Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein <noeinstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 29, 2:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Very few emerging truths are ever allowed to be covered "as news" in
the media. That's because truths tend to hurt those who are doing the
wrong things, more than the converse. The failed media in this
country is at the very core of America's problems. To correct those
problems will necessitate placing major constraints on allowing ANY
biases in the media to influence ANY decisions of the citizens in how
they will vote in elections or in referenda. So, we in America should
prepare ourselves for living in a world in which "news commentators",
ALL of them, will be an extinct breed.
Recently, I have said that CNN's Wolf Blitzer seems to be showing a
professional detachment in how he administers news stories. This past
Sunday he had James Carville as his guest. As most of you know,
Carville had called Gov. Bill Richardson a... "Judas" for endorsing
Barack Obama. That's because Richardson had served as a cabinet
member during Bill Clinton's administration.
In all fairness, Richardson has every right to switch his loyalty.
But he does NOT have a right to use his own endorsement for anyone
running for office, to persuade others to vote for such person!
Endorsements, more often than not, run counter to democratic
principles. The "buddy-buddy" endorsements by seated officials,
creates these "you owe me one" relationships. Those who manage to get
elected should owe no one anything, other than to do the best job for
all Americans!
James Carville, personality wise, is an ideal person for contrasting
with Barack Obama. Carville shows all of his emotions on his face, or
in his (at times) stammering voice. Those qualities are like windows
to his soul; and he comes across as sincere because of it. Obama, on
the other hand shows NO emotions on his face, nor in his voice. So,
he comes across as someone who can't be analyzed; could be hiding
things; and thus could be untrustworthy.
After Obama made his robot-like address about his relationship with
his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he was interviewed about how his
speech may have allayed the Wright issues. I was taken--not by what
Obama said during the interview--but that he said it without a hint of...
quaver in his voice. There was this hugely emotional issue in which
teary eyes, a nervous hand, or Carville-like stammering voice would
have shown Obama to be... human, and perhaps sincere. But Obama has
never shown, to my satisfaction, that he is sincere about anything.
I've seen recent campaign ads of Obama's that are being run in NC. In
those he talks, assertively, about what he will do for the people if
he is elected President. Obama is wearing a white dress shirt with
his sleeves rolled up--the way Screaming Howard Dean had worn his
sleeves.
Obama's speech would have been great for one running to be a US
Senator, but it wasn't appropriate for a person running for
President. Why? Because the issues facing a president are way too
broad to be embodied in one person. Though Obama is a smart man, he
'might be' a smart man worthy of being President ONLY if he is wise
enough to delegate the working out of the details to his
subordinates. Because Obama is a detail-oriented specialist, he is
incapable--by his personality-- of delegating authority; he is difficult
to approach and befriend; and his ego is so huge that everyone in
Congress will have their guards up so high, that all of those
"promising" political ads of his will have been just so much hot air.
Sadly, many people will think that because Obama is so strong willed,
that he'll accomplish things "for them" that have never been
accomplished before. But nothing could be further from the truth!
Because Obama has ZERO executive, and ZERO foreign policy experience,
he will be... at the mercy of the Democratic Party to tell him how to
"run" things. 'That' is the reason people like Richardson, Daschel,
and Dean are so "supportive"--they want jobs in the Executive Branch
that will look good in their 'biographies'. And when they betray
democratic ideals for selfish ends, they themselves are being un
American.
With the Pennsylvania primary looming large on the horizon, PA Senator
Bob Casey has endorsed Obama. Those two recently held a pseudo press
conference. In it Obama took just two or three questions, then tried
to SNOW everyone with... how much he knows. He talking way too long,
and went into way too many boring details. Those same tendencies will
surely doom an Obama presidency.
Sen. Casey was standing beside Obama with this very nervous, almost
stunned look, over how Obama's "press conference" had turned into
monologues. If JFK had held that same press conference, he would have
fielded fifteen our twenty questions, and used no more than three or
four sentences to reply to each. And everyone would have been highly
entertained in the process!
A likely reason that Obama chose to have a pseudo, monologue press
conference is because he didn't wish to 'risk' having a maverick
reporter ask: "Senator Obama, recently, blogs on the Internet are
suggesting that your tacit resistance to having the Fl and MI primary
votes counted, or having those primaries be re held, is tantamount to
your placing more importance on your getting nominated, than you place
on democracy itself. Would you please comment?"
If and when Obama has to answer such a question, his candidacy for
President is over. You voters "still up for grabs" in PA or in NC
should know that Obama can't get to the Democratic National Convention
in August, without answering that very same question. So, to vote for
a real winner (!) Hillary Rodham Clinton is the wisest choice!
Most tellingly, "the question about Obama's favoring getting nominated
over his favoring democracy itself" was never discussed by Wolf
Blitzer. Was he showing bias toward Obama by not discussing that
question? Or was he just following the failed rule-of-thumb in the
media that "news" comes only from A-list politicians or celebrities,
never from any of the John Q. Public out there. I am proud to be John
Q. Public personified!
Immediately, after I began posting regarding Obama's personality being
unsuited for a President of the USA, the readership of my posts shot
way up. Obama knows that I have accused him of having little in
common with anybody. Now, I see him trying to look... American by
bowling gutter balls, or by eating pizza. Yes, he can smile and even
laugh in crowds. But he still can't show any emotion whatsoever while
being interviewed or while making prepared speeches. I could never
trust such a man as my President.
It has been over a week since I accused Obama of "betraying democracy"
for his own selfish ends. Such time period is long enough for him to
have responded this way, if he was so minded: "My fellow Americans: I
have learned--through the recent Internet blogs of a man with the
curious computer name, NoEinstein--that I have slipped up in how I'm
running my campaign for President. The Democratic primaries that were
held in Florida and Michigan... though too early to comply with the
rules of the DNC, were still democratic processes. I agree with
NoEinstein that the rules of a democracy--like I hope that America
still is--will always trump the rules of any political party. In
short, the 'date restriction' set by the DNC for 'which' primaries can
be held 'when', is probably unconstitutional.
"Therefore, I am recommending to the DNC that the vote in Florida be
taken, as is, with no revote. And I am recommending that the votes in
Michigan be apportioned the same as demographically similar
Pennsylvania, in its upcoming primary. If it should turn out that "as
goes Pennsylvania, so goes the Nation" I will live with such results.
My intent is to abide by sound principles of democracy. Any
candidate, so nominated, will best serve the interests of all
Americans. In that light, I remain a candidate to be your President.
Thank you all."
But the above heart felt speech was never forthcoming from Barack
Obama. His motives are to "serve" the throngs that he imagines still
want him to be President. But the momentum in the "Ballet Bowl" has
shifted. And the desperate calls that Clinton... "give up" are rightly
going unheeded. No speeches given in front of rows of American flags
will legitimize the candidacy of one too selfish, and too detached to
serve anyone but those string-alongs who might get asked to do Obama's
bidding.
It is time that Obama withdraw as a candidate, and time that he
apologize to the American people for not honoring the high ideals of
democracy. America can survive without him.
Respectfully submitted,
-- NoEinstein --
The US Constitution allows the States to decide many issues. The
resulting cross jurisdictions guarantee the right to vote, on the one
hand, while allowing each state to determine the boundaries of its own
districts. Problems arise when any district's boundary decisions have
been based on the resulting demographic makeup of districts--
especially, when the latter starts distorting the macro will of the
people, counter to democratic principles.
Conveniently, the political parties in many states use their already
drawn up district boundaries to allocate delegates to the national
party conventions. That's the reason it is possible for a candidate
to... "win" the delegate count, but loose the total popular vote across
the USA. Those times when the latter happens, democracy gets raped.
In the pioneer days when the Constitution was being written, it was
necessary that we be "a representative republic". That's because
democracy--though it is the shinning ideal--would have been impossible
to administer and to guarantee, if the votes of the people had had to
be collected via horse and buggy. And the distribution of the
information necessary for voters to be adequately informed on the
issues made "pure" democracy unpractical.
The US Constitution addressed the vote collection problem in national
elections by having what is known as... the Electoral College.
Originally, such was comprised of trusted citizens from the various
states who actually traveled to Washington (These days, travel to
Washington is no longer required.), and those citizens were on their
honor to vote the way the majority of those in their apt geographic
areas had voted.
A recognized problem was: During the TIME between a presidential
election, and when the votes of the total Electoral College could be
compiled, the dynamics of the contest could have changed. Suppose it
gets revealed that one of the candidates for President has committed a
felony, or other slipup, which surely disqualifies such person to be
president. Are the members of the Electoral College still bound by
the, then, naïve votes of the people in the far away states?
Electors are given some leeway to vote "what is right" for the people
whom they represent. By their having that leeway, it is being
acknowledged: Information which is available at the latest moment,
that was unavailable when the people voted, is MORE important to the
final decision than the votes of the people who didn't have such
information.
The above is most apt to the continuing democratic race between
Clinton and Obama. He is clinging to hopes of victory, because he
built up an early lead in the delegate count. But the stampede of the
voters to Obama STOPPED in Texas and Ohio! With the new revelations
about Obama's "personality" and "qualification" shortcomings, more and
more it seems that the Special Delegates--who will be privy to ALL of
the most up-to-date information--will get to make the final decision.
And the correct final decision is: They should vote to nominate
Hillary Rodham Clinton!
Barack Obama shouldn't even be running to become President at all.
Why? Because he has disavowed democracy... as is evinced by his
"attitude" regarding democracy in FL and MI. Obama--with his corrupt
news spinners with their sick smiles--are placing more importance on...
"the rules" of the DNC than on democracy itself. Folks, if getting
Obama elected is more important than democracy, then the USA is going
down-the-tubes. Not only is Obama unqualified to be President, his
election will lock in the corruption of the Howard Deans, the Bill
Richardsons and the Tom Daschels. NOTE: Corruption isn't a party
issue, it is THE issue!
The US Constitution makes no mention of political parties. Subsequent
laws were passed which gave political parties leeway to decide how
they will select their nominees. But no party, nor officials of any
government, nor any court has the right to negate DEMOCRACY in the
USA!
Quite literally, the HORRIBLE primary system that this country is
saddled with started out with a simple objective: Because people in
'small' states need to meet the candidates; and because it takes a lot
of time for candidates to visit all of the states, it was decided to
allow small states, like Iowa, to hold their primaries on separate
dates. That may be... the tradition... but it violates democracy at every
turn!
Obama will claim that his early stampede of delegates should carry the
same 'weight' as Clinton's later stampede. As with the Electoral
College, later information should carry more weight that earlier,
outmoded information. I wonder how many of Obama's "supporters" would
vote for him now that they know: He clings to the likes of Rev.
Jeremiah Wright who hates America; that his wife "loves America for
the first time" AFTER her husband won a primary; that he has positions
on NAFTA that are different in private than in public; that his
schedule for getting our troops out of Iraq is more open-ended than he
says; that his only 'executive experience' is running a campaign, and
his only standard is the dollars raised; that his "personality" is too
self-centered to be the Chief Executive; that he is attracting the
endorsements of persons and groups with selfish motives; that he has
little in common with anybody; and that he is so selfish that he
thinks his being elected President is more important than DEMOCRACY
itself!
Recent polls show that about 16% of the supporters of both Clinton and
Obama say that they will vote for McCain, unless their own choice gets
the nomination. I say, if Obama gets the nomination, write in: Ron
Paul. Both McCain and Obama would be the puppets of their party.
McCain lucked his way through, because he is intransigent. His
positions on anything never change. He's that way to protect his
likely 90 IQ. Start changing things, and he would reveal his slow
mind. Try to get him to change, and he looses his temper. That
latent temper is his protective mechanism, and it could well kill-him-
off with a heart attack. Every time McCain opens his mouth, his blood
pressure seems to go so high, that he looks like he will explode!
Unfortunately, Obama never changes, either... He becomes so personally
involved with the details, that he takes changes to his proposals as
an affront to his ego. Obama would never be able to compromise; never
be able to get his subordinates to like him; never be able to convince
the American people that he feels their pain (because Obama is devoid
of emotions, himself); and he would never be able to carry through on
most of those "good ideas" he keeps reeling off. Obama uses the
latter as "dangles" for the naïve souls in his audiences, so that he
can to get himself nominated.
If an unbiased observer had to assess the validity of the health care
plans of Clinton vs. Obama, Clinton would win, hands down--if for no
other reason than she has been thinking on that subject for close to
two decades. Obviously, Obama's health care plan is the one he has
most thought about. In the earlier debates, the most "presidential"
reply that Obama, or anyone else, could have made in such regard would
have been:
"I'm committed to a workable and practical health care plan. If
Americans will honor me, by electing me your President, I give you my
word that I will consider the best aspects of the plans of Clinton, or
any of you out there. Admittedly, I'm no expert on health issues, but
I can assure you that I will enlist whatever expert advice may be
needed to best serve you, and as soon as possible, after I take
office."
If Obama becomes President... we will have this angry-toned, manikin-
like figure looking left and right into his teleprompters, as he
explains to us the details of his personally contrived plans... and the
daily build-up to his failed presidency. But such a presidency
needn't become his, nor our, embarrassment! Obama should do himself,
and all of us a favor: He should immediately WITHDRAW as a candidate
for President. And he should expeditiously RESIGN as senator, and get
out of the political arena, forever. But if he doesn't do those
things, Obama should call a press conference; look directly into the
cameras, without teleprompters; and explain to the American people WHY
his getting nominated by the Democrats, is more important than
DEMOCRACY itself!
Respectfully submitted,
-- NoEinstein --
On Mar 17, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Over Easter, Barack Obama and his family took a short vacation.
During that period polls were taken which show that Hillary Clinton
would defeat McCain by a larger margin than Obama would. And just
this week, for the first time, Obama's... "personality" is being
mentioned as an issue. But his camp has chosen to lump all of Obama's
personality issues under this one heading: the "Damn the USA..." sermon
of Obama's preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Since Obama has
already replied to the latter, those in his camp are hoping those
"personality" issues will stay behind him. But Obama's news spinners
are sitting much more tensely in their seats as they try to deflect
the questions about his lack of qualifications--personality or
otherwise. And their 'smiles' in such regard seem much less genuine.
These days, when Obama speaks, those supporters of his with a
propensity to nod their heads in agreement to everything he says, are
planted in the audience in the view of the TV cameras. From the tone
of his recent speeches, one would never realize that he is being
assailed. "Bullets are flying..." over his head. That's figurative
speech, of course. Obviously, there's a battle going on. But is it a
flag-waving "sports event"? Or is it a political race that would ever
find Barack Obama qualified to lead the declining... "greatest nation of
all time"?
CNN has labeled
...
read more >>- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Prev by Date: Re: Large Hadron Collider in cosmic catastrophe lawsuit!
- Next by Date: Re: Large Hadron Collider in cosmic catastrophe lawsuit!
- Previous by thread: Understanding Bekenstein-Hawking radiation
- Next by thread: Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
