I know we see huge advertising campaigns, some celebrity backed, urging everyone to vote.  Well, I think that’s silly.  I’d rather the politically ignorant not vote, actually. Why would we want to encourage the uninformed to vote just for the sake of it? Encourage them to be adequately informed instead.

Also, wouldn’t it be better if all of these celebrities and organizations had a campaign focusing on the integrity of the vote, rather than just the act itself?  You can vote all you want, but if they are not counted properly, if there is no tangible accountability, then the act of voting is all for show.

I’d much rather see all of this energy for getting out the vote redirected to insuring the integrity of the vote and and for voter education.

_

Does Not Compute

January 9, 2008

by the Understudy

On the campaign trail, we often hear (even from recognized media outlets) about the overwhelming presence of Ron Paul everywhere you turn. Yesterday, Anderson Cooper of CNN noted that everywhere he went in New Hampshire, he saw significant Ron Paul support.

At the same time, it’s also becoming more and more common to hear from the media about the dismal support of Giuliani. Staffers reportedly cannot fill venues, there’s little enthusiasm—even today a personality from 23/6 posted a video of a Giuliani event in New Hampshire showing only a smattering of supporters, and little enthusiasm.

So, why is it that Ron Paul and Giuliani virtually tied in votes in the NH primary? Something about that just doesn’t seem to compute even if we take into consideration the zeal of Ron Paul supporters. It just doesn’t seem to add up.

_

by The Understudy

On November 5th, 2007, supporters donated $4.3 million dollars to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul—the self-proclaimed “Champion of the Constitution.” This one day total sets a new record for funds raised by a 2008 GOP presidential candidate in one day. (The record previously belonged to Mitt Romney who raised $3.1 million on a single day in January.)

ron-paul-november-5

Begun by independent supporters, this ‘money bomb’ fundraising effort gained attention through the website thisnovember5th.com, where nearly 20,000 people pledged to give at least $100 to the campaign on November 5th 2007.

It remains to be seen how ‘major’ media will cover this stunning fund raising drive. In the past, they’ve been inclined to preface Ron Paul stories and interviews by stressing certain phrases, including ‘long-shot candidate’ and ‘low in the polls’ in addition to characterizing his support as being online-only (as if 30,000 individual online donors don’t also exist in reality).

Now, with this demonstrated and unequivocal support, they may not be able to justify those characterizations anymore unless they continue to rely solely on land-line telephone polls of a couple hundred people—many of which do not even include the name ‘Ron Paul’ and therefore bring down his overall polling average significantly (along with a host of other factors that may be contributing to the discrepancy in ‘traditional’ polling numbers).

One interesting angle employed by CNN’s early coverage of the November 5th donations was the continued stressing that the numbers could not be verified—until the end of the quarter. While technically true, it does seem a bit odd how they’ve never used that angle with anyone else’s fundraising events. Perhaps they are suggesting that it may not be real, or perhaps they are just in shock.

One thing is for sure—the Constitutional message of Ron Paul has taken hold and produced a remarkable showing of financial support that not only disproves naysayer claims that Ron Paul supporters aren’t ‘real’, but also erodes confidence in ‘traditional’ land-line political polling as an accurate barometer of, well, anything. Perhaps certain key players in the news media will kick the habit of just disseminating the ‘party line’ and will start spending more time interviewing and understanding Ron Paul.

_

Fair Tax, Unfair Debate

June 22, 2007

by The Understudy

When Ron Paul was conspicuously not invited to a debate in Iowa, the Executive VP of Iowans For Tax Relief, Edward D. Failor, was noted as defending this action by claiming that Ron Paul was not a ‘credible’ candidate and suggesting that the “people who support [Ron Paul]” are hackers trying to break into the fortress that is the Iowans for Tax Relief website.

As for the latter, who cares? Most Ron Paul supporters would denounce such activity. Moreover, the actions of one guy trying to break a password cannot be used to label millions of supporters as hackers.

As for Ron Paul’s credibility, I think Edward D. Failor should follow the lead of CNN and MSNBC. Both recognized Dr. Paul as credible by including him in their debates—unless of course Mr. Failor believes the Iowan Tax Debate is somehow more prestigious and notable than network debates.

Finally, I thought I’d look into this Ed Failor on that series of tubes that all of the internets are made of, so I went to Yahoo and searched for his name. Needless to say, I was amused by Yahoo’s suggestion:

edward-d-failor

PS: I also thought there was some numerical significance to this screen shot.

_

by The Understudy

In a speech June 12th in New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani laid out his “Twelve Commitments to the American People.” It doesn’t take much to translate each into what he’s REALLY saying.

1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Translation: We will wage multiple pre-emptive wars on nations—yeah, that means you __________ (insert any country from Eastern or Southern Hemisphere). And we may need to bring back the draft.

2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
Translation: I will make everyone carry Federal ID cards and papers. Then I’ll let Choicepoint or some other corporation make billions off the data.

3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
Translation: I’ll cut important spending to get funds necessary to hand out more government contracts to Halliburton, etc. and fund the irrational War on Terror.

4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
Translation: If you are a large corporation or a millionaire, you’ll like me. Everybody else gets $20.

5) I will impose accountability on Washington.
Translation: Screw checks and balances, everyone answers to me. This is necessary in a ‘post 9/11 world’, of course.

6) I will lead America towards energy independence.
Translation: I’ll put on a show while we take over oil rich nations while simultaneously moving as fast as a snail toward alternative energy sources.

7) I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free market solutions.
Translation: Pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance providers will love me. If you’re poor, you better hope Tylenol fixes it.

8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
Translation: Someone told me to include this point to get support from a certain group. I reserve the right to be vague or flip flop in this area.

9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
Translation: If I wasn’t clear before, I’ll say it again—everyone answers to me. Oh, and I’ll redefine ‘strict constructionist’.

10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Translation: I’ll keep everyone in a state of fear, and I’ll be ready to declare martial law in any city at any time.

11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
Translation: No Child Left Behind Part II—the rise of the silver voucher.

12) I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
Translation: I’m a big globalist, and I’ll expand the American Empire and bully other nations so no one dares stand in opposition to US policy. Free waterboarding!

_