Re: Campaigning is a 'Science', too.

On Jun 17, 8:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

THE POLLS ARE IN… AND THE POLLS DON’T LOOK GOOD.

The media has a ‘lock’ on what news the American people are allowed to
learn. The standard operating procedure regarding the ubiquitous news
commentary shows, is to plan them at least a day in advance. News
columnists get even more lag time. The purpose of the planning is to
assure that the overpaid, over-hyped, and otherwise clueless,
commentators and columnists always get to appear smooth and polished.
After all, those people are the ‘celebrities’ who attract the viewers
and readers. And if they can keep doing so—and nothing more—and the
people ‘upstairs’ will remain happy. These days, the media isn’t
about trivial things like the “news”. The media is about market
share, readership, and corporate profits. Its foundation is the
Almighty dollar, and any other motive be damned.

The media, its advertisers and investors are pro Big Business.
Anything which might shake up the status quo of Big Business is
actively, and/or tacitly, put down by the media. Heretofore, the
Republican Party has been considered the more pro business party.
That’s where most of businesses’ power was vested. But to be totally
powerful, Big Business gained control of the Democratic Party as
well. From the perspective of businesses, as long as a Republican or
a Democrat gets elected, they’re contented. In either case, it is
they who pull the strings, and it will be they who tell our government
officials “how high” to jump.

Regularly, I tell readers of my posts that the process of selecting
our President, and other officials, isn’t a game. Games are for
RECREATION. The future of the USA—and perhaps the survival of the
human race—could well depend on what our nation does. Nothing has a
more profound effect on how we are regarded, than our international
business relationships. Americans are largely oblivious to now
despise the USA is, in many third world countries. We are disliked,
in part, because our businesses regularly exploit the cheap labor in
such places. And those same businesses cause discontent, here, by
closing factories.

How could any nation be expected to think positively about America,
when we keep using our military might to protect our questionable
interests abroad? Unfortunately, doing bad things here at home, or
anywhere in the world, is placing us in danger of retribution through
terrorism or war.

Barack Obama continues to tout his lofty promise of “change”. Change
is the ultimate anti status quo. And that’s anti business. So,
Obama won’t be allowed to change things, much. His failure won’t be
in the “game” of winning. He keeps stacking the deck so that he will
“win”. His failure will come AFTER the “game” win—because of his
inability to correct the glaring problems.

America is in a loose-loose situation with Obama and McCain. If
either of those “win”, the business powers-that-be remain unaffected.
The latter have replaced the consensus of the American people to
direct our own course. Even so, every two or four years, we keep
going through the motions of trying to get our perennially failed
political processes to “change” things—but to no avail.

The media is a bastion of the status quo. The media gets to dwell on
the “game” of politics. Thereby, it holds sway on the outcome.
Public Opinion Polls are an important reason that happens. Polls are
the window on the current ‘score’ in the game of politics. Without
polls, there would be no “game”! My New Constitution will outlaw poll
taking regarding any upcoming election or referenda. Polls are an
anathema!

The one thing Americans can do, today, to help restore some semblance of democracy is to tell pollsters: “I will be expressing my opinions in the ballot booth. I won’t respond to political polls of any kind!” <<<

Ross Perot had the business expertise; the executive experience; and
the strong personal constitution to have been a President who could
change things. But the media and the pollsters wouldn’t let him have
a fair chance. With our nation facing the worst loose-loose situation
in its history, we need a third party candidate who isn’t controlled
by Big Business.

Congressman Ron Paul has the right ideas, and he sticks to his
principles. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has right ideas, and argues
them, vociferously. Having those two become President and Vice
President would be good for America! So, why are they cowering when
they are so needed? Obama wants to BUY the election with a billion
dollars in campaign ads. But that money would be better spent by
portioning it out to the jobless and the homeless! If one’s positions
on the issues, and one’s character, are well known, not one red cent
needs to be spent to get elected!

My New Constitution is poised and polished to solve most of the
problems that the voters can only “hope” the present candidates will
solve. When you want something done right, sometimes you yourself
need to do that thing. When our political processes are broken—and
they clearly are—the processes should be fixed! Political insiders
have had centuries to correct the problems, but they haven’t done so.
However, 75 plus percent of voters in the USA can ratify the New
Constitution, in just one voting day. And that will restore the power
to the People! It will make governments our SERVANTS, not our lords!

There are OPTIMUM solutions that will benefit most Americans. To find
such, we must stop sending officials to Washington to fight futile
group-against-group, party-against-party, and class-against-class
fights. Never again shall we allow elitist, career politicians to
tell us what to do. The USA isn’t our government; it is the PEOPLE!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —


On Jun 11, 8:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

GORE UPSTAGES OBAMA.

Al Gore has finally played-his-hand by endorsing Barack Obama.  Gore’s
well composed speech has to rate as one of his more impassioned ones.
But was the late date of its delivery chosen to maximize the impact
for Obama?  Or was the late date chosen to highlight the oft-hinted
personal spite of Gore for the Clintons?

Gore’s endorsement speech kept mentioning how “important” elections
are.  But what he should have said was: …how important FAIR elections
are.  Eight years ago, Al Gore was the man who brought many democracy-
loving people, like me, to near tears.  In the 2000 presidential race,
no tears had been shed by Republicans over the handling of the Florida
vote counts.  Many Republicans actually rejoiced that the majority of
the US Supreme Court valued the scheduling of already slated events
above democracy itself.  That’s like rejoicing when your team wins the
Super Bowl, because of bad officiating.  Democracy got raped in 2000,
and democracy continues to be raped, now.  Who should be rejoicing?

Numbers of times, Obama was shown on camera as he listened to Gore’s
endorsement speech.  Obama looked like a smiling, limp rag which has
been squeezed-outtoomany times.  The scene was Detroit—where auto
makers are closing plants.  And the scene was… Michigan, where Obama
had been an active, or at least a tacit participant, in the rape of
democracy which so favored his candidacy.  To become President, Obama
must win Michigan.  That’s why the Gore endorsement campaign rally was
held in Detroit.  From Obama’s perspective, surely, Michigan voters
will support for him—if he honors them by visiting.  But to get their
support, Michigan voters must have short memories.

The Clinton years were good years for this country.  Those facing hard
times can remember that fact.  Many of the eighteen million votes for
Clinton were cast because of her experience; confidence for the job;
and because she symbolized the hope and promise of having better
times, again.  Only by his rhetoric for “change” has Obama been able
to rally dissatisfied voters.

In less than a week after the final primaries, Hillary Clinton changed-
her-spots to endorse Obama,too.  Though her supporters in Washington
cheered, that was another dark day for democracy.  Perhaps out of
deference to me, Clinton promised that she “will be on the frontlines
of democracy!”  Yet, for whatever reason, she is siding with Obama—who
values any democracy, or the rape thereof, which benefits him.

In his speech, Al Gore referred, erroneously, to “our great
democracy”.  The USA is the biggest ‘pusher’ of democracy in the
world.  But since the inception of our nation, this country has only
had a crude approximation of a democracy.  Electors are apportioned
based on the erroneous assumption that the voter turn-out will match
the states’ relative populations.  And that causes the votes in
different states to have different weight.  A working democracy—such
as my New Constitution will instate—requires that votes be equally
weighted, well informed, and accurately counted.  Those three things
should be understandable by all Americans.  Yet, many cling to a hope—
in Barack Obama, no less—that our failed system of government can
magically make things right, if only we’ll elect Obama.

Hillary Clinton took two painful slaps to the face, yesterday.  The
first was Obama’s announcement that the former Clinton campaign manager
—whom she herself had fired—would become the ‘press secretary’ for the
vice presidential nominee.  So, Clinton is OUT as Vice President.
Now, some are wondering if Al Gore might be Obama’s choice.  Gore is
certainly qualified to be President.  But is his being pro environment
a strong enough justification for having anyone support Obama, whom
Gore now endorses?

Al Gore kept saying that elections are important.  What he was really
stressing was that Michigan voters are important.  Michigan is like a
microcosm of blue collar workers.  Unless Obama can manage to dupe
them into believing that he is now… clean and good, then it’s unlikely
that blue collar workers, anywhere, will support him.  Without blue
collar workers, Obama can’t win.

Realistically, Clinton isn’t the de facto spokesperson for those
eighteen million people who voted for her.  Though Clinton, magically,
changed-her-spots right after the primaries, it’s unlikely that those
voters to whom she appealed will be swayed from their key issues.  And
didn’t most of those people also vote AGAINST Barack Obama?

‘Dallas’s’ Bobby Ewing once emerged from the shower acting like the
previous year was just a dream.  Hillary Clinton,too, should wake up
and realize that neither Obama nor McCain appeal to blue collar
workers.  Clinton’s endorsement of Obama got upstaged by Gore, because
of his timing, as well as his passion.  In a very real way, Gore also
upstaged Obama.  Gore’s passionate ‘introduction’ of Obama wasn’t
matched by a like passion in Obama’s speech.  Since Barack couldn’t
match Gore’s passion, he didn’t try.  While Obama’s campaign keeps
stampeding right along, he, Clinton, nor Gore can be certain that
Obama can sway those surely bewildered, eighteen million voters who
are now without a champion whom they can trust.

The surefire way to change Washington for the better is to embrace
democracy and ratify my labor-of-love New Constitution.  Obama and
McCain would both represent a continuation of the same old group-
against-group, party-against-party, and class-against-class fights
that have failed us in the past.  But mostly they would be leaving in
place “a system” that allows big business to control the processes of
government, and the laws, rules and regulations that get passed or
enacted.  Our security as a nation demands that we correct the “hate
the USA” feelings, and the hate capitalism feelings evident in much of
the world.  World War III can happen at any “3:00 a.m.”  But if this
country will heed my wakeup call to put FAIR PLAY back into our
dealings—both here and abroad—then the threat of terrorism and wars
can be greatly lessened.

If Al Gore wants to improve planet Earth, he should insist that people
like me—who have disproved Einstein’s theories of relativity—be freed
up to solve the Earth’s problems.  Manpower isn’t being well used
sending kids to universities which don’t teach truths.  And the hopes
and dreams of millions of us aren’t being well served by sending
people to Washington to try to change things in a flawed system which,
by its design, discourages making the correct types of changes.

Changing Washington will be a SNAP compared to changing or reining-in
the media.  But if the American people will just realize that it is
they—not those whom theytoooptimistically send to do their bidding—
who hold the key to the salvation of the USA, then there is cause for
hope!  As with that famous poster of Uncle Sam pointing his finger: “I
want Americans to realize that our getting a New Constitution is the
best solution for the Citizens of the USA!”

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —





On Jun 9, 9:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SOUND MORAL PRINCIPLES SHOULD TRUMP PETTY ‘RULES’.

The longer someone has been a political insider, the greater is the
likelihood that such person has been corrupted.  One ‘escape’ from
implications of corruption, is for the person to simply say that they
had been abiding by this or that rule.  While abiding by rules
certainly ‘sounds’ like the noble thing to do,toooften, rules run
counter to sound moral principles.  In every case, the latter should
override any bad rules which have managed to get made.

Simultaneously, rules can be both the ordering mechanism of
complicated processes, and they can be the destroyers of sound moral
principles.  For years the Democratic Party has had these ignoble
‘rules’ saying that it can dictate when states hold their primaries.
But such are a flagrant violation of simple and sound principles of
democracy!  Democracy requires that every registered voter shall have
his or her vote carry the same… “weight” as every other voter!  The
only way equality of the votes can be achieved is by basing the
outcome of races on the national POPULAR VOTE, and by holding the
votes in the different states on the same day.

Few would doubt that the voters in Iowa—person-for-person—have more
power than the voters in, say, South Dakota.  Is America well-served
by having such inequality?  No way!

The Democratic Party has allowed states to substitute caucuses for
standard primaries.  It’s well known that many people don’t like going
to public meetings.  Therefore, caucuses are not representative of a
state’s population as a whole.  And that is anti democracy!  At
caucuses, the issues facing caucus-goers are open for comment and
discussion.  Effectively, caucuses will favor the candidate who has
the better public speakers in attendance.  Yet, speaking ability,
alone, doesn’t correlate to, nor does it even approximate, which
person is the better candidate!  It just favors the candidate who can
turn out supporters… who are good at speaking in public.

When the number of caucus voters who support each candidate is closely
divided, the majority—if they happen to be the best public speakers—
often elicits responses like this from the minority voters: “Oh, I
suppose I won’t ‘make waves’.  I’ll go along with the majority, this
time, so that I can ‘win’,too.”   Folks, having ANY open arguments on
election day—during a caucus or otherwise—that can change the opinions
of any voter is flagrantly anti democracy!

Suppose that you are inside

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages