Obama's fans in search of new mission... already

Oh when the diss, oh when the diss, oh when disappointment is rolling in:

Barack Obama's grass roots in search of new turf - Los Angeles Times
James Dillon, a onetime Republican activist who grew disgusted with politics, was so inspired by Barack Obama's candidacy that he joined the campaign's massive volunteer army, hosting house parties and recruiting supporters.

But beyond influencing the November election, Dillon thought he was joining a new political movement that would be mobilized for big goals -- to end poverty or fix the healthcare system, or maybe to end the U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

Amid Obama's transition to power, a spirited and often secretive debate has broken out among top campaign staff members over how to refashion the broad network of motivated volunteers into a force that can help Obama govern.

With 13 million e-mail addresses, hundreds of trained field organizers and tens of thousands of neighborhood coordinators and phone bank volunteers [also: paid telemarketers and door-bangers], the network has become one of the most valuable assets in politics, and Obama's team may choose to deploy it to elect other Democratic officials, or to lobby Congress for his toughest legislative goals, or even to apply pressure on local and state policymakers across the country.

But while aides sort out the details, the Obama team's early hints about how the network should be used -- as well as its tight-lipped planning process -- have struck some supporters as missteps.

Among the critics is Marshall Ganz, a legendary figure in the field of community organizing who from his post at Harvard University helped train Obama’s campaign organizers and volunteers.

Ganz has publicly questioned the campaign for not conducting a more open deliberation over how to sustain the network, which grew and thrived in part on open dialogue and online social networking. "Is this really what 'building on the movement to elect Barack Obama' is going to look like?" Ganz asked. "I can't believe this was put out by the same people who trained organizers in how to do house meetings in the campaign over the past two years."

Of the reference to the "first dog," Ganz concluded: "Give me a break."
Once you create something and use it to your gain, if it has a mind of its own -- millions of them, in fact -- when it comes time to further serve a purpose after it has served your purpose, what do you do with it? Obama is already hearing unrest from the masses, and he has six weeks to go before he is even in office, announcing members of his administration at a brisk rate.

Has he awakened some strange, codependent type of disappointment in people who seem to think he understood each of them? OK, I am being sarcastic with that one. However, when you draw people, many of whom seemed to not even know how Obama's votes and past campaigns went, into an army of worker bees, it would appear they expected to continue as some sort of storm-troopers for the Democratic president-elect.

It is a risky thing to attract people with three-word mottoes that inspire utopian ideas, hopes and wishes, especially for people who are highly imaginative but spoiled, since the blow-back may be not only loud but very, very embarrassing for everyone involved. This is just one hint -- and very, very early -- of the post-election let-down for Obama supporters, but I wonder what else may happen, now that Obama is elected.

With hope for something that is not akin to mass demonstrations and riots by undereducated, text messaging, iPod-wearing, Wii-malformed brats in baggy jeans and t-shirts, I offer this video.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

A quote: "They have nothing to fill their pathetically empty lives."

Wish us luck!

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NARA, not NRA: election history

Questions about election numbers throughout history? Look here: The National Electoral College site. So long as they keep this site up, and accurate, I guess they can stick around. But if they start some kinda trickery -- look out!

In the end, did money win the White House?

Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End | Bloomberg.com
McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.

After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.

Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.
The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.

First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.

Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style, MoveOn.org-style, Karl Rove-style victory.

The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.

- jR

Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater: http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2008/12/organizer-check-money-spender-check.html

Powered by ScribeFire.

Daily Banter: possibly the butt of progressive thought jokes

A new series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine
about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog


Ben Cohen is a ... progressive. Check that, he's a Democrat. No, no that's not it. Perhaps he's a whiner with severe daddy issues. No, that might be too generous, assuming there's some deep cause for his mental myopia. Cohen dislikes anyone who has a record of doing something that is not highly radical -- to the extents of Noam Chomsky-like psychobabble. Or so it would appear. Judge for yourself:
Professor Noam Chomsky has influenced my thinking more than any single person on earth. His speeches, interviews, articles, and books have profoundly changed the way I see the world, and I feel forever indebted to him for his contributions to human knowledge.

The MIT linguistic professor is regarded as the world's leading intellectual for good reason.
So Cohen calls the Bush legacy -- now a legacy is everything one has done, in this case an entire administration -- tragic. Not the usual -- and slightly rational -- war-mongering, or stumbling, but TRAGIC. He's young, his Cohen guy: it's cute to see how the adults fool the young ones so thoroughly.

This guy, and perhaps his cohorts on Banter, either read(s) too little or react(s) too dramatically and emotionally. I think it is likely they read too much in one direction, but mostly the latter. This is a far left, socialist-leaning pack of knee-jerkers. In other words, mistaken liberals who are actually socialist utopian cry babies.

He's such a whiner that independent senator Joe Lieberman is on his list of ten Democrats who need to go not once, but twice. And the second time, he actually calls the senator a "d**k head." Thanks for the commentary, Mr. Cohen.

I think he could have included the pathological denier, Barney Frank, in that list, with Chris Dodd, too (the king of "their fault" politics in the midst of this economic crisis). I find it strange, actually, that seeing as Pelosi and Reid are on his list, that these two contributors to the do-nothingness of the recent Democratic leadership were not included.

Here's what anyone can do to decide for themselves about Daily Banter: Read this post, then the related post regarding Republican leaders. If you don't notice the holes, in content and members, of both listings, then... well, enjoy reading Daily Banter. I suppose this one must be for you.


Powered by ScribeFire.

Sean Penn: Mountain of questionable, umm, conclusions?

Sean Penn: Mountain of Snakes

Sean Penn is a writer. Why is he a writer? I can only guess it is because he is a celebrity and a fan of communism versus capitalism. Because he is part and parcel of the Hollywood elite. Here's a quote from this article that I suspect explains how Sean Penn has been entitled to speak for America, and specifically, American liberals (poor liberals): "...the fact is,[sic] that our most respected, call that mainstream media, in print and on television are, in part, conscious manufacturers of deception." I bolded the important words so the commas and garbage wouldn't get in the way. What is it? And why is he writing it? Why him, and to what end? Am I required to read this entire piece of bunk to "get it"? Sorry, I have to have a life outside of being mystified by celebrity writers.

So glad that's OK with you, Mr. Penn. Liberals, oddly, have not been bothered by propaganda in journalism, perhaps, is his point. It is certainly loud and clear in the example of MSNBC and TIME magazine. So why does Penn have an issue with it? One can only interpret his broad point, since that sentence, his words generally, make no sense on their own.

Here's another piece of valuable commentary, perhaps it is his self-centeredness that is driving his exposure of the media: "Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to hunt up the few pictures that were taken by the random photojournalists who'd stumbled upon me, and find a single one that would've passed the test of my own narcissistic scrutiny."

Dear Sean Penn: Nobody with a good reason to live cares about your self-adulation. But, in that topic, I should note that it doesn't mix well with your liberal white guilt (see 'Milk' interview by Penn with Charlie Rose).

Please, Mr. Penn, please continue writing. You are good entertainment for those who know how to write, for real.
Despite multiple assassination attempts by the CIA on his older brother Fidel, the destabilization tactics of Robert F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, The Platt Amendment with the taking of Guantanamo Bay, and even despite an endless and unjustified embargo (in effect: blockade) on Cuba by the United States, here we were in 2008, and Raul Castro said flat out that if the American people, who today stand with candidate Barack Obama, continue to stand with President Barack Obama, then "meaningful and productive advances could be achieved in Cuba and the world."
He must have accidentally left out the Mariana Boatlift, in which Castro sent his worst -- WORST -- criminials to American shores. That must have been America's fault, too.

Says the economist, Penn: "Free market capitalism and greed in the hands of humans are, in fact, a marriage that never rids itself of the demon. They are of one body."

"In the hands of humans"? As opposed to under the hooves of jackasses? What's the need for that phrase? Wait: Is that a terribly naive question? Yes, it is, considering the topic inspiring the question.

Well, the real impression for me here is this: Can it get any better than this for Americans with a clue? I mean ones who are not socialists or communists, of course. If you buy into socialism -- the Bolivarian type -- and Castro's governing tactics. But real Socialists and Communists, not to be confused with far-left Democrats. They do pose as far-left Dems, like Penn here does, clearly. He is clearly confusing freedom with popular oppression. But that's throwing stones.

I guess Sean might take after his dad the accused communist. While Joe McCarthy's un-American committee was not right, neither is Sean Penn's obfuscate attack on the system that netted him, too, tons of cash. TONS. Did I mention that Sean Penn is rich thanks to the system he hates, and seems far from loathing himself for it? If his dad was a communist, that certainly rubbed off on Sean, even judging this writing liberally; if he was hypocrite, then Sean didn't fall far from that tree.

The Huffington Post is desperate for writers, enough to put this garbagge on their site? I find that hard to believe. They must be simply desperate for the inclusion of far-leftist celebrities who are willing to write odd little mementos from far-leftist countries.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Media Contacts (version 1)

Media Addresses - Media Research Center

Read, heard or watched something that ticks you off? Use the incomplete, but pretty thorough, Media Research Center's list to get to the source of the bunk you're wishing to respond to.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

NewsBusters: gotcha on the liberal media's 'have it both ways' ways.

Liberal TV News strikes again. (Did you expect anything else?)

The people who have been appointed, by some odd accident, to run American news media, at times really make it seem as if we ought to just close down TV altogether. Hit reboot, try again.

Granted, it seems that NBC and anything with those three letters in it, and TIME magazine and its buddies (including CNN), have really got a stranglehold on have-it-both ways, biased coverage, but this piece only proves one thing: the news media bias can't tell it's nose from its ass. Here's just a few snippets, but read the whole thing so you see the expert media blunderers and the author's contrariness in their whole glory.

NBC Exec: Obama's Skin Color Gives Him More Legitimacy Than Any American Leader In History | NewsBusters.org

The number two man at NBC News believes Barack Obama's skin color gives him more legitimacy around the world than possibly any American leader in history.

Imagine that. Because Obama is black, before he even steps into the White House and accomplishes one darned thing he already has more legitimacy around the world than possibly every American president that came before him.

Another quote out of the NewsBusters piece:

MATTHEWS: One reason for the rage from the east, and I’m no expert. All these years that have led to the terrorism, the undercurrent of rage against the west, us, is the sense that we have disrespected them, their culture, we have looked down on them. In fact, we have defeated them technologically in some cases. But there’s that sense that they feel they're reacting to the hatred of the west. By electing somebody with this name, are we going to diffuse some of that? I think that would be very hopeful if we could.

Imagine that. Throughout the campaign we were told by liberal media members that any reference to Obama's middle-name was racist. Now that he's about to be president, his middle-name is an asset that can be freely discussed.

Those who thought the Obama-loving media would become more impartial once he was elected were clearly kidding themselves.

Sucks, huh? The liberal B.S. continues, and will be in force, for at least four years. No matter what Obama does, in fact, the liberal B.S. will go on. They will go against him at some point, and that is when I think I will celebrate. Because they have acted shamefully. They have veiled their own interests as they do their deeds, unlike conservative or liberal radio guys. They are dishonest. And for that, I heap loads of disrespect on them.

Powered by ScribeFire.