. . . the real election is just now finally beginning to get started (yet the entirety of the campaign still feels as if it has been endless).
Here are 17 semi-specific suggestions for Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain divided into five key policy areas.
Homeland Security/Defense/Foreign Policy
1. Articulate a viewpoint that makes it crystal clear that these three things are inextricably linked, that far from a failure, the past seven years have seen improvements in every facet of this matrix, and remind people that appeasement leads to worse wars to come (don't have to attack Obama specifically on any of this, just remind folks that it's OK to be patriotic, it's remarkable that there hasn't been a serious follow-on mass casualty attack in the United States since 2001, and that despite their bitching and whining, the world is more with us than against us when it comes down to it). Don't make the Giuliani error of bringing up 9/11 every five seconds, though, that'd be a sure way to lose on an issue that should be your strength.
2. Stress the need to commit to helping the Iraqis stabilize their government, and detail the horrors that could await should we leave precipitously (just pointing to recent comments from Michael J. Totten would be a good start)
3. Talk positively about the future, about our security goals, and about the prospect of a more prosperous globe and explain how those outcomes can only be accomplished by a strong American military coupled with an active and robust diplomatic corps.
4. Do not bother speaking specifically about Obama's policy statements in these areas of concern, people are smart enough in most of the country to figure things out for themselves. Presenting your positions in a positive framework is the best way to force voters to confront how truly negative, downcast, and downright Carter-like Obama's stated positions are. Either he changes his rhetoric, thus cutting himself off from his most activist lefties, or he loses the vast middle that make up the majority of voters. You are closer to the mainstream on these issues, play to that strength by emphasizing yourself, by not engaging Obama's nonsense directly, you win, he loses.
The Stupid Economy, Stupid
5. Do attack Obama directly on economic policy. It's going to require a strong dose of education and de-programming to make folks realize that your mix of economic policies are a surer path towards a 'soft landing' while Obama-like intervention and class warfare are a surer path towards a full blown Depression. Get Amity Shlaes out there on your behalf, debunking the New Deal, and highlighting the danger of Obama's many proposals of bringing about a New New Deal.
6. Go after unions, big time, especially public sector unions. You aren't winning a single vote from anybody who is a fan of their union. Ronald Reagan won blue collar workers, many of them union members, despite being a unionbuster, and he never made any bones about busting up unions. You are going to be excoriated by union leadership anyway, might as well make it a two way street. If the DEMS want to paint you a tool of 'big oil' then paint Obama as a tool of 'big union'. Remind people of the role public sector unions played in the price-hike/inflation spiral of the 70s that lead to double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and double digit interest rates.
7. Fight subsidies, educate voters on the need to eliminate as many subsidies as possible, and explain how distorting markets always causes unintended consequences that are often worse than the problems they were meant to remedy. Couple any discussion about taxes and governance with the firm commitment to reducing the influence the federal government exerts on the economy.
Governance
8. Fight pork, hit the pork theme again and again, your record on pork is terrific, and Obama's not so much, so this is an easy area to delineate a strong contrast between you and your opponent.
9. Advocate for smaller government, start with reducing the cabinet. Promise to hack away at the cabinet. Explain that all these various levels of bureaucracies on top of other bureaucracies serves no purpose other than to feather the beds of people connected to the winning presidential campaigns. Promise to restructure the Executive Branch into a model of lean efficiency that the rest of government should emulate.
10. Express regret over how campaign finance reform turned out. Admit that it was a failure, and move on. Promise to learn from this failure and not suggest anything as silly or anti-free speech as McCain-Feingold in the future, and promise to veto any attempts to abridge free speech in such a manner again.
Social Issues
11. Be yourself. You've been around forever, and you have a record on many of the hot button issues of the day, some of your stances are on both sides of the issues, embrace that, use that as a strength. Explain that positions can evolve, and times do change, and show that flexibility of mind is a strength. This is another area where you should hammer away at Obama as being consistently liberal, and consistently out of step with most voters, and that the changes he wants to bring about are changes that won't be good for the nation.
12. Continue to emphasize patriotism and service, and a belief that the United States is a uniquely wonderful country. Do not mention Obama's position on any of that stuff, folks will make up their own minds as to whether or not there is a contrast there.
13. On immigration, stick with getting border security settled first, but admit that you believe in increasing legal immigration to the United States. Also, make a point of extolling the need for people seeking to come to the United States to become a part of the United States. Assimilation is not a dirty word, encourage policies that demand legal immigrants learn English, embrace our system of governance, and integrate into the larger American community rather than creating balkanized enclaves within the United States. As far as amnesty goes, continue to pretend the bill you introduced wasn't meant to be amnesty, maybe you can fool enough people to get elected.
Global Warming/Energy Policy
14. Abandon cap and trade NOW! Just claim after further study and speaking with knowledgeable folks, that while the goals of cap and trade is good, the implementation has been horrible and counter-productive. Show that flexibility of mind, don't call it a flip flop, call it an evolution in your position.
15. Nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear. Our economy can't grow, and can't grow less 'carbon-spewing' unless we embrace all possible sources for getting electricity on the grid. Demonstrate how Japan, France, and even Brazil and India are using Nuclear power widely and safely. Promise to streamline the federal government's process in getting approvals, and promise to set up a system to reward localities that go with, good, clean, green, and carbon-free nuclear power in their own backyards. Also, promise to increase federal funding for R&D into fusion. That'd show you are paying attention to the good stuff that's bubbling under the radar within the science geek community.
16. Continue to 'evolve' with regards to your position on drilling and exploration for fossil fuels within our borders. Your recent pivot on off shore drilling is good, but another pivot on ANWR would be even better. Again, promise to speed the processes for approvals, don't let competing federal government agencies throw needless roadblocks to developing more refinery capacity and more drilling capacity within our borders. Oil isn't going away, and sub $100 per barrel crude probably isn't coming back either, we've got massive reserves just waiting to be tapped, promise to get our government to 'tap that' as quickly and efficiently as possible.
17. Make silly pronouncements regarding being about a "Green" President. Promise that going "Green" doesn't mean kowtowing to the UN, Europe, or hobbling our economy. Remind folks that the USA has been more successful in reducing our emmissions without joining Kyoto, than any of the nations that agreed to that silly treaty. Remind folks that it takes energy to run an economy, and the best way to improve how we get that energy is through innovation, not placing artificial constraints on growth.
I know not all of this is stuff that McCain has been about, but none of this is so out of step with who he's been that it would sound too strange coming out of his mouth. Despite everything, he has a real shot at not only beating Obama, but winning a decisive victory in the Electoral College. He needs to embrace his inner Reagan, embrace small government GOP values, and lay off attacking Obama. Just highlighting your own policies will do the job for you, elucidate your moderate/conservative viewpoint, and the contrast between that and Obama's clear liberal to downright Marxist leanings will become self evident, even with most of the media trying their hardest to get the Messiah of their dreams in office.
Showing posts with label Suggestions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Suggestions. Show all posts
30 June 2007
Wedding Speculation, circa 2014
While checking up on Tom Cruise and what his role at United Artists is, noticed the deal with his wives. All three are actresses, and each successive wife is born 11 years later than the last (not an original observation on my part, others have noted this trend).
That would mean that his next wife was born in 1989. It's possible she's not a famous actress yet, but figured I'd make some suggestions directly to Tom Cruise, just in case he finds himself on the market again 6-10 years from now.
Kristin Herrera is a comely lass, building a nice little career for herself, don't know if she'd be willing to commit to Scientology, but I'm sure in 6-7 years from now, she might be ready. As an added bonus, she's only 5'4", so she might be able to wear heels when you go out together.
Ashley Benson, just in case you're tempted to go with another fair skinned blond/red head for your next wife. Another lass listed at only 5'4", that way she won't have to slouch in public all the time
Renee Olstead is another attractive petite actress (and singer) who might strike your fancy some years from now. She may have been in an unwatchable sitcom, but she has four octave range, and that's hard to beat.
Reina Tanaka is a lovely young singer/dancer/sort of actress from Japan who would surely be a perfect match for you. Here's a video of her posing, and one of her performing (I bet she even has you in mind while singing this song, Japanese girls are crazy for you, as you already know), to help you in your decisionmaking (and she's the shortest of the bunch at barely 5')
Daniel Radcliffe might be a possibility a few years from now, also. I'm not saying that you or he are gay, or have ever been gay, or are even bi-curious, and I've certainly never believed any of the numerous rumors about your sexuality that have pervaded the internet since there's been an internet. I'm not just saying that just to avoid becoming another in a long line of litigants with reference to rumors regarding your sexuality, either. But he's certainly a big star, and a big open relationship between two Hollywood players like this might be a major vehicle for social change. It might make a good career move for both of you, think of it as a marriage of convenience, and not a love match. Plus I'd bet he'd make a great stepdad(mom?) for Suri. Besides it's about time that Scientology makes crystal clear their views on homosexuality, and this would be a good way to signal believers and non-believers in a major clarification in Scientology policy.
That would mean that his next wife was born in 1989. It's possible she's not a famous actress yet, but figured I'd make some suggestions directly to Tom Cruise, just in case he finds himself on the market again 6-10 years from now.
Kristin Herrera is a comely lass, building a nice little career for herself, don't know if she'd be willing to commit to Scientology, but I'm sure in 6-7 years from now, she might be ready. As an added bonus, she's only 5'4", so she might be able to wear heels when you go out together.
Ashley Benson, just in case you're tempted to go with another fair skinned blond/red head for your next wife. Another lass listed at only 5'4", that way she won't have to slouch in public all the time
Renee Olstead is another attractive petite actress (and singer) who might strike your fancy some years from now. She may have been in an unwatchable sitcom, but she has four octave range, and that's hard to beat.
Reina Tanaka is a lovely young singer/dancer/sort of actress from Japan who would surely be a perfect match for you. Here's a video of her posing, and one of her performing (I bet she even has you in mind while singing this song, Japanese girls are crazy for you, as you already know), to help you in your decisionmaking (and she's the shortest of the bunch at barely 5')
Daniel Radcliffe might be a possibility a few years from now, also. I'm not saying that you or he are gay, or have ever been gay, or are even bi-curious, and I've certainly never believed any of the numerous rumors about your sexuality that have pervaded the internet since there's been an internet. I'm not just saying that just to avoid becoming another in a long line of litigants with reference to rumors regarding your sexuality, either. But he's certainly a big star, and a big open relationship between two Hollywood players like this might be a major vehicle for social change. It might make a good career move for both of you, think of it as a marriage of convenience, and not a love match. Plus I'd bet he'd make a great stepdad(mom?) for Suri. Besides it's about time that Scientology makes crystal clear their views on homosexuality, and this would be a good way to signal believers and non-believers in a major clarification in Scientology policy.
16 May 2007
The Debates I'd Like to See
Fox News did an as good as job as possible with the 10 person circus style debate format they were saddled with. MSNBC's debates were a travesty in comparison.
But the format itself is a dead format and should be abandoned.
Here's the debate format I'd like to see.
Acknowledge that the way the system works now, there are a first tier and second tier of candidates. That's the reality, and by letting everyone who can get there name on a ballot to participate, you only make it harder for voters to see the differences between the candidates that might actually have a chance to be running the country one day.
Another thing worth changing would be to combine the Democrats and Republicans together. These debates are a conversation, and that conversation should offer both sides, not just one or the other, the earlier both major parties actively engage the other, the better it would be for both party's electorate to determine which candidate is best capable of offering a strong challenge in the only poll that matters, the one on the 2nd Tuesday in November of an election year.
So here's the format, invite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates. If logistics makes meeting in the same town impossible, there's this thing called teleconferencing, and I hear you can do pretty amazing things with it.
Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly. If Sen. Clinton is a legitimate potential leader for this nation, she ought to be able to ask questions, and get asked questions, directly from Mayor Giuliani or Sen. McCain, or Gov. Romney. Likewise, a former prosecutor like Giuliani would have fun going after Clinton, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Edwards on specific issues of interest to him and the nation.
If a candidate like Romney wanted to spend his time getting the Dems to bicker amongst themselves, he could, or he could directly challenge them to explain how their choices would be better for the country. Likewise Obama could use his time as "host" to offer a quick take on his views and challenge any of the leading Republicans to offer better.
By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.
The current format favors agreement over conflict (except when it comes to the fringe candidates like Paul, Gravel or Kucinich), and that's boring. My suggestion favors engagement while at least offering the possibility that a touch of substance might seep to the surface.
Also, by rotating in a different 4th from each party, you'd give the possibility that somebody currently on the outside like Gov. Richardson or Gov. Huckabee could make a big enough impression to build up a more solid base. Right now there's just too much noise and too little time to do so. Also, having those two changing seats in the debate would mark a difference and add some needed unpredictability to these proceedings.
Bi-weekly would be a burden on the candidates, but then these folks expect to be president one day, so it's not too much to ask if they want all that power. The more often they're exposed to situations they don't control fully control the better. We need to see how these folks operate under pressure, and my format suggestion would add a deal of pressure and force them to apply some intellectual rigor to their own positions and their understanding of their opponents'.
But neither party would ever agree to this, even though this could be a benefit to both given that the candidates who emerged from this process would be razor sharp and battle tested rather than some sad sack standard bearer who gets a shot at the presidency simply cause it was their turn.
But the format itself is a dead format and should be abandoned.
Here's the debate format I'd like to see.
Acknowledge that the way the system works now, there are a first tier and second tier of candidates. That's the reality, and by letting everyone who can get there name on a ballot to participate, you only make it harder for voters to see the differences between the candidates that might actually have a chance to be running the country one day.
Another thing worth changing would be to combine the Democrats and Republicans together. These debates are a conversation, and that conversation should offer both sides, not just one or the other, the earlier both major parties actively engage the other, the better it would be for both party's electorate to determine which candidate is best capable of offering a strong challenge in the only poll that matters, the one on the 2nd Tuesday in November of an election year.
So here's the format, invite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates. If logistics makes meeting in the same town impossible, there's this thing called teleconferencing, and I hear you can do pretty amazing things with it.
Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly. If Sen. Clinton is a legitimate potential leader for this nation, she ought to be able to ask questions, and get asked questions, directly from Mayor Giuliani or Sen. McCain, or Gov. Romney. Likewise, a former prosecutor like Giuliani would have fun going after Clinton, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Edwards on specific issues of interest to him and the nation.
If a candidate like Romney wanted to spend his time getting the Dems to bicker amongst themselves, he could, or he could directly challenge them to explain how their choices would be better for the country. Likewise Obama could use his time as "host" to offer a quick take on his views and challenge any of the leading Republicans to offer better.
By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.
The current format favors agreement over conflict (except when it comes to the fringe candidates like Paul, Gravel or Kucinich), and that's boring. My suggestion favors engagement while at least offering the possibility that a touch of substance might seep to the surface.
Also, by rotating in a different 4th from each party, you'd give the possibility that somebody currently on the outside like Gov. Richardson or Gov. Huckabee could make a big enough impression to build up a more solid base. Right now there's just too much noise and too little time to do so. Also, having those two changing seats in the debate would mark a difference and add some needed unpredictability to these proceedings.
Bi-weekly would be a burden on the candidates, but then these folks expect to be president one day, so it's not too much to ask if they want all that power. The more often they're exposed to situations they don't control fully control the better. We need to see how these folks operate under pressure, and my format suggestion would add a deal of pressure and force them to apply some intellectual rigor to their own positions and their understanding of their opponents'.
But neither party would ever agree to this, even though this could be a benefit to both given that the candidates who emerged from this process would be razor sharp and battle tested rather than some sad sack standard bearer who gets a shot at the presidency simply cause it was their turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)