The Rewards of Low-IQ Campaigning

Nobody ever makes any money or gets elected by betting on the intelligence of the American people. A cerebral rational candidate running a rational campaign always loses.

What counts are baseless accusations repeated often. If a voter hears the same thing often enough, it becomes true whether or not it is.

You never want to confuse voters with facts. Elections are not about facts; they are about emotions and cultivating prejudices.

You pay campaign managers a fortune to identify groups with a beef, or a screw loose, and figure out a way to target them with a message just for them that won't drive away the support of other groups you need.

The most effective tool is the 30 second sound bite. You make a statement and don't have to qualify or explain it, or defend it; just make it and stop. What you say will have more impact on voters than your opponent's long tedious explanation of why your statement is not true.

Are voters today less informed? I think so. One reason is beause we are so barraged with information that we shut out all but the simplest most emphatic messages. The ideal campaign message consists of just one word or phrase.

"Socialist!" was good.

Another good one is "baby-killer." Santorum has been using that. Gingrich. Randy-Neugie. Here's CNN's debunking of the accusation:

"After researching and analyzing the issue, two independent fact-checking groups, Politifact and Factcheck.org both determined it's not true to claim Obama supported legislation that said "any child born prematurely ... can be killed." In fact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact rated the Santorum's assertion "Pants on fire" -- its rating that a statement is "not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim."

"Then there's the part of Gingrich's statement that the "elite media" ignored the story in 2008. In fact, a search on Nexis shows at least eight times when it was mentioned or discussed in detail on CNN during the 2008 campaign." From http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/poli ... M:POLITICS

Not that debunking matters. What matters and what is remembered is the accusation. Comprehending the debunking takes too much time and IQ points.

The American Revolution as Class and Economic Struggle

[Under construction]

To an extent that has been under appreciated, the American Revolution involved class and economic considerations.   For example the Regulator Movement of North Carolina.    Quote about a petition drawn up by the Regulators of Anson County, NC:

"in violation of the law restricting the amount of land that might be granted to each person to six hundred and forty acres, much of the most fertile territory in the province had been distributed in large tracts to wealthy landlords. In consequence "great numbers of poor people are necessitated to toil in the cultivation of the bad Lands whereon they hardly can subsist." It was these poor people, "thereby deprived of His Majesties liberality and Bounty," "  http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B866/SouthwestC13.html

Birth Control Politics and Reality

You for or against allowing employees to have the option of health insurance covering contraceptives?

From the point of view of employers and those footing the bill, it sure makes sense to have such coverage. Pregnancy leave and paternity leave complicates the lives of employers, and when it comes to insurance costs, more contraception is preferable to more births.

How about the religious aspect?

Well, sure, if someone doesn't want the coverage they are not forced to get it; neither are birth control pills forced down their throats.  B.C. is optional not mandatory.

So what's the problem?

The only problem I see is that, for HMOs, a Catholic provider would be expected to provide contraceptive prescriptions. How much of a problem is that?

Isn't that a matter of the patient-doctor relationship? Do Catholic hospitals attempt to prevent doctors admitted to practice there from writing prescriptions for birth control pills or devices? Do Catholic hospitals, clinics, doctors and pharmacies have a sign in the window saying "NO contraceptives available here!" I doubt that occurs much in practice. 

How many Catholic doctors refuse to write birth control prescriptions? If they reflect the beliefs and practices of the general Catholic population, not many. The use of birth control is overwhelming among American Catholics as it is.

For the thoughts of the Catholic electorate, see http://content.usatoday.com/communities/....ops-obama-hhs/1

It is interesting that Catholic doctrine in this is controlled by a handful of men who are claimed to be mostly celibate except for the occasional attraction to young boys. It is interesting that one outspoken female voice in support of Catholic doctrine is that of a nun. What could be less detached from reality?

In a test of strength between the Catholic Church and the will of the American people, or even the will of American Catholics, the church loses. 

Trump [heart] Romney!?!

So Don Trump plans to endorse Romney?

This relationship has all the marks of a put up job. So a wealthy capitalist plans to endorse -- guess who! Surprise!-- a wealthy capitalist.

We were kept in suspense for this? All those stories, doubtless fed by Trump himself, about Trump being dissatisfied with the GOP field and making another run?

Pretty obvious, wasn't it, that we've been played by a self-proclaimed master of self-trumpery. The P.T. Barnum of 5th Avenue.

And what, precisely, is the effect of Trump's endorsement? How many Trump constituents can Trump deliver to Romney? I'd guess one, Trump himself, and maybe not that.

Read more: http://lubbockvoices.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bewaretheheat&action=display&thread=30&page=1#ixzz1lFZouB5R