Like the GSA and now The Secret Service, is everything in government beginning to unhinge? And then comes 'Obamascare' and over 2800 pages of more gobbledygook!
Is Kessler right or is he just jumping on for sensationalism ?
One thing is evident , however. We need more and bigger government so all our freedoms can be crushed! (See 1 below.)
---
Avi continues to pursue money laundering nations and lo and behold up pops Thailand! (See 2 below.)
---
It is all about fairness as defined by Obama. Is that fair? (See 3 below.)
---
We always hear we need to raise taxes but never that we need to restrain spending. Well here are some spending cut proposals which Republicans deem appropriate and it appears Obama is opposed to virtually all of them because they were part of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget bill.
Personally I believe they only skim the surface. What about closing down entire agencies like Dept. of Energy, Education, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the GSA for a start. (See 4 below.)
---
Romney is going to be formidable . (See 5 below.)
---
This from a dear friend whose wife is not of his political persuasion so I will not reveal his name. Funny! (See 6 below.)
---
Really an interesting, no a fascinating, article. The article linked below is all about politics… but it’s not the least bit political!
You know, of course, that New York Times readers tend to be Democrats and Wall Street Journal readers Republicans. But did you know that…
· Boston Market patrons tend to be Democrats and Panera Bread patrons Republican?
· Mercedes drivers are likely to be Democrats, but BMW drivers to be Republicans?
· Audi drivers are probably Democrats, but Lexus drivers are Republicans?
· Gin drinkers are Democrats and bourbon drinkers are Republican?
· Natural Light beer drinkers skew Democratic, but Miller Lite drinkers skew Republican?
There are fascinating implications to all this… whether you’re interesting in marketing or politics. I think you’ll enjoy the article and the graphs."
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/let-the-nanotargeting-begin/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120416 (See 7 below.)
--
I will end on this: "For the past three years, President Obama has been promising a better economy. But rather than hold himself accountable (like he said he would), Obama is deflecting the blame from himself and his failed policies.
On the eve of Tax Day, I'm sure everyone can agree that the state of the economy is forefront on the minds of voters. Well Mr. President,excuses don't pay the mortgage, lower skyrocketing gas prices, or cover the cost of those tax estimates.
Have times been tough? Yes. However, that doesn't justify Obama's laundry list of excuses for lacking the guidance and leadership to help America out of this fiscal disaster.
Americans are worse off than they were four years ago, so if Barack Obama won't hold himself accountable--come November, we should."
---
Dick----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Secret Service Agents Violated Top Secret Clearance
Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — By allegedly hiring prostitutes, married Secret Service agents in Colombia violated their top-secret security clearances.
Every agent has such a security clearance. An extra-marital affair if proven can be grounds for revoking a clearance. Without that, no one can be an agent.
While some are single, most of the 11 Secret Service agents and uniformed officers suspended in the Colombia scandal are married. Two are supervisors. Aside from jeopardizing security clearances, engaging prostitutes violates the basic Secret Service code of conduct.
The scandal began last week two days before President Barack Obama’s trip to Cartagena in conjunction with the Summit of the Americas. A prostitute at the Hotel Caribe refused to leave an agent’s room because he had not paid her.
The hotel requires guests’ visitors to leave identification at the front desk and insists that they leave by 7 a.m. When hotel officials noticed that one guest had not left by the curfew, they knocked on the door of the room in question.
When they were refused admittance, the hotel called the local police. The agent eventually paid her, but the police notified the Secret Service and State Department because the incident involved a foreign national.
The breach is deadly serious. A prostitute could blackmail an agent into cooperating with a foreign intelligence service, a terrorist, or a drug cartel leader. The SVR, the successor to the KGB, would like nothing better than to have an agent in its pocket — to plant bugging devices in the president’s hotel room, limousine, or the White House itself. A terrorist could use an agent to obtain access to the president to carry out an assassination.
Some lawmakers have praised Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan for taking quick action to replace the agents. That is a sickening misinterpretation of the situation.
As outlined in my book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” under Sullivan the Secret Service has been cutting corners, leading to a culture that encourages reckless behavior and allowed three intruders to crash a White House state dinner in November 2009.
I broke the story of what happened in Colombia in the Washington Post after being tipped by a Secret Service agent who — like many current agents — is convinced that the agency’s corner-cutting could lead to an assassination.
Once the story broke, the Secret Service started patting itself on the back by saying Obama’s security was not compromised. In fact, sending in new agents at the last minute put an extra strain on existing personnel and required the newcomers to get up to speed quickly on the terrain.
The standard should not be that an assassination did not occur. The standard should be that nothing like this scandal — the worst in Secret Service history — should ever have been allowed to happen.
It is not true, as suggested by some media accounts, that agents routinely engage in wild partying and drinking. What is true is that the culture of corner-cutting fostered by Secret Service management breeds contempt for rules, leading agents to flout them.
As noted in my story Secret Service Laxness Puts President at Risk, the Secret Service’s corner-cutting includes:
- Not passing crowds through magnetometers at presidential, vice presidential, and campaign events. In other cases, when crowds are waiting to get in, the Secret Service shuts down magnetometer screening, under pressure from impatient White House or campaign staffs.
- Cutting back on the size of counter-assault teams and, for the sake of cosmetics, bowing to demands of staff that the teams remain at a distance from protectees.
- Not keeping up to date with the latest, most powerful firearms used by the FBI, other federal law enforcement, and the military. Both the FBI and military have switched to the M4 carbine, while the Secret Service continues to use the MP5 submachine gun. Even the Amtrak Police Department is equipped with the M4.
- Not allowing agents time for regular firearms requalification or physical training. The Secret Service covers up that practice by dishonestly telling agents to fill out their own test scores.
Instead of removing her from protecting the president and requiring her to pass the physical fitness tests that all agents are supposed to take every three months, Secret Service management told drivers to try to park so it would be easier for the vehicle door to swing open for her.
“Forget physical fitness tests,” says a recently retired agent. “We are not given the time to do them.”
Demands on the Secret Service have increased in recent years without a commensurate increase in staff. As a consequence, agents routinely work overtime and often get little sleep, working 18-hour days.
“How tired do you get? Just imagine sleeping three or four hours a night for a week,” an agent says.
In addition, the agency bows to political pressure, further jeopardizing security. When agents refused to drive friends of Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary to restaurants, she got her detail leader removed.
The fact that Secret Service management does not back personnel when they are just doing their jobs contributed to Secret Service uniformed officers’ reluctance to turn away party crashers Michaele and Tareq Salahi and Carlos Allen, who showed up at the White House state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
This favoritism and disregard for the safety of protectees leads to low morale and increasingly high turnover. Underscoring the favoritism, the female agent who cannot open the president’s limousine doors is a supervisor. If the president were shot, she could not help carry him to safety, an agent notes.
The Secret Service may need an overhaul, but it is unparalleled when it comes to providing special access to members of Congress and sweet-talking them and the president into thinking the agency is competent.
When the Secret Service proudly shows members of Congress its Rowley Training Facility, it wows them with supposedly unrehearsed feats of heroism that bring down the bad guys and save the lives of protectees. In fact, as revealed in my book, those scenarios are dishonestly secretly rehearsed.
What is needed is a new director from outside the agency who will institute sweeping reforms. Tragically, it may take another assassination before that happens.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Courting 'financial pariah' status
This past February, Thailand was added to a high-risk blacklist by an international organization many people have never heard of. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was established by the Group of Seven (G7) in 1989 to combat money laundering and terrorism finance. Being added to the FATF "high-risk" country list may not sound terrible, but in many circles, it is akin to being labeled a financial pariah.
Thailand now joins the ranks of countries that include North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and Myanmar, to name just a few. In most contexts, these are not countries people normally wish to be associated with.
The FATF's best practices, known as the "international standard," are meant to have universal application and to serve as a comprehensive framework against the movement of illicit money. FATF's principal contribution has been Forty Recommendations on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation. Countries are assessed and rated against this standard. In the case of Thailand, the country's financial regime was found to be woefully inadequate and in act, among the worst in the world.
As Thailand grapples with how to get off the list, it will be vital for its policymakers to understand how FATF operates. The organization's international standard rests on three principles. First, countries must improve their national infrastructure to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Next, each country is obligated to strengthen its financial system. Both banking and nonbanking institutions must set up procedures to identify clients and detect suspicious transactions, as well as develop secure and modern transaction protocols. Finally, countries must strive to improve international cooperation by collecting, analyzing, and sharing financial-related information at the administrative and judicial levels. This includes sharing information on international currency flows and developing mutual judicial-assistance programs in order to investigate, freeze, and confiscate illicit funds.
FATF's official policy is to blacklist countries that either fail to comply with the international standard or refuse to have their financial system evaluated. Although there is no enforcement mechanism, the blacklist has been remarkably effective in changing the behavior of designated countries in the past. The reason for FATF's effectiveness is simple: many financial institutions and other good corporate citizens are reluctant to do business with or in countries shunned by the organization.
Blacklisted countries that refused to take remedial action have at times lost significant international investment as a result. In fact, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have sometimes chosen to downgrade a blacklisted country's credit rating—a significant punishment in today's interconnected financial world. Other blowback Bangkok should expect as a result of its new-found "high-risk" status is reduction in foreign investment, international trade, and financial transactions, and less willingness in the international community to help Thailand grow economically.
There are immediate steps Bangkok should consider taking in order to rectify the situation. First, it is imperative that lawmakers adequately criminalize terrorism finance. In addition, the international community has made clear that each country must have an administrative process to identify, and if necessary, freeze the assets of all illicit actors, including terrorists. Thailand has yet to put in place a mechanism to ensure the proper supervision of an anti-money laundering activity and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. Lastly, the FATF has made clear that the country must complete a risk assessment of its financial sector to see where other weaknesses lie.
While Thailand's Office of Anti-Money Laundering and Thai lawmakers attribute its lax financial regime to the floods that took place there last year, this claim does not hold water, and this systemic problem will affect the country's economic viability in both the short and long term if not rectified expeditiously. Thai lawmakers and policymakers should keep in mind that the steps the FATF is asking Bangkok to take are in their own best interest. Ensuring that the country's financial sector is not exposed to undue risk mitigates abuse on the part of illicit actors that include money launderers, terrorists, narco-traffickers, and weapons proliferators. It also gives the international community the confidence that Bangkok is serious about protecting the financial sector.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Give credit where credit is due. President Obama has laid out the core message of his reelection campaign. It is a message whose claims are blatantly false and whose point is irrelevant to what is of greatest challenges we face. Yet it appears to be working.In his speech at Florida Atlantic University last Tuesday, the president discussed what he called "the defining issue of our time" -- namely, that America is not fair.
We suffer today, he says, from "a shrinking number of people who are doing really, really well, but a growing number who are struggling to get by." We are not a nation (the president never tells us if we ever were) where "everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does a fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules."
Excuse me for pointing out the irony of hearing from our nation's first black president the suggestion that America may no longer be a nation where dreams can be realized or where someone can come out of nowhere and make it.
Obama probably would explain his unlikely success in this unfair nation as the result of his being an exceptional and extraordinary individual. Which is why, by his thinking, we ordinary folk should turn our lives over to him to determine who should have what.
But if America is unfair today, it is because politicians and government have the power to do exactly what it is that Mr. Obama wants to do -- seize control of the wealth of some and redistribute it to whomever they choose. The Bible that I read every day calls this theft.
The president seeks to gain political support for this redistribution of wealth by tapping into the widespread dissatisfaction with our most disappointing economy. But is our economy underperforming because some have more than others, or because some succeed more than others?
At a time when Americans are looking for answers to restart our sputtering economy, our president chooses to use his time complaining about the wealthiest not paying sufficient taxes.
But according to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2009 the top 5 percent of income earners paid almost 60 percent of the funds raised by the federal income tax and the bottom 50 percent paid about 2 percent.
In the president's remarks in Florida, he defined fairness as everybody playing by "the same set of rules." Not only are the tax rules not fair by the president's definition, but in the name of alleged fairness he wants to make them even more unfair.
Of course, the president's real problem is that his policies have failed so he has to change the subject. He told us that the almost $900 billion in stimulus spending passed in 2009 would revive our economy and reduce unemployment to 6 percent. Three years later, unemployment stands at 8.2 percent.
There is no evidence that Obama has a clue about what why we are not on the path to recovery. But, unfortunately, he does have a clue about how to tap into the worst instincts of people in order to garner political support. Sadly, he hopes to reap the political dividends of inspiring blame and envy.
The fairness the president obsesses about has nothing to do with fairness, nor does it have anything to do with fixing our economy. If he really wants guidance on a fair and moral tax system, he might turn away from his campaign spin machine and look to his Bible. He can learn there that the 10 percent tithe on income applies to everyone.
Star Parker is president of CURE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicative education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings.
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings.
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
* Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
* Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
* Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
* Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
* Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
* Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings.. WHY?????
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
* TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
5)
What Mitt won’t say in public
At a fundraiser he thought was private, Romney outlines specific cuts and brags about the “gift” of Hilary Rosen
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at the National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis, Friday, April 13, 2012. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy) (Credit: AP)
TOPICS:OPENING SHOT
Just two weeks ago, in what amounted to his opening speech of the general election campaign, Mitt Romney claimed that President Obama has big second-term plans that he’s afraid to tell voters about.
“He does not want to share his real plans before the election, either with the public or with the press,” Romney said on April 4. “By flexibility, he means that what the American public doesn’t know won’t hurt him. He is intent on hiding. You and I will have to do the seeking.”
Given the politically expedient ideological shifts that have defined his political career and his lack of specificity on the most sensitive issues in the current campaign, there was plenty of irony in Romney’s charge – irony that is further underscored by what happened last night. Per NBC’s Garrett Haake:
Mitt Romney went well beyond his standard stump speech at a closed-door fundraiser on Sunday evening, and offered some of the most specific details to date about the policies he would pursue if elected.In a speech to donors in the backyard of a private home here, the former Massachusetts governor and presumptive GOP presidential nominee outlined his plans to potentially eliminate or consolidate federal agencies, win back Latino voters and reform the nation’s tax code.
The fundraiser was held inside a Palm Beach house, but apparently Romney’s remarks were audible to reporters gathered outside.
From a policy standpoint, the biggest revelation appears to be that he would look to eliminate the second home mortgage deduction and deductions for state and local taxes in order to keep his promise to cut tax rates across-the-board without lowering the overall share of the tax burden that wealthy Americans shoulder.
Perhaps more notable, though, were comments from Romney – and his wife – about his campaign’s strategic thinking.
Romney spoke in broad terms about his desire to merge or eliminate various departments and agencies and floating HUD as a possible contender for elimination, before saying: “But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one.” He then apparently told the crowd that he would overhaul the Education department but wouldn’t eliminate it altogether, in part because trying to do so would cause severe political blowback.
Essentially, Romney was admitting to his donor friends that his goal as a candidate is to avoid letting voters see the fine print on most of his promises, lest they find something to object to. This smacks of the intentional campaign trail vagueness that he’s been accusing Obama of. It also reflects the same calculation that Democrats say defines the Paul Ryan budget blueprint that Republicans have rallied behind, a document that calls for paying for massive tax cuts by closing loopholes and ending various deductions without specifying any.
Romney also acknowledged the struggles he faces with Hispanic voters, among whom he trailed Obama by 56 points, 70 to 14 percent, in one recent survey. Here, Romney’s problems are twofold. There’s the ultra-hard-line posture on immigration he adopted in this year’s Republican primaries, and then there’s his party’s overall reputation for similar hostility. He told the donors that “we’re going to be able to get Hispanic voters” by running on theGOP’s version of the DREAM Act and focusing attention on the economy.
Perhaps the most interesting nugget: Both Mitt and Ann Romney were apparently gleeful in talking about the comment from Democratic talking head Hilary Rosen that the Romney campaign pretended last week was an attack by an “Obama advisor.” Per Haake:
“It was my early birthday present for someone to be critical of me as a mother, and that was really a defining moment, and I loved it,” Mrs. Romney said.Gov. Romney went further in engaging the so-called “war on moms” that followed in the media — upon which his campaign has been aggressively fundraising — calling it a “gift” that allowed his campaign to show contrast with Democrats in the general election’s first week.
When Romney accused Obama of keeping his real plans from voters a few weeks ago, it demonstrated his desire to wage an “I’m rubber, you’re glue” general election campaign. As Steve Benen put it at the time: “It’s a basic idea we’ve all seen many times. A politician and his or her team identify their biggest weaknesses and then start accusing their rival of being guilty of that same thing.”
If Romney wants to pull this off, his campaign might want to make sure he really is behind closed doors the next time he talks to a roomful of donors.
- Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7)For all of you who have made disparaging remarks about President Obama, please read the following...
I'm sure most of us have read the so-called comparison of Lincoln and Kennedy, but did you ever consider the relationship between Obama and Lincoln?You might be surprised...
Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama:
1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration. Obama used the same Bible.
2. Lincoln came from Illinois. Obama comes from Illinois.
3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little experience before becoming President.
5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration. Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
6. Lincoln was a skinny lawyer. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
7. Lincoln was a Republican. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
8. Lincoln was in the United States military. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
9. Lincoln believed in everyone carrying their own weight. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
10. Lincoln did not waste taxpayers' money on personal enjoyments. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
11. Lincoln was highly respected. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
12. Lincoln was born in the United States. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
13. Lincoln was honest, so honest he was called Honest Abe. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
14. Lincoln saved the United States. Obama is a skinny lawyer .
Amazing, isn't it?Let the Nanotargeting Begin
By THOMAS B. EDSALLOver the past decade, political campaigns, interest groups and a network of private companies have developed sophisticated tools to target tinier and tinier fractions of the electorate. Campaigns now have access to the voting histories, housing values, recreational preferences, automobile ownership and television and Internet viewing habits of individuals. The explosion of consumer data derived primarily from credit card usage and Nielsen ratings has become a powerful weapon in the hands of politicos.Especially at the presidential level, but also in Senate and House contests, microtargeting – the term of art for the acquisition of this kind of detailed information about specific individuals, including not only your political preferences and your likelihood of voting, but also other seemingly less political facts, like the clothes you buy, the movies you go to, the brands you prefer and the number of bedrooms in your home — has come into its own. Compiling this information has given added firepower to almost every aspect of campaigns, from decisions about which television show to run ads on, to the content of targeted emails, to the selection of which houses volunteers should visit.Advances in the speed of computers and constantly improved software have created, in just over a decade, the development of a new political industry, nanotargeting — microtargeting to the nth degree. There has been excellent reporting on the innovative work of this industry, along with debunking of excessive claims.Parsing data gives politicians and their campaigns ways to identify and communicate with segments of the electorate that would have been out of reach not long ago.The 2004 Bush campaign, a pioneer in the use of microtargeting, targeted anti-gay marriage messages to socially conservative Democratic black voters in the belief that they could be pressured either to cast ballots for Bush or to sit out the election. Republican strategists claim that these tactics can be credited with improving Bush’s margins among black voters in the key battleground state of Ohio from a dismal 9 percent in 2000 (compared to 89 percent for Gore) to a modestly better 16 percent for Bush in 2004 (compared to 84 percent for Kerry).African-Americans cast 10 percent of the Ohio vote in 2004 so a 5 percentage point shift amounted to just 0.5 percent of the entire Ohio electorate, a relatively slight 28,139 votes out of 5,627,908 cast. Bush, however, won Ohio by only 118,601 votes. If Kerry had maintained Gore’s advantage among blacks, Bush’s margin of victory would have shrunk to a dangerously low 62,323 votes.In a close contest, incremental shifts like these among key constituencies — Hispanics, single white working class women and private sector unionized employees — can be decisive.On a broader scale, the emergence of nanotargeting represents the addition of one more factor in modern political life that intensifies polarization. The industry capitalizes on (and profits from) identifying how partisans on the left and right differ. Campaigns then use this information to target explicitly polarizing messages that are designed to expand or suppress turnout among a specific subgroup of voters.The men and women who earn a living by selling microtechnology to campaigns benefit from this intensifying polarization, which drives greater segmentation of the electorate, which in turn becomes ever more receptive to ideologically extreme communication.At the same time, microtechnology, as the charts below illustrate, provides data-driven insight into the complex internal mechanics of campaigns.Perhaps most interesting, the findings emerging out of advances in microtechnology are a window into the striking differences in the tastes and interests of liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Among other things, Democrats and Republicans differ in the entertainment they prefer, the restaurants they go to, the drinks they chose and the Web sites they visit.Some of the findings confirm stereotypes.Take this chart, one of a number provided by Will Feltus of National Media — a Republican firm specializing in media research, planning and placement — that describes the Democratic and Republican leanings of consumers. For conservatives, the findings buttress the claim that readers of The Times and The Washington Post — as well viewers of Comedy Central — tilt to the left. For liberals, here is concrete evidence demonstrating the depth of the appeal of Fox News to the right, as well as The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times.
All charts courtesy of William FeltusCLICK TO ENLARGEFeltus, a specialist in political media research and lead author of “Campaign Manager,” which will be published later this year, is a fount of information on the subject of data mining.Take cable-television viewing. On the chart below, the horizontal axis runs from very Democratic viewers on the left to very Republican on the right. The vertical axis measures the level of turnout among viewers, with low voter participation at the bottom and high participation at the top.
CLICK TO ENLARGEAs the chart above shows, viewers of soap operas and VH1 skew strongly Democratic, but they turn out to vote at low rates. Viewers of MSNBC and CNN also skew Democratic, but they turn out to vote at far higher rates. On the other side of the aisle, Country Music Television attracts a strongly Republican audience, but its viewers are not regular voters; viewers of the Golf Channel and Fox News, on the other hand, are reliably Republican and also turn out in large numbers.Television is inherently problematic for Republicans. “The average TV show will deliver 15-25% more Democrats compared to Republicans,” according to Feltus. Republican spending on positive commercials wastes money because, on average, many more Democrats will be watching. There are, however, specific shows that are more Republican than Democratic in their viewership – which is one of the reasons that detailed data on the partisanship of people who watch individual shows is particularly valuable to Republicans seeking to spend money wisely.The top-ten Republican-tilted shows are “The Office,” “Rules of Engagement,” “The Mentalist,” “New Yankee Workshop,” “The Big Bang Theory,” “Castle,” “Desperate Housewives,” “Dancing With The Stars,” “The Biggest Loser,” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” The top ten most Democratic-leaning shows are “Washington Week,” “Tavis Smiley,” “Late Show with David Letterman,” “The View,” “PBS NewsHour,” “NOW” on PBS, “House of Payne,” “ABC World News Now,” “60 Minutes” and “Insider Weekend.”The consistent finding in studies of consumer behavior is that the more Republican the skew, the higher the turnout — as the chart below demonstrates. This works to the advantage of both parties, depending on what the goal of the campaign is.If the purpose of advertising is to reinforce commitments among voters likely to turn out – a strategy behind much last-minute media spending – Republicans have the edge. If, conversely, the goal is to mobilize sympathetic but not well-motivated constituencies – often the strategy behind early and mid-election spending – Democrats have the advantage because the data from nanotargeting provides a means to activate low-turnout pro-Democratic groups.In the case of restaurants, some chains are well to the right or left, but most, including the largest ones like McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s, are at the political center. Those chains with high-turnout clientele are overwhelmingly Republican-leaning, including Cracker Barrel, Macaroni Grill, Outback Steakhouse, Arby’s and Chick-fil-A, while Church’s Chicken and Chuck E. Cheese’s are low-turnout Democratic.
CLICK TO ENLARGEThe same patterns emerge in the analysis of internet users.
CLICK TO ENLARGEThese charts only touch on the surface of the useful commercial information available to campaigns. Sometimes the information reaffirms stereotypes, but at other times, it defies them.Democrats, for example, are far more likely to be behind the wheel of a hybrid, a Subaru, a Honda or a VW – but Audis and Mercedes? Some automobiles that have traditionally been seen as the vehicles of choice for affluent Republican suburbanites — Lincolns, Buicks and Caddys – are now either Democratic-leaning or evenly split. Porches and Hummers are, as one would expect, Republican, but the Land Rover is nearly off the charts as the most Republican of all vehicles.
CLICK TO ENLARGESimilarly, there are intriguing partisan patterns in the consumption of alcohol.
CLICK TO ENLARGEWho would have guessed that the most Democratic drink by a long shot is Cognac, or that such lite beers as Amstel Lite, Michelob Ultra, Miller Lite and Sam Adams Light tilt so far to the political right, while Bud, Miller High Life, and Natural Lite are Democratic?Groups like No Labels that seek to revive bipartisanship on Capitol Hill would be well advised to serve Bud Light, Guinness, Scotch, Michelob Lite and Coors Original at their fundraisers.In one key respect – the placement of television ads — the 2008 Obama campaign stands in contrast to the other presidential bids of the last decade, including those of George W. Bush, John McCain, Al Gore and John Kerry. These candidates appealed most strongly on television to their own partisan bases. McCain and Bush spent much more heavily advertising on shows with Republican-leaning audiences, and Gore and Kerry did just the opposite.These patterns are demonstrated in a fascinating paper, “Separation by Television Program: Understanding the Targeting of Political Advertising in Presidential Elections,” by Travis N. Ridout, Michael Franz, Kenneth M. Goldstein and Feltus, which was published earlier this year in the journal Political Communication.In 2008, Obama put more of his money on advertising aimed at Republican-leaning audiences. This reflected the political reality that he had far more cash than McCain and could afford to go after independent and moderate Republican voters aggressively.In the 2010 mid-term elections, the authors of “Separation by Television Program” found, senatorial and gubernatorial spending was tilted toward base supporters. Republicans were more likely to buy time on college and professional football shows, while Democrats bought ads on sitcoms like “30 Rock” and “Two and a Half Men.”The television spending strategies of Obama and Mitt Romney will emerge as the campaign progresses. Given the highly polarized character of the electorate this year, both sides are likely to spend most heavily on their own base voters, seeking to get them to the polls, so that a viewer of “30 Rock,” for example, is unlikely to see any Republican ads, while a professional football enthusiast won’t see many Democratic ads.In effect, both sides will lay out megabucks preaching to the choir.The less predictable strategic decisions involve what the campaigns will be willing to spend to win over the relatively small numbers of undecided voters, many of them uninterested in politics and unlikely to vote in high percentages.The closeness of the contest will in all likelihood determine how much money will be spent on these voters: the smaller the margin between Obama and Romney, the more cash will go into the high cost of persuading reluctant participants and in motivating them to go to the polls.There is, however, a wildcard. Money in 2012 will be plentiful. Both Romney and Obama are not accepting public money and will be free to spend as much as they can raise. On that front, they are both expected to be very successful. The emergence of super PACs accepting unlimited donations from individuals and corporations, together with what the candidates themselves will raise, makes it virtually certain that this campaign will produce record-setting levels of spending.The loosening of fiscal constraints may have unanticipated consequences. Broadening the scope of campaign appeals well beyond core partisan voters is likely to produce a less polarized and more bipartisan television spending pattern — a pattern that could surprise us all by contributing to a slow depolarization of American politics.Thomas B. Edsall, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is the author of the book “The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake
No comments:
Post a Comment