for McCain by only three points shows how skewed the party preference is against McCain.
In effect, a lot of Democrats and independents are saying we trust McCain more, he has better judgment, he is more of a doer, and we think he’s more qualified — but we are going to vote for Obama because he is a Democrat and we agree with his party more on healthcare, energy and the economy.
Such a dichotomy is an unnatural political situation. Since 2000, we have become accustomed to 50-50 politics with each side holding its red states or blue ones close to its vest with few voters in the no man’s land in between. But the portrait that emerges from the polling is quite different. It is a consensus on how much water there is in the glass. The only difference is whether to see it as half-empty or half-full!
What will prevail? Party or candidate? It’s hard to tell. But debates are between people, not parties, and it is the three debates that will probably determine the outcome of this race.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
There appears to be a gap of between 10 and 20 points between how voters see the parties and what they think of the candidates. Between one-tenth and one-fifth of America’s voters feel that the Democratic Party would be the best for the country but like the McCain-Palin ticket better.
•By seven points, they identify as Democrats more than Republicans. But by 16 points, they say that if they faced the “toughest decision of your life” they would go to McCain rather than Obama for advice.
• They think the Democrats will do better on healthcare by 19 points, but by 20 points they think McCain is more qualified than Obama to be president.
document.
• They prefer the Democrats to deal with the economy by four points (down from 10 a few months ago) but feel — by eight points — that the Republicans better understand what it is like to live day by day in America.
• While they are more likely to vote Democrat for Congress, they rate Obama as more of a talker than a doer by 20 points and rate McCain the opposite by 15 and, by nine points, they think the Republican ticket has the better judgment than the Democratic nominees.
If this were a nonpartisan mayoral election, McCain would win in a walk. If this were a European-style proportional representation contest, Obama would be the next president by a good margin. But our system is a unique fusion, of course, of the two — a decision on the candidate and on the party.
How odd that Obama, with a world-class personality and an incredibly charismatic speaking style, should be losing the mano-a-mano contest to McCain, who is 25 years older and a foot shorter. But McCain has opened up a decisive lead over Obama, actually using the Democrat’s articulateness against him. Asked in the Fox News poll whether each candidate is a “talker” or a “doer,” voters perceive Obama as more of a talker by 15 points and see McCain as more of a doer by 24 points.
This kind of gap in the assessment of the candidates shows dramatically what a steep hill Obama has yet to climb. But the fact that the very same sample on the Fox News poll turned right around and voted for McCain by only three points shows how skewed the party preference is against McCain.
In effect, a lot of Democrats and independents are saying we trust McCain more, he has better judgment, he is more of a doer, and we think he’s more qualified — but we are going to vote for Obama because he is a Democrat and we agree with his party more on healthcare, energy and the economy.
Such a dichotomy is an unnatural political situation. Since 2000, we have become accustomed to 50-50 politics with each side holding its red states or blue ones close to its vest with few voters in the no man’s land in between. But the portrait that emerges from the polling is quite different. It is a consensus on how much water there is in the glass. The only difference is whether to see it as half-empty or half-full!
What will prevail? Party or candidate? It’s hard to tell. But debates are between people, not parties, and it is the three debates that will probably determine the outcome of this race.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)