the whitestick papers

looking at politics from a different perspective

Posts Tagged ‘Democrat Party

47 Percent

with one comment

There was a time in this country when people were embarrassed to admit they needed help. They wouldn’t accept charity because they believed it was their personal responsibility to provide for themselves and their family and that to accept help from others was to admit failure.

But today, things are different.  If someone points out that a certain political party gets a lot of its support because it promises not only to keep current “entitlements” flowing that certain party cries foul.  Since Mitt Romney has recently done that, the Democrats have decided to use the statements as a way to rally their supporters, as in this recent email direct from the Obama campaign:

From: Stephanie Cutter, BarackObama.com [mailto:info@barackobama.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:35 PM
Subject: “Personal responsibility”

 If you’d like to receive more emails like this, join the Truth Team.

Yesterday, a leaked video from a closed-door fundraiser showed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney telling a room full of big-money donors that Americans who don’t support him think they’re “victims” who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

So rarely over the course of this campaign have we gotten to hear Mitt Romney say what he believes in such a revealing, unfiltered manner. This is one of those moments. It’s important that we make sure that the people in our lives who are just tuning into this election know what disdain and contempt Romney has for half of the citizens of this nation he wants to lead. Take a look at the items in this tipsheet, and then share them with others.

#1 What Americans think of Romney’s comments
The secret video shows that Romney believes nearly half of all Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and don’t pay taxes. Watch this video of Americans listening and reacting to Romney’s shocking comments, and make sure others do too:

#2 Who Romney is writing off?
It’s worth taking a second to look at some of the people who make up the nearly half of the country that Romney has so much disdain for. Who exactly are these people that Romney rips for not paying income taxes? The overwhelming majority are seniors, students, people with disabilities, or working families. They pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and more. Those working families include U.S. soldiers in combat, receptionists, firefighters, and clergy, just to name a few. Certainly, those folks aren’t short on personal responsibility. Read this blog post highlighting some of the Americans that Romney has written off, and share it with others:

#3 Romney’s responsibility map
Romney has said that “my job is not to worry about” the people who don’t support him. But America needs a president who will stand up for all Americans, not just the half of the country who agrees with him. Take a look at this graphic about Romney’s idea of “responsibility” and post it to your Facebook wall.

Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. — Another way to fight back against Romney and his divisive politics is to chip in and help fund our grassroots campaign. Romney has big-money donors at closed-door fundraisers, President Obama has you. Chip in $25 or more today.

Paid for by Obama for America

Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible.

 

You should also note Mitt Romney owned up to the statement.  He could have, like President Obama with the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, try to deflect attention away from the main issue by pointing out the clip ,ay have been obtained  illegally.  Or, again like President Obama with the “you didn’t build that” quote, try to weasel out of the statement and claim it was taken out of context, even though the clip on Mother Jones is clearly edited.  Instead, he stood up, admitted it could have been said better but the statement itself is fundamentally true.  That shows strength of character not seen in many political leaders, and most certainly not from the present Administration.

Founding Father James Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…”.  We’ve wandered from from the principles of the Constitution, and have gotten to the point where many Americans – and 47 percent is not an unreasonable percentage – not only accept the slavery that comes with government benevolence, but crave and demand it.  Many politicians on both sides of the aisle seem content to not rock the boat and, in fact, work to make it ever larger.

Maybe, just maybe, we’ve found one who will not only rock it, but sink the boat.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

20 September 2012 at 6:20 am

The lesser of two evils…

leave a comment »

It is perhaps the most frustrating of choices; to look on the ballot and try to pick the candidate you dislike the least.  Is there no one you can soundly support or are you forced to vote for one person because you’re determined to vote against their opponent?

The fact is, no matter who you vote for, you’re always voting for the lesser of two evils.

There are a couple of reasons for this, both of which trace back to basic human nature.  The first reality is that everyone is flawed.  Some more than others, of course, but the fact is no one is perfect.  This is true for everyone and seems to be particularly true for those who seek political office.

The second factor flows from this; power corrupts.  Those who seek political office often seek that power and, with it, the inevitable corruption.  Some resist more than others, but it taints everyone.

Taking into account that you will always vote for the person who, to you, is the lesser of two evils, let’s apply that to the current Presidential race.  Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be elected in November.   Sure; there are those who hope others might but, unless you’re completely deluded, even the most loyal follower of one of the “also ran” candidates has to admit that.

Your choice comes down to someone who might be less than what you’d prefer but, in general, agrees with you on many, if not most, points.  Mitt Romney embodies the value of a free market, the necessity of a reduced government and the economic ruin caused by a runaway deficit.  He shows he understands that the country’s greatness has been built by people, not the government.

Or you can vote for a person who has demonstrated a total commitment to Keynesian economics, anti-colonial loathing of America and a willingness to reward some and punish others both domestically and as a foreign policy.  Barack Obama told the Russian President he would do even more in a second term and, since he wouldn’t have to deal with another re-election, he easily could.  Is that what you want?

To vote for someone else or to not vote is to let Obama win by default.  For a person of principle, who wants a restoration of American liberty and rule of law, the only logical choice is to go with the one who could turn things around.  Even though flawed, Romney is more likely to stop the current devolution than to continue, much less accelerate it.

Sure, Romney’s not perfect.

Who is?

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

13 September 2012 at 8:21 am

One fish, two fish, red fish, Wu fish…

leave a comment »

 

Taken 10/2/2010

With apologies to Dr. Seuss, there’s just something fishy with the ever-changing explanations Rep. David Wu (D-OR1)  has given for the sudden departure of six staffers weeks after the November 2010 elections.   Odd as the behavior reportedly was, it doesn’t explain too many known facts to be credible.

 

In fact, it kind of smells like a cover-up.  And, with excuses as flimsy and unpalatable as he’s given, if it is a cover-up you can’t help but wonder what would be so much worse that these look viable as alternatives.

Staffers leave Congressional offices for greener pastures all the time, and to have six or seven switch jobs in and of itself isn’t at all unusual.  What’s striking about this particular changing of the guard is the timing.  Apparently, the staffers left sometime in late January or early February and, more specifically, after the opening of Congress.  The time to make transitions is, well, during the transition period between the November election and the inauguration in late January.

This abnormal timing becomes even more striking when you realize that the  Congressman’s odd behavior – a weird speech or two, pushing past TSA to greet incoming passengers and the notorious tiger costume photo – and the “intervention” that supposedly formed the foundation for the exodus – all took place before the election.

Why resign after the plum jobs had been taken when you knew you were upset before the openings even occurred?  These aren’t stupid people and, after serving a sitting and recently re-elected Congressman, some of them for a decade or more, they could have written their own ticket.  Sure, they’re loyal, but when cash is on the line and you’re no longer quite so enamored of your boss, that loyalty doesn’t have a chance of winning out.

Then there’s the strangely growing nature of the explanations, not to mention a really poorly-done TV interview.  The conventional wisdom dealing with scandals is to get the word out, control the message, and make a strong presentation in the media to shore up support.  Wu did this masterfully in 2004, when The Oregonian revealed a quashed sex scandal from his days at Stanford.  He waited until his Republican opponent committed herself on it and then covered the airways with a sincere sounding mea culpa.  The result; what had been a horse race became a rout in his favor.

Speaking of the 2004 revelation, this may provide a hint as to what’s really going on.  At the time, most insiders knew there was more to the story than the press was able to release.  A similar but much more recent story floated to the surface in the summer of 2005 but was also successfully stifled before it was able to grow legs.  When you note that most of the folks who left are young women, it’s natural for a suspicion to arise.

It looks like, should just one woman decide enough was enough, brave the loyalist brickbats and media slings and arrows, and let her story be told, there would be a parade of women to rival that which took out Bob Packwood.  That’s an eventuality that, in the mind of Representative Wu, could be seen worth a cover-up involving a mental breakdown and inappropriate drug use.

For the time being, we have just that lackluster and bullet point-laden interview (seriously, how many times do we need to hear he’s taking care of his kids, his mother and himself before it becomes obvious he’s not really dealing with the actual issues) and some shallow press releases keeping us from finding out what’s really going on.  Despite a poor record when it comes to investigative reporting, a number of state newspapers are calling for him to resign.

Considering just how fishy this whole thing seems, that’s probably the most appropriate thing  for both them and Congressman Wu.

Follow this story, it’s history and the interview mentioned at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_congressman_mental_health

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

26 February 2011 at 10:54 am

You’d think we’d learn…

leave a comment »

Thanks to NW Republican for bringing this to our attention:  http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/12/just-another-we-told-you-so-moment.html which, in turn, referenced Jeff Mapes’ blog: http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/12/kulongoskis_spokeswoman_joins.html

In a year which saw a Republican tsunami change the shape of the US House, US Senate and a number of Governorships, even poor little blue state Oregon should have seen something more than the red tide that evened out our House and Senate, more or less.  But, because our Republican candidates keep hiring the same consultants, we keep getting trounced – even in banner Republican years.  A friend of mine is fond of saying, “If you keep doing what you’re doing you’ll keep getting what you’re getting,” but Oregon Republicans keep hiring the “certified smart” people who have lost election after election.

Now that the dust has settled from last month’s game-changer, we’re seeing stories like this crop up.  The guy who talked center-right Senator Gordon Smith into becoming center-left has now hired the former spokeswoman for the guy who’s just now realizing Oregon has a budget problem.  Dan Lavey’s last major Republican client turned out to have voted for Obama in 2008 and, despite heavy name recognition, couldn’t overcome an unprecedented third-term by a guy who left saying the state was ungovernable.  It’s enough to make you wonder where the guy’s loyalties lie.  It sure doesn’t seem to be with promoting Republican ideals and tapping in to the thirst for liberty that’s taken over most of the country.

If and only if Republican candidates in Oregon stop paying attention to advisors who tell them to run toward the center and to not make waves can we hope to see a powerful Republican surge in the state.  For the time being, however, it looks like we’re only going to keep getting what we’ve been getting.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

7 December 2010 at 3:45 pm

Deeper thoughts on the election

leave a comment »

There’s been a bit of comment from the media and the like about how Chris Dudley didn’t do as well as expected in Washington County.  First, I disagree; it seems to me his real problem, like Kevin Mannix’s in 2002, were the 70,000 ballots held back in Multnomah County and which turned a close Election Night Republican victory into a close defeat.  But we’re never going to prove political malfeasance in the People’s Republic of Portland; as has been commented in the past, Republicans have to win by at least 3% in order to overcome the systemic fraud.

But, giving the “certified smart” crowd the credit due them, let’s look at the idea that Washington County was at the heart of Dudley’s defeat.  I can tell you, it wasn’t for lack of trying.  We had one and, eventually, two full-time offices in Washington County, pumping out voter ID and Get Out The Vote (GOTV) calls and door-to-door reminders by the thousands.  Chris Dudley and Rob Cornilles were our main men, and folks can tell you they received calls – sometimes three and four in a day – from those offices, encouraging them to get their ballot turned in.  Kevin Hoar, Andrew Ward, Polly Warren and a host of others, including this writer, spend endless hours making those things hum.  In terms of organization and effort, they cannot be faulted.  They were joined by others around the state but, when all the numbers are in, it was the two offices in Washington County that lead the pack in output.  That, clearly, wasn’t the problem.

So, if the effort isn’t the problem, what is?  I think there are three components; shifting demographics, unhelpful helpers and sunshine soldiers.  Let me explain.

Over the past couple of decades, the demographics of Washington County have changed.  Fleeing the taxes and government intrusion rampant in Multnomah County, a lot of folks filled up the urban growth boundary and the condos it caused.  Unfortunately, they brought their ideology with them, not realizing that was what caused the problems they were trying to escape.  As a result, a large chuck of the population, particularly in the denser areas as you get closer to Portland, tend to vote “No” on new taxes while electing people who propose them.  As evidence, track the voter registration shifts.

There’s nothing anyone can do about demographics; Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden have seats virtually for life (although, to give her credit, Delia Lopez made an excellent showing in the Third District) and that’s largely due to the kind of folks voting for them.  What we can affect, however, is voter turnout – how many of our known voters get their ballot in versus how many of theirs do.  While we did a good job – Republican-registered voters turned out in significantly greater percentages than did Democrats – there were holes in the process.  To understand where the “unhelpful helpers” and “sunshine soldiers” come in and how they affected things, I have to explain what we were trying to do.

Get out the vote efforts typically account for a swing of 4-6% in the final election outcome.  In other words, if Candidate “Red” Runner would have gotten 48% (and lost) without a GOTV effort, it could bring him 52-54% (and a win) instead.  It is, quite frankly, one of the most powerful tools in any campaign’s arsenal; things like yard signs, palm cards, parade walks and town halls typically net less than 1% each and, while TV and radio commercials count for a lot, basically what you do with those is make sure people know the candidate’s name and what they’re running for.

You need to realize GOTV is actually a two-part process; first, you have to find the folks who are going to vote for your guy and then you have to get them to vote.  If they support you but forget to cast their ballot and, in Oregon, get it in on time, it’s useless.

As there usually are, there were a lot of people who wouldn’t get with the program.  What they did helped but, because it wasn’t part of the overall plan, it didn’t help as much.  I’m aware of a number of well-intentioned people who did what worked so well when they did it in “that mayor’s race” 15 years ago, hitting hundreds of houses in an evening with campaign literature for Chris Dudley and Rob Cornilles.  And the folks who’ve never been involved in a campaign before thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality and declining to fill out the survey’s that would have told us who those dozens of potential Huffman voters were so we could remind them to get their ballot in.  The help is appreciated, but it’s not as helpful as it could have been if they’d just filled out the surveys and let us know who was voting for our guys and gals.

Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, mentions “sunshine soldiers”, those who would fight for freedom as long as it wasn’t inconvenient.   We had a lot of people, paid and unpaid, involved in the final effort, but the real need for lots of people and lots of time is during the voter ID phase.  Think about it; that’s when we winnow out the bad phone numbers, people who are voting for the other folks and, some of the time, finding the gems – folks who were going to vote for our guys.  It’s long, boring and tedious work so, not too many people showed up.  They were there when the candidates visited, during the closing days, because there was excitement and recognition, and they did play an important part – I don’t want to diminish that.  But the real son or daughter of liberty is the one who was there when there was no glory.

Would you like proof?  How about the “three and four calls a day” mentioned earlier?  Sure, there would be some households with two or three voters in it, each programmed to receive a call, but getting several of them in a day means we had a small pool to work with – smaller than needed, anyway.   And that traces back to not enough fishermen during the summer months finding those voters supporting Dudley, Cornilles and other Republican candidates.

Want more proof?  Three candidates used the Hillsboro call center to full advantage.  They based their campaigns there, paid for voter ID callers and even ran a special night once a week to focus on their districts and their races.  As a result, Senator Starr beat back the strongest opposition of his political career – one which the opinion polls indicated he should have lost – and newcomers Shawn Lindsey and Katie Eyre-Brewer won over stout competition.  All exceeded projections by 3-5%, while most other state Representative and Senate candidates in the county – including those with (largely unused) offices in the building – lost by at least a few percent.

There’s even more evidence of the trend.  Andy Duyck, of the three Republican County Commission candidates during the Primary, used the phone bank system to identify supporters and get out the vote.  He won by more than 50% in May and, as a result, didn’t need a run-off.  The other two never did use the office to it’s full potential; both came in with less than 50% in the Primary and, while one won in the General, the other didn’t.

We can’t do much about the demographics, but we – you and I – sure can do something about doing the voter ID process well.   It makes a significant difference in the outcome and, the larger the race (in terms of raw number of voters) the greater the need.  In future elections, every TEA Party and Republican Patriot should plan now to not only spend some time as a volunteer, but also be willing to listen and work with the big picture plan.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

6 November 2010 at 10:10 am

Early thoughts on the first major battle…

leave a comment »

Second American Revolution

For most of the last two years, the United States has been building to what I hope is the Second American Revolution.  This is a revolution that uses ballots rather than bullets but one that will determine whether this is a nation that strives for liberty or devolves into just another oppressed people eking what joy they can from past power and glory.  The first major battle of that modern rebellion was fought last Tuesday and it’s always good to figure out what went well and, more to the point, what didn’t and why.

One major win is that Nancy Pelosi will no longer be third in line for the Presidency.  She held on to her position as a Representative from California, but there was a significant change in the House.  It’s a bit early to tell the final count for sure, but it’s clear the Democrats lost their supermajority.  The Republicans don’t have enough to  overturn a veto but they don’t need it; the Obama effort to fundamentally change America is stalled – assuming, of course, the American people keep paying attention and Congress pays attention to what they say.  There’s no guarantee, unfortunately, that either will be true.

The situation in the Senate is a little less rosy.  Projections show it as close to an even split as you can get, and there’s the Murray/Rossi race in Washington state that will make the difference.  Here’s hoping Rossi doesn’t experience the same disappointment as he did in 2004, when Democrats kept counting the ballots until they got the result they wanted and his win as Governor was turned into a loss.  With Vice President Joe Biden as the tie-breaker in the upper chamber, Harry Reid will still be the Senate President, but he’ll be ruling over a much different dynamic.  Heck, they might even start taking input from Republicans.

Yeah, right.

The Senate is also where three key races ended in defeat for the cause of liberty.  As already implied, Harry Reid seems to have beat Sharon Angle in Nevada, the race in Alaska apparently went to sore loser Lisa Murkowski and upstart Christine O’Donnell didn’t quite make the cut in Delaware.  Over the next several days and months I’m pretty sure the MSM and “certified smart” people on both the left and the right are going to be talking about how this is a loss, a disappointment or at least evidence  the Tea Party movement isn’t really all that much of an issue.  Don’t believe them.  We haven’t seen the last of these folks and the dream of a return to a Constitutional Republic is still quite alive, thank you very much.

And don’t forget “Tea Party” favorites like Michele Bachman and Mike Lee  were successful.   As the war continues, some of the other elected officials can still catch on.

Remember, this was just the first major battle of this revolution.  While the rebels held the mighty British army at bay during the Battle of Breed’s Hill (often called Bunker Hill), they were eventually routed so it wasn’t a clear victory.  Most battles – particularly early ones – don’t have clear winners and losers.  The important thing is that we’ve had the battle, we won more than we lost and, at the end of the day, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi stampede to socialism has been stalled.

We have other skirmishes and battles ahead of us but, as first tests of resolve go, this one didn’t go at all badly.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

4 November 2010 at 6:46 am

This is how we win

leave a comment »

Demo at the Demo

Outside Democrat Headquarters

Last Friday (12 Mar 10), I got a note from Organizing for America (OFA), the ongoing campaign arm of the Obama White House, encouraging me to take part in a “grassroots” event held in my area two days later, on Sunday evening.  As I often do, I used it to prompt Republican Party and Tea Party friends to get the word out to their networks to call their US Representatives to oppose the health care package to be voted on this coming week.

One of the recipients, Tom Cox, picked up on a comment in the message that it’d be neat to arrange a rally and, by that evening, word was coursing through Facebook, Twitter and other social media that we were going to hold a “Demo at the Demo”, a reference to the fact the event was taking place at the headquarters of the Democratic Party of Oregon.

When I got there Sunday evening, there were ten to twelve people on the sidewalk across the street, but that quickly swelled and, by the time we hit our announced starting time, it was well over 50 people.  Final estimates ranged from 80 to 150 total; not bad for less than 60 hours; it would have been great with just ten or twelve but it was exciting to get than many.

Moving across and, to some extent, into the street (not a major thoroughfare by any reckoning), we broke into small groups and discussed why we were there.  Then the best of each group, according to the vote of the group, went to the microphone and let us know their response – great practice for when the media finally pays attention to these grassroots efforts.

We then heard from candidates who were there – John Kuzmanich (http://www.kuzforcongress.com/), Doug Keller (http://keller4congress.com/) and Marc Delphine (http://marcforsenate.com/) as well as local talk radio star, Victoria Taft (http://www.kpam.com/programming/victoria_taft.php) and others.  We chanted a little; took pictures, held signs and just generally had a good time.  As we left, we picked up litter and debris, making the place look better than when we arrived.

Oh, and the massive response OFA was looking for?  Well, as best we could tell, only three or four people showed up.  At least, that’s all the more that came through the crowd to get in while we were there.  Clearly, despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary, the majority of Americans are not in favor of this version of health care reform.

The only way to defeat tyranny is to stand up to it.  If every American who opposes Obamacare, Cap and Trade, bailouts or nationalization of American industries would just show up at something like this, it would stop the slide to socialism.   You don’t have to be there every time, but make a commitment to be there any time you can.  Get informed and get active.

Yesterday, we let the Democrats know we surround them.  We outnumber them and are motivated enough to get out of our easy chairs on a Sunday afternoon to exercise our First Amendment rights.  It’s not a time to be silent; let your voice be heard whenever and wherever you can.  Samuel Adams said it best, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” This is how we win.

Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

15 March 2010 at 10:42 am

Posted in Events

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: