Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Apr 15, 10:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Heretofore, we humans have tried to find security by siding with a
strong group with a strong leader or leaders. Often this had been for
the protection of our own physical well-being, not just to gain some
vague economic or sociological advantage. In the last two centuries
Blacks have rallied together for their common cause of reducing
discrimination against their numbers. Though they have been hugely
successful, there are areas in which discrimination still exists. So,
any ‘ideal’ America must address the concerns of Blacks—fairly and
equitably.

There has never been a Black President of the USA. Jesse Jackson,
Colin Powell, Al Sharpton, and now Barack Obama are smart Black men
who have each been considered for this country’s highest office. A
recent poll showed that 76% of voters would be willing to consider a
Black candidate for President. Since Obama is the Black candidate of
the moment, his spinners quickly implied that 76% of the voters want
‘him’. But his viability as a candidate is being brought into
question because of the recent negative press over Reverend Jeremiah
Wright’s “damn the USA” sermon, and due to Obama’s candid remarks
showing his frustration in trying to appeal to those who have fallen
on hard times in the “small towns” of Pennsylvania, and across
America.

In recent weeks I’ve explained how the apparent unity of the Black
community behind Obama is, actually, an ominous sign for America. How
could that be? Obviously, there would be racial pride among Blacks in
finally having a Black elected President. But is that “pride” a
sufficient justification for electing Obama?

A prudent observer would expect that a candidate’s support would vary
up and down as new revelations about his or her qualifications are
aired. When negative aspects concerning Obama surfaced before the
Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama’s support among Blacks ‘should’ have
varied, too. But his 90 plus percent of the Black vote stayed
steady… And THAT fact is what is most ominous—because it shows that a
huge voting block is biased, beyond reason, to support a candidate who
isn’t qualified either by experience, or because of his character or
lack of same, to be President.

“The orator”, Obama, comes across as an angry fighter for his causes.
He appeals to those who are angry enough to fight… or who will rally
around someone who will do so for them. Electing people to “fight for
us” in Washington is what has been going on in this country since it
was established. After a typical election, about 50% of the voters
are losers, and they don’t like it. Nor does the losing party “like
it”. So, whatever good sounding rhetoric that got a politician
elected, usually gets squelched in the constant “fights” in our
perennial, ineffectual congresses. So, an Obama Presidency would be a
loose/loose situation for America.

In our time of discontent, the USA has an untapped UNITY that holds
perhaps the only promise of salvation for this country! To wit: 81%
of adults are “unhappy with the direction this country is headed”.
And such number of citizens—if united for the common objective of
correcting the problems—can FORCE the needed changes! Only by being
“united in our discontent” can the American people MEET the
constitutional requirements to change things! And there isn’t
anything that Congress or the Courts can do to stop it!

Presently, Barack Obama’s continued candidacy for President is the
main obstacle to correcting those solvable problems! For too long our
political parties—unsanctioned by the Constitution—have royally
screwed up America! They have done so, primarily, by inserting…
political party sanctions into our could have been democracy-
approximating form of government. Without fair representation of each
individual citizen, regardless of race, sex, color or creed, this
country is on a path to failure. We “discontented citizens of the
USA” must NOT let that happen!

CNN’s John King points out that Obama’s best chance to win in
Pennsylvania is by his getting a high percentage of… the Black vote in
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But if those Blacks are united behind
Obama because of his “color” alone, then racial issues have DIVIDED
America much more than they ever were before Obama came on the scene!
If Blacks are rallying behind Obama, because he seems… mad and wants
to fight, they are KILLING any chance they might have had to correct
the remaining discrimination against their numbers. Blacks must NOT
be one-dimensional, color-is-all-that-matters, people! As strong a
voting block as their numbers are, there aren’t enough Blacks to
counter the likely WHITE discontent that will surface if there is any
color based, reverse discrimination in this country. So, there is no
way that Obama can help to end the discrimination against Blacks.

Daily, thousands of Blacks who have felt so disenfranchised that they
have never registered to vote, are being hustled to support Obama.
But voting is a PRIVATE privilege, NOT a predestined duty for one
candidate! Obama is violating principles of democracy by inserting
his organization into the voter registration process in any way
whatsoever.

The best and perhaps only way for Blacks to get fair treatment is for
them to UNITE to change our governmental processes to be more closely
a democracy. But this read-between-the-lines process to change won’t
happen if Blacks cause this country to become more polarized along
racial lines by continuing to support Barack Obama! The most positive
outcome in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana is to have a
DECREASING percentage of BLACKS voting for that man! Then, and only
then, will Blacks show that they haven’t been BOUGHT by anyone!

If Blacks want their just and equitable share of power, they can have
it by voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United
States of America. If they will do so, ALL Americans will be the
beneficiaries!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


On Apr 11, 5:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This is that 'bad day' every year when Americans are reminded how
costly "what government does" can be.  Those being pressed by home
mortgages without fixed interest rates; or depressed home values--
because of the exodus of the unemployed--especially, have reasons to
feel unhappy.

It has been said: "Misery likes company."  A recent poll shows that
81% of American adults are unhappy with the present direction our
country is headed.  Should that datum be a cause for us to feel
depression, or to feel hope?  Actually, it is one of the most positive
things to ever happen to this country!  You ask: How could that be?
"Well..."--as President Reagan liked to begin salient comments by saying--
when Americans are united for a good cause, there is no force on Earth
that can lessen their resolve!

Horrific WW II happens to have been: "The greatest concerted effort in
the history of mankind!"  Americans were rightly incensed when our
international friends and allies were invaded.  And such was being
perpetrated by a proud, but economically depressed, German people.
Adolph Hitler happens to have been the wrong "artist", at the right
time, with the wrong solution.  Even so, he managed to foment the
German masses, because of his exceptional oratory ability.

Barack Obama is acknowledged to have exceptional oratory ability.
Most shy Americans trembled-through their deliveries of oral book
reports in school.  So, they consider a speaker... masterful, if he or
she can get through a speech without showing stage fright.  Obama has
never shown the emotion of freight--nor any other normal emotion--in his
tone of delivery, or in the expressiveness of his voice.  That seems
strange; very strange.

Graphology has been my serious hobby since before I was a teen.  I've
been a keen observer of the diverse personalities of those I see
writing.  And because I, also, have a knowledge of people in general,
I have a basis for making generalities.

Barack Obama had an unhappy childhood.  And he's using such fact to
try to counter his just-now-being-recognized elitism.   He claims that
he can identity with the discontented voters to whom he appeals.  And
he says he can do so because he was once poor, himself.  The Clintons'
tax documents show the obvious fruits of their successes--not their
failures.  I ask you: Who is better qualified to lead this country
toward success: A person who likes to brag that he hasn't always been
successful; or the person who has for most of their life been
successful?

The most recent icon of the Democratic Party was certainly JFK.  His
family was very rich, yet he was a Democrat--concerned with the lives
of those who are disadvantaged.  Many of the richest people in the
world used their wealth to build universities, hospitals, research
centers, or to make grants beneficial to those less fortunate.
America must never stymie an individual's opportunity for economic
attainment, that is... if such attainment has been fairly and honorably
achieved.

Both Clinton and Obama are pressing the objective of improving the lot
of those in the middle class.  Every four years, "the rich" in this
country are targeted as beingtoofavored in the tax laws.  Since
there are more people of average income, than there are in the high
ranges, it makes good political sense to appeal to: Where the most
voters are.  But is such a class-against-class battle what is best for
the future of America?  No way!

If and when our systems of government can become like well-oiled
machines, there are optimum objectives that should improve everyone's
opportunities, fairly.  Socialism certainly isn't "fair"--because it
depresses free markets (discourages attainment) and rewards those who
won't lift a finger to better themselves.  But "socialized medicine"
may be the right thing, if it is agreed that having good medical care
for all Americans is a desirable thing.

A sad characterization of "the American way" in business is: "Find
something that people want or need; then, over-charge them for it."
People certainly need health care when they're sick.  But are those in
the health care system deserving of more rewards for their 40 hours,
than those in, say, manufacturing?

Toooften, NAFTA gets a bum rap for exporting American jobs to
Mexico.  When items are being purchased in the stores, all Americans
benefit from having low prices.  But when American wages get high
enough to depress sales due to high prices, businesses begin
outsourcing jobs to remain competitive.  The failures, there, are that
those same companies didn't educate their workers, and didn't
modernize their facilities to be more productive.  By aiming for a
cheaper work force,toomany industries have simply side-stepped their
poor business management.  Sadly, andtoooften, industries feel no
compassion for their loyal workers who did the jobs that they were
asked to do.

In the 'rust belt' states, those without jobs make appealing audiences
to politicians pushing for change.  Certainly, the loss of this
country's manufacturing base has reached dire levels.  Toooften,
smiling politician--like NC Governor Mike Easley--tout education as a
"guarantee" of economic success in life.  But there aren't enough of
those college graduates willing to "work" for a living--as in
manufacturing something useful.

My having disproved Einstein's theories has been my 'window' into this
country's failures in higher education; in government; and certainly
in our "trusted" news media.  But no failure is greater than was the
suppression of democracy so evident in the 2000 presidential
election.  If Bush hadn't been so elected, he wouldn't have gotten a
second shot at being President in 2004.

It's a terrible thing to think that Barack Obama places more
importance on "the delegate count" than on the popular vote.  And he
places more importance on the UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of the Democratic
National Committee--regarding the primaries in Florida and in Michigan--
than he places on democracy itself.  If Obama manages to get elected...
President... that will mean that twelve to sixteen years of our
country's "rule" will have been based on a level of corruption
tantamount to treason.

Everyday, a new cockroach comes out of the woodwork to endorse Obama.
Pennsylvania's Senator Bob Casey has revealed himself to be worthy of
ouster from America.  As has: Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and
Screaming Howard Dean.  But the futures of those men is more in doubt
following Sunday's CNN "debate" between Clinton and Obama on "faith".

Obama's first question invited him to explain his recent remarks that
have been viewed as so unfavorable to those disadvantaged ones in "the
small towns" of PA.  The actual audio recording of those statements
reveals that Obama paused as if searching for the words he would say.
Clearly, he was talking off-the-cuff.  And such a candid statement is
more revealing of what is going on in his head than any oft-repeated
campaign speech.

The media supporting Obama keyed on the word "bitter"--as if that word
was, perhaps, an unfair characterization of those living in small
towns.  But the word "cling" is the far more hurtful word.  That's
because such denigrates the nobleness of those who are facing some of
life's trials.  Regardless of the characterization, the unity of those
in small towns will surely see them through.

Obama's remarks are really just a venting of his own frustrations at
not being able to 'win' very many of the voters in... small towns.  As
CNN's John King likes to point out on the maps, Obama has been
dominating the high population centers near big cities.  But he isn't
getting winning margins in very many rural, small town areas.  Since
the momentum has clearly shifted to Clinton, is it any wonder that
Obama is showing his frustration?

Obama said, with his characteristic coolness, "The Bible urges people
to cling to good things..."  I suppose 'religion' and 'guns' and disdain
for unfair trade agreements are the types of things the Bible could
have, but really doesn't, recommend that people cling to.  Yes, Obama
chose his words poorly.  But as CNN's Lou Dobbs points out, Obama
hasn't apologized for characterizing those people in small town PA as
"clinging".  The 'Peanuts' character Linus clung to his blue security
blanket.  Accusing people who have fallen on bad times of "clinging",
isn't worthy of any candidate hoping to represent all of the people.

Politics can't extricate us from this period of difficulty just by
electing Clinton, Obama or McCain.  But 81% of Americans--if united to
do what is optimum for the most Americans--CAN produce any change in
the USA that they so desire!  The founding fathers were wise enough to
know that conditions would be changing.  The Constitution has been a
wonderful model.  But it's not a powerful enough document to let
democracy wrest control from the special interests, lobbyists, and
corrupt players who are alltooevident on the national scene.

"Ballot Bowl" continues with it's daily play-by-play coverage of the
"game" of choosing nominees and the President.  But unfair influences
like "polls", and continuing biased comments by high paid commentators
supporting the media's choices, taint our supposed democratic
processes.  But there is a hint of fresh air!  As with that 'cartoon'--
which I described, earlier--showing the supporters of a loosing
football team switching flags, Obama's supporters are having second
thoughts.

When Obama graduated from college, he took a low paying job to work
for the people.  Even so, his people skills are slim.  He's a smart
individualist.  But Obama has little in common with anybody.  The
uniqueness of his handwriting shows such fact, clearly.  He's an
introspective, work alone, and fight for his points person.  That's
probably the reason that he selected "health care" to try to best
Hillary Clinton.  He figured he would be the more persuasive
...

read more »

.

Loading