Tag Archives: campaign

Another Nail In Perry's Coffin…


I came across a Rick Perry ad today that stopped me in my tracks, and not for any of the good reasons.  At first glance, it seems like it might be another good TV spot for the candidate from Texas.  It starts off with optimistic music and Perry looking like a seasoned man from America’s heartland.  He’s standing by a quiet river, and he begins with a proclamation that he’s “not ashamed to admit that he’s a Christian”.  So far so good… Then his next statement kind of derails things.  Take a look…

Look…  I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”.  I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement.  And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.

This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008.  Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.

Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help.  Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”.  How does this ad help to change that perception?  It doesn’t.  It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.

Also… it was a good ad without that line.  Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine.  Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it.  It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.

This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.

New Mitt Romney Ad: Vote For Me; I'm All You Got

This new “campaign ad” from Mitt Romney tells the hard truth folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZLUKiGTXI&feature=channel_video_title

What do you think?  Has he convinced you?  Or are you still holding out for Ron Paul to finally have his year?  Let us know in the comments below. (and send your hate mail to Jimmy Kimmel in Hollywood, CA)

Herman Cain Talks About How Accusations Of Sexual Harassment Have Affected His Campaign

On Tuesday night, Herman Cain went onto the O’Reilly Factor to discuss (among other things) how the allegations of sexual harassment have impacted his campaign.  According to him, business is better than ever.  Watch the video below to see what Cain says about how these allegations have impacted him and his campaign.

 

 

 

 

I have to admit that Cain makes some compelling points in this video, especially the fact that over a course of 42 years, these (supposedly) “baseless” accusations are the only thing he’s been confronted with.

What do you think?  Is this story finally behind him?  Or does Herman still have some ‘splainin to do?  Let us know in the comments below, or if you’re feeling really ambitious, you can rent out a billboard with your opinion on it.  Prizes will be awarded to the most creative billboard that’s submitted.  The deadline is 3pm tomorrow afternoon. (but we suggest telling us in the comments section; it’s much simpler for all of us)

Herman Cain Explains "Smoking Man" Video

You might have recently seen Herman Cain’s campaign ad that features a middle-aged white guy smoking a cigarette while telling you that “America’s never had a candidate like Herman Cain before.”  You may have seen the ad, but you may not have understood it.  Well, Cain went on Hannity tonight to explain the ad, and…. I still don’t understand it.

What about you?  Do you understand it?  Let us know in the comments below.  Most of us at CDN are still confused…

What Is Herman Cain's Campaign Smoking???

I don’t know if this video is supposed to be a joke or not, but if it’s real, then how did it ever get approved?  I mean, really…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iefi-7qXpzk&feature=channel_video_title

First the obvious… What is up with the cigarette smoke at the end of the video?  Can somebody tell me?  Now the not so obvious… Did you notice the blinds swaying behind Herman’s head at the end of the video?  I’m pretty sure this thing was shot in a hotel.  Maybe even a Holiday Inn.

Okay, you know what I want.  Comments, people.  What do you think is happening in this video?  A lot of people have been scratching their heads to figure out this one.  Let us know what you come up with.  You can tell us in the comments below, on Facebook, or you can call my home phone.  I should be in after 7pm.

Obama Stealing from Taxpayers While Economy Worsens

Obama Magical Misery Bus TourDuring the longest recession of our time, Obama started what Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney called the “Magical Misery Tour”. On Monday, the President kicked-off a three-day, 100% taxpayer-funded campaign event – that isn’t a campaign event.

The tour features two town hall meetings and five stops in Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois, the first of which was in Decorah, Iowa on Monday where he continued to try to sell the idea that the economy was on the verge of improving.

Obama faced the lowest Gallup job approval ratings of his career just prior to the tour. In a bid to improve his image and tune his campaign message, he’s boarded a set of $2.2 million buses on multi-city expenditure of tax payer money. Spending this amount of money while American families are hurting is reprehensible. As Obama’s failed policies are to blame for the pain, it makes this a real slap-in-the-face.

White House Spokesman Jay Carney said that the tour is an official event and when asked if the event would be taxpayer-funded, Carney answered, “He is the President of the United States”.

The line between “official event” and campaign stop are getting blurry. Why Iowa just after the Iowa straw poll? Couldn’t he have done a bus tour across the gulf coast or the desert southwest?

The 3-day romp in the Misery Machine is certainly campaigning. Obama never stopped campaigning. Now he’s going to use all the free air time and tax-funded Bus trips he can to save the millions in campaign funds for television ads, messaging, and paying for support.

In business ethics, there is a test – the appearance of impropriety. When holding a leadership position, it is important to avoid situation that can even be moderately considered improper. As carefully crafted as the Obama image is, it’s tough to fathom why they didn’t just pay for the bus tour to avoid the negative perception.

The buses will remain property of the United States and future presidents can use them, so no need to cover those costs from his 2012 coffers. The food, hotels, gas, security costs and other event costs should come from his campaign.

The president hasn’t led on jobs since taking office so the sudden renaming of his tour of the Mid-West to the “Jobs Creation Bus Tour” isn’t fooling most voters. He doesn’t have which was obvious in his first stop. The town hall in Decorah was a long-winded, back-handed slam of Republicans saying that they’d moved too far to the right. No mention of Democrats having gone off-the-reservation to the left. Obama has accepted and applied the strategy set forth  in a DNC campaign  memo that started with, “GOP candidates’ extreme aims to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party shows that Republicans are more concerned with protecting their special interest friends and the wealthy than protecting working families”.

This bus tour is Obama officially accepting the trash-talking, no-civility campaign strategy cooked up by Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Shutlz and the rest of the hard left-wing of the Democrat party.

Without a doubt, the bus tour is a campaign event.

Corporate Personhood

To bring everyone up to speed on the purpose of the title and this article, I was in a recent discussion with a friend on the other side of the political aisle who asked me to define the term “corporate personhood.” The discussion had its genesis around a story that placed the onus of responsibility for the state of the economy on Wall Street. I countered that burdensome regulations and government intervention were to blame. At one point corporations were brought up, and the term “corporate personhood” became the focal point. We decided to do “dueling articles,” and his piece can be found here.

The term comes from the question of whether or not a corporation counts as a person in terms of constitutional rights, so we first have to define a corporation. Merriam-Webster defines a corporation as follows:

1.  a. A group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild; b. The municipal authorities of a town or city.

2. A body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession.

3. An association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state.

Essentially, a corporation is a single entity made up of a group of individuals. My off-the-cuff response was a bit more simplified:

“It amazes me how people make the leap that a corporation is some supernatural entity that needs to be defeated, like the Balrog or something (YOU SHALL NOT PASS!). It’s not. A corporation is a group of people working together towards a common goal of producing products that people want to buy. The only reason they BECAME corporations, instead of (for example) LLC’s is because they are really good at what they do.”

So let us recap. Thus far, we have established that corporations are made up of individuals, the next step is to ascertain what the law says. USC § 1 defines corporations as:

“the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”

Friends, it does not get much clearer than that. But since there is still an argument despite the above, we need to press on.

Campaign Finance Reform

This discussion now takes us into the morass of “campaign finance.” While there have been a few attempts throughout our jurisprudence to restrict who can give what to which candidate, the most commonly referred to (modern) law is the aptly-named Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002, which is known as McCain-Feingold (votes can be found here).

Legally speaking, a corporation counts as a person. So now we have to ask ourselves whether or not a corporation is afforded constitutional rights. We can argue this two ways. First, a corporation is simply a group of individuals. Since individuals have constitutionally protected rights, they keep those rights even if they get together with others. Secondly, the law flat out states that corporations are “persons” which are protected under the Constitution.

The Constitution uses the term “Person” and “Citizen” almost interchangeably, using the term “citizen” when discussing location and “person” in general. For example, Article IV Sec. 2 covers Privileges and Immunities of “Citizens,” while at the same time laying out the framework for legal action against “persons” that commit a crime in one state and flee to another.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights uses the term “people,” which is the plural form of person. A corporation is legally defined as a “person” and specifically defined as a group of people, so it would take a great leap to claim that the bill of rights, specifically the First Amendment, does not apply to them.

What McCain-Feingold did was, in the words of Justice Kennedy speaking for the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission:

 “The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.”

Legality

The First Amendment was written not just to protect speech, but to protect political speech, and the language is pretty clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

While there have been several challenges to the law, including one by Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY), this decision was by far the most comprehensive in deciding the constitutionality. Essentially, the court decided that barring corporations from participating in political speech during an election was unconstitutional, and went on to cite numerous legal precedents where corporations were defined as persons with First Amendment rights (Section A, 1). Ironically, though I suppose predictably, most supporters of campaign finance laws do not know the history of it in this country.

Philosophy

There is certainly a case to be made for restrictions on campaign finance. We do not want foreign interests, whether it be companies or governments, to fund candidates they want. But to restrict the political speech of Americans is something completely different.

Before we continue, we need to define “money.” I know, it seems a bit strange, but indulge me for a moment. Money is a “tool of exchange” that represents one’s labor. Money cannot exist unless a person expends labor to produce a product or service that someone else values enough to buy with what they produced with their labor. We use paper money because it is not convenient to trade in livestock or large amounts of metals. The amount of money one earns is representative of the amount and value of their labor, which is why a corporate CEO that works 18 hours per day and is in charge of 500 people producing products for millions of individuals while ensuring the stockholders invested their own money wisely earns more money than a union janitor doing the 9-to-5 mopping floors and taking out trash.

This money, in the context of this subject, represents speech in that it is used to produce advertisements and buy ad space in media that speak on certain issues important to the survival and success of the company. Sometimes this involves speaking for or against certain candidates or platforms.

The arguments against allowing corporations to speak during election seasons normally revolve around the fact that they are able to pool money, buy ads, and drown out the voice of the common people. This is a class warfare argument and legislation banning speech by corporations (i.e. groups of people) makes them legally-defined special classes of which it is legal to discriminate against. The irony (and philosophical shortcoming) is that in a nation that legally and philosophically was set up to value the individual, we consistently have to fight political battles to stop certain people from passing laws that group people together so as to both dole out special favors and discriminate against. A fitting analogy is that the people who advocate for special laws against “the rich” are no different than those who supported Jim Crow laws.

There is another ethical argument to be made against this sort of campaign reform law, and we saw this play out up close and personal in 2008. During that election season, we saw speeches by all candidates denigrating corporations. Public sentiment against corporate CEOs reached the point to where people were protesting outside of their private homes. Corporate CEOs are also routinely called before Congress to justify their ability to make money. This is, again, the definition of class warfare, which had its place in 17th century feudal Europe, but was outmoded by the advancement of free market capitalism and the philosophy that stated all men were created equal.

Essentially, the argument against corporate speech boils down to saying that they should just shut up and take the congressional grill sessions, the protests, the public denigrations, all while the people they are not allowed to speak out against paint them as evil, institute more onerous regulations that make business even harder to conduct, and pass tax laws that take more of their money away from them (yes, corporations do pay taxes, as do CEOs, despite what that bumper sticker on the Prius says). Corporations should just stay on their knees and smile as they are punched, kicked, and made into monsters, then are taxed for the privilege.

How is that ethical? It is not. If politicians are going to spend a year and a half during election season speaking out against the very corporations they depend on to fund their pet projects and keep the nation’s economy going, the corporations, and the people running and working them, should be able to call those politicians on their drivel.

(Originally posted at Federalism Online)

Did Romney Mislead About Fund Raising Success?

Mitt RomneyOn May 16th, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign announced that he had raised more than $10 million in one day.  Facts are tricky things and according to the official FEC report filed by his campaign, he raised only $2.4 million on that day.

Mitt Romney is not known for his honesty, full-on trustworthiness or much of anything else when it comes to relaying facts, but why lie about this?

An important thing to note is that the FEC filing that lists the roughly $10.2 million dollars only accounts for those donations over $200.00. Did Mitt pull in over $7 million in small donations? Not likely. When examining his quarterly filing states that he only pulled in $18 million for the entirety of Q2? In one day he garnered more than half of his entire stash? His fund-raising machine would have had to implode to have numbers that bad after three months if he had recorded $10 million in a single day.

Mitt Romney is a one-man political machine and is more of the same Washington insider, spineless, populist propagandist that we have had to live with in recent decades. This is just proof that he will say or do anything to get elected. Is that who we really need?

 

Newt Gingrich Campaign Loses 2 More

Fox News just cut into their daily routine to announce that Newt Gingrich’s campaign has taken yet another hit in its very early stages. It is reported that two more of his campaign staff members have resigned.

Now, his top two campaign fundraisers have bid the campaign adios.

Campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond is confirming to The Associated Press that fundraising director Jody Thomas and fundraising consultant Mary Heitman have left the team.

The AP reports that Mr. Gingrich’s fundraising has left a lot to be desired throughout the already short campaign. Will this new hit to his team finally wake Mr. Gingrich up, or will he continue his seemingly grandiose disillusion of an idea that he has a chance to win the 2012 election?

Here is just another example of a politician not listening to We The People.  Newt is NOT the candidate conservatives are looking for! You would think that the majority of his staff quitting his team would make him realize this. If you cannot persuade your closest people to continue supporting you, how do you expect to change the mind of the majority of conservative Americans?

Newt Gingrich, That Ship Has Sailed

Cruise ShipNewt Gingrich pulled an Obama. During a critical period, where his leadership was most needed – he went on vacation.

Despite advice to the contrary from his campaign staff, Newt and his wife went on a cruise through the Greek isles and now, his most senior campaign staff is sailing into the sunset.

Newt’s campaign manager, spokesman, and advisers in three states stepped down on Thursday reportedly due to confusion over what direction the campaign should take. With no leader to steer the ship, it would appear that Gingrich’s phoenix-like rise from the ashes was more akin to the Titanic’s maiden voyage.

Newt Gingrich has struggled ever since he cut the legs out from underneath Congressmen Paul Ryan’s budgetary framework by referring to it as “right-wing social engineering”.

Some reports blame the rift on a Wednesday night call where his senior staff asked him to spend more time in the early primary states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire and less time promoting a documentary he made with his wife.

Another report states that his managers were concerned over expenditures on expensive private jets despite the fact that many of Gingrich’s largest financial donors had told his campaign that they would not be supporting him during this campaign.

When a team implodes, it is always from a lack of leadership. We see it in the constant turnover in Obama’s administration and we see it now in Gingrich’s campaign.

To reinforce Newt’s image of lackluster leadership and poor judgement, he is planning to “re-launch” his campaign from … Los Angeles, California.

*update 6/10*: There is a report that now says aids are putting some of the blame on Newt’s wife for pressuring him to run a “part-time” campaign. This sounds like deflection so that Newt can say that it wasn’t that he didn’t want to work hard, my wife asked me to balance work and personal life. This plays not with Conservatives. The country is in trouble and needs our steadfast attention. If Newt and Callista can only be bothered occasionally to take the reigns, we’ll help them out – don’t friggen bother.

 

Supreme Court Overrules Political Spending Limits

Ever since the Supreme Court decided to allow corporations to spend money on political advertising, liberals and extremists have been in an uproar.   Ralph Nader is threatening to change the first amendment and the President wants new legislation to counter the court finding (that’s not Constitutional Mr. President, you’ll have to amend the constitution … checks and balances sir).  The Supreme Court decision will most-likely end up changing… absolutely nothing.

Large corporations have used 527 funds to funnel money to campaigns ever since soft-money became regulated.  Now they can just be open about who their supporting… wait… what?  That’s right, a public corporation would have to be totally transparent about buying a television advertisement for “candidate A”  to their stock holders and board members.  It’s more likely that they’ll use the money for business operations as the alignment to a candidate will alienate some set of customers.

As is most of liberal politics, this is much ado about nothing.  To Obama and Schummer I say, “I think thou doth protest too much”. This isn’t about direct campaign contributions, it’s about the right of everyone to produce and publicize their views in commercials and/or documentaries.

Only liberals could believe that voters are all so stupid that we do whatever we’re told by the television.  We see commercials, but we have ideals, morals, principals.  We vote our conscience, not because of some slick commercial.

Why are they so worried?  The news media corporations are already allowed to use their access to the public to influence things, why not the rest of corporate America?  They aren’t.  This is a diversionary tactic.  They need the media to stop talking about Scott Brown.  Liberals need us to stop paying attention to the fact that Obamacare and cap and trade are drowning in reality.  Talking about something that just doesn’t really matter is much better for the left than discussing all the critical issues that they have failed to do anything on.

The CEO of Kraft isn’t going to get his best friend elected to the Senate by spending millions on advertising.  Buffet isn’t going to get Obama re-elected by spending his companies money on info-mercials.  Corporations aren’t going to be able to buy a candidacy because we aren’t controlled by advertising.  Most of us just fast-forward the DVR right past those ads anyway.

Recent Entries »