Dear Dr. Bones,
One of these mystic semi-demi-hemi-Cherokee moons I shall endeavor to explain to the unjoo-bito how they fail to understand practical politics. Today, however is not the day, although the sentiments, as opposed to the style, of the following uneditorial letter cover most of what needs to be said:
| Thoughts On Conference Call With Elizabeth Warren 5/17/12 oetkb | Fri, May 18, 2012 12:44 PM EST Last night Elizabeth Warren sitting in a car on her way to an event had a conference call with her supporters. The format was introductory remarks by the candidate followed by questions and answers. Although there were important questions asked it seemed they were too narrowly focused for a general campaign. Questions fielded were on inappropriate bank fees, the fishing industry, and defeating Scott Brown. Maybe others can remember the rest. Elizabeth, her choice for addressing her, ((huh?)) set a theme that her followers must tune into. She advocated for broader frames such as Wall Street and Banking Reform and a balanced conservation policy. As Democrats we sometimes wander off into the weeds that makes the general plebiscite’s eyes glaze over. To win this race in a political sense issues must be chosen carefully. They must be policies that have general appeal but still firmly in a progressive’s bailiwick. Winning the war is far more satisfactory than winning the battle. In contrast Republicans are dead on with just a few things they will vote for and have no qualms about dressing it up or using outright deception to win over the public. If too many topics are emphasized on our part, it is my opinion, we may lose the attention of independent voters by essentially boring them instead of stimulating them to act on progressive causes. Even some pressing civil rights or international controversies may burn inside us but do not engage the public one bit in terms of electing someone. It may even backfire. The voter usually wants the following question answered: ”What’s in it for me and my family?” I am all for protest for social change and without a doubt it should definitely continue full force. I’ve been in few myself. However you need responsive elected leaders to make it happen. So circling around our choice of candidate seems necessary to bring about any further results. Ms. Warren listens to her constituency but she will willow down what she wants to promote. I think this is wise and we should stand firmly behind her choices. Adding on favorite topics could be self defeating. Was anyone else in on this call last night and what were your thoughts? If we make a list of the big three or four, what should it be and what would be effective strategy with independents to make them pull the lever for Elizabeth? Some of them may even live in your household. People talk about thinking outside the box, well now is the time to do so. To win this Senate Race it will need some strong mental push-ups to get Elizabeth Warren over the top. Let’s do it. recommended by david, jasiu, mark-bail, |
And the answer is...... Wow I didn’t think my post would essentially prove my point. I was looking for practicality and strategy. Instead mostly philosophical hand waving. This is how the opposition wins by demonstrating simply and with an attractive appeal to immediate needs. We need to offer a fairy tale equivalent like taking a chance on the lottery but with much better odds. So again I ask, any CONCRETE strategies? Many buy the Republican trickle down economic theory along with insisting government intrudes too much in people’s lives and is the source of every problem known to man or woman. It sells even in the face of evidence to the contrary. FDR sold the New Deal and we have to devise something similar to bring to those independents to the Democratic side. oetkb @ Sun 20 May 7:41 PM |
| ¿Would it be too ’philosophical’, or too much like "hand wringing," to suggest (( fold here )) that Her Beatitude’s operatives might try to engage Citizen Fehrnstrom? That’s a little *too* spoofy, yet there is a certain seriousness all the same, which reposes upon a sort of "Two of a trade will never agree" problem as between ‘oetkb’ and Paddy McTammany. We both agree (it sure looks like) that the nobility and gentry who dwell above the clouds on the upper slope of the Great Blue Hill, hard by the Palace of Public Television, are not exactly the go-to volks for political nuts and bolts and meat and potatos. Also bricks and mortar. Their Worships presumably do not agree, and would argue (I suppose) that ‘jobs’ and "the economy" and "the middle class" are about all H. B. requires, really, for campaign issues. The staff and BigManagement of BMG, for example, have just borrowed an image [*] from Talking Points Memo that they seem to think ought to blow Fratboy out of the Senate single-pixelled. ___ [*] "The Causes of the National Debt: Policies from Bush Administration Projected to be Main Source Of Future Deficits"  So naturally it gets retitled for Blue Blazer consumption as "Scott Brown’s Great Republican Recession" |
Happy days. --JHM
No comments:
Post a Comment