Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: The Main Idea...

...is to inspire people think and act differently.

No, the goal of politicians today is to inspire people NOT to think at all. If they did, no one would vote.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

You know, I would. But I have to organize my sock drawer first.

I'm trying to be a kinder gentler libertarian, but I've got to wipe the soda off of the computer monitor that came out of my nose first.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: To Tmy:

Actually, I think that's a great idea. Use half your campaign money to make big charitable donations instead of mass mailing crap.
Make a statement that you're not quite the usual slimy politician.

But Kerry is quite the usual slimy politician...

 

[Snide]

Re: Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

I'm trying to be a kinder gentler libertarian, but I've got to wipe the soda off of the computer monitor that came out of my nose first.

It was the secret service line that got me. At least on this diet I've started, it's only water on the monitor...much easier to deal with.

 

[Jocko]

You'll find that KOA isn't much of a "details" man.

Some details he has failed to plan for in previous schemes:

- The laws of economics
- Ownership rights and copyright
- Newton's laws of motion
- The conservation of matter and energy
- Ecology
- Common sense
- Relativity
- Gravity

So please be sure to cross-reference any future schemes with the details listed above. It will save you a lot of typing.

 

[Kodiak]

I got it!


Kerry should get with Martin Sheen and pass out McDonald's Gift Certificates to minorities and the homeless in key battleground states.

Or, if he wants to target those that actually vote, he could start the "Soccer Ball For Every Mom" program. 'Soccer' + 'Moms' = Victory! They voted for Clinton, didn't they?

 

[King of the Americas]

Why NOT...?

Allowing and influencepoliticians to buy our vote, instead of them paying media outlets to try and 'trick' us into voting for them using fancy ads?

SHOW me what you will do the the entire budget, by offer sample locations of what you think should be done with financial resources. If it works and the people are pleased with the positive changes the politicians has made, they'll elect him.

This is a "lead by example" concept.

Campagin slogans aren't news, and politicians shouldn't waste money trying to make them that way.

What WOULD be news if a government institution was 'fully funded' to the extent that it could accomplish the goal of greater self sufficiency, to become ess of a burder on the taxpayers.

You don't neccessarily have to build buildings. You can buy street sweepers, bull dozers, or firetrucks, and put "John Kerry for President" on them.

Provide the people with what they need INSTEAD of buy media ads to make them think of you in a better light. IF you sincerely help them, they will see you in a better light!

 

[Jocko]

Lead by gimmick, you mean.

$70 million to spend.
Roughly 200 million voting-age Americans.

Since you're talking about "public good works," you can't differntiate between Democrats who will already be supporting you from the Republicans who never will ... or the independents that might. So you're stuck spending money equally.

That works out to 35 cents worth of good works per voter. Even a bum like you can afford to turn up your nose at that kind of "example."

So tell me, KOA, what is so compelling about 35 cents worth of charity that will overcome the fact that, due to a complete lack of advertising, very few voters will know what you stand for - apart from buying bulldozers?

How, exactly, do you see that playing out? Please describe.

 

[Jocko]

Some details he has failed to plan for in previous schemes:

- The laws of economics
- Ownership rights and copyright
- Newton's laws of motion
- The conservation of matter and energy
- Ecology
- Common sense
- Relativity
- Gravity

Let me add "Simple math" to the list.

The funniest thing of all is that after a politician is elected, these kinds of "public good works" are called "pork." Apparently buying votes is okay, but bringing home the bacon is not.

 

[wjousts]

Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

I believe I heard on the news last night that he is limited to $70 million or something.

Both Kerry and Bush are limited to $75 million of federal money [Libertarians: insert rant about taxes here] after they are offically nominated. Prior to being nominated they are free to raise and spend as much money as they want. This is why Kerry was considering delaying accepting the nomination as the Democratic convention is 5 weeks before the Republican convention, i.e. Bush will have 5 weeks were he can spend unlimited amounts but Kerry will already be limited to $75 million through the election.
I only bring up this correction because Jocko has already used it again

Originally posted by Jocko
$70 million to spend.

Although Jocko's point is still valid because we're still talking about a very small amount of money per voter, but he is ignoring KOA's point which was to only use the money in battleground states.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

Although Jocko's point is still valid because we're still talking about a very small amount of money per voter, but he is ignoring KOA's point which was to only use the money in battleground states.

Ah, but you miss the foundation of the idea. Selectively aiding only battleground states debases the whole idea of "good works," doesn't it? I mean, Illinois will go Democrat and is certainly not a battleground state; are the "needs of the people" any less because of that?

Besides, most people will vote based on what they know about a candidate's position on taxes, international policy, etc. rather than which one bought the community a new swing set - a whole park, MAYBE- but not the kind of stuff these pennies will buy.

The right policies make it possibile for the community to buy their own stuff.

 

[King of the Americas]

Thank You wjousts:

Indeed Jocko both underestimated the public funds of 75 million and forgot about the moneys the candidates could raise before the deadline.

However, what I actually suggested is spending the money in the President's srongholds. If Kerry can weaken the strongholds, there won't be anything from swaying the battlegound states easily.

This is Senator Kerry's opportunity to turn the worm, and it could cause a political revolution in garnering publicity!

(*Side note- Fire fighter boot cost a little over a hundred buck a pay. What "plays" better on T.V.? A campaign ad, or a news story that Kerry bought30 pairs of new boots for a local first response team. Each costs about 3 grand.)

 

[Jocko]

Re: Thank You wjousts:

(*Side note- Fire fighter boot cost a little over a hundred buck a pay. What "plays" better on T.V.? A campaign ad, or a news story that Kerry bought30 pairs of new boots for a local first response team. Each costs about 3 grand.)

Okay, a revised list of ignored details follows:

- The laws of economics
- Ownership rights and copyright
- Newton's laws of motion
- The conservation of matter and energy
- Ecology
- Common sense
- Relativity
- Gravity
- Simple mathematics
- Marketing and media

Keep going, KOA. I'm going to write a thesis on this someday.

 

[wjousts]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

Ah, but you miss the foundation of the idea. Selectively aiding only battleground states debases the whole idea of "good works," doesn't it? I mean, Illinois will go Democrat and is certainly not a battleground state; are the "needs of the people" any less because of that?

I don't disagree with you, I was mearly stating that in the plan the KOA had proposed, the amount of money per person would have been slightly higher than what you calculated.
In fact, even in the current situation the "needs of the people" in non-battleground states are being ignored. For example, let's say California is a good bet for Kerry and Texas is a dead cert for Bush (it really doesn't matter if you don't agree, I'm just trying to make a point. Substitute whichever states you are more comfortable with). Bush won't waste much time and money visiting California if he doesn't think he can win it. Similarily Kerry isn't going to waste his time in Texas (or Indiana, I haven't seen a single Kerry ad in this state!) So the two largest states are being ignored by at least one of the candidates. If you also factor in that Kerry isn't going to waste a lot of money in California either (because he thinks it's in the bag) and Bush isn't going to sweat it in Texas either, you find that BOTH candidates are going to mostly ignore the two most populous states of the union. It's all because of that crazy electorial college.

Besides, most people will vote based on what they know about a candidate's position on taxes, international policy, etc. rather than which one bought the community a new swing set. The right policies make it possibile for the community to buy their own stuff. [/QUOTE]

Agreed.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

I don't disagree with you, I was mearly stating that in the plan the KOA had proposed, the amount of money per person would have been slightly higher than what you calculated.
In fact, even in the current situation the "needs of the people" in non-battleground states are being ignored. For example, let's say California is a good bet for Kerry and Texas is a dead cert for Bush (it really doesn't matter if you don't agree, I'm just trying to make a point. Substitute whichever states you are more comfortable with). Bush won't waste much time and money visiting California if he doesn't think he can win it. Similarily Kerry isn't going to waste his time in Texas (or Indiana, I haven't seen a single Kerry ad in this state!) So the two largest states are being ignored by at least one of the candidates. If you also factor in that Kerry isn't going to waste a lot of money in California either (because he thinks it's in the bag) and Bush isn't going to sweat it in Texas either, you find that BOTH candidates are going to mostly ignore the two most populous states of the union. It's all because of that crazy electorial college.

I'm with you on this. But withholding your media dollars in safe states is one thing; surely withholding charity (bribery? it's subjective) is another. Does the average Texan benefit from Bush's campaign spending, or suffer from lack of it? Not really. Advertising is fungible, something else will always fill the airtime.

I mean, what kind of good citizen spends charity money with such transparently cynical objectives in mind? It's nothing less than buying votes, the way I read it.

If this idea is to work at all, the candidate must work and give for the good of ALL Americans (or all citizens who live in their districts if its a congressional race, etc.)

KOA likes to re-word old ideas and pretend he's invented something new. Apparently this extends to bribery as well.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The point is to win elections.

Sad isn't it , that that is all it is..?

 

[King of the Americas]

To Diogenes:

I should have qualified that a bit, ehh?

The point is to affect positive change, so that people will deem you electable, thus getting you elected.

It isn't just about getting elected, for ME it is just about affect positive change.

Were 'I' Kerry, and I took this suggestion, I would affect positive change W/O being elected!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: To Diogenes:

I should have qualified that a bit, ehh?

The point is to affect positive change, so that people will deem you electable, thus getting you elected.

It isn't just about getting elected, for ME it is just about affect positive change.

Were 'I' Kerry, and I took this suggestion, I would affect positive change W/O being elected!

I think your intentions are well founded, and proposing such an idea is good in spirit..

On the other hand, it's kind of like saying " Why can't we just all get along? .. "

Sounds like a good idea, but you go first..

If Kerry is not willing to do this without being told, I don't see how his being elected President is going to make things any better for anyone..


(... please resist all " Anything is better than Bush " replies.. )

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Diogenes:

Were 'I' Kerry, and I took this suggestion, I would affect positive change W/O being elected!

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. A noble sentiment, but a completely impractical one.

Kerry sits atop a pile of $70 million (or whatever - Wjousts correctly pointed out that the true figure is much higher and comprised of donations instead of matching funds).

Why do people donate to a candidate, KOA?

Do you think people would have donated umpteen millions to a candidate that wasn't interested in winning? A candidate that isn't Ralph Nader, that is?

No interest in winning=no donations. No donations=no candidate funds. No funds=you.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Diogenes:

Maybe no one ever considered speding campaign donations in this way.

They Kerry would be connected enough to his voters to HEAR such an idea, would sincerely astound me.

Not coming up with a good idea by yourself isn't indicitative of failed leadership. An inability or unwillingness TO listen and look for 'better ways' IS however the benchmark for undemocratic behavior.