Friday, November 13, 2009
Opinion Leadership
As a life-long unaffiliated voter who regrettably missed the most recent election here in San Fran, I was naturally honored and flummoxed in equal measure to have received an official-looking missive from Mike Steele’s office in today’s mail. It’s got a four-page cover letter in which he notes that I am an “identified opinion leader” in this town, thereby putting me in line to receive a registered and numbered survey; “with our limited resources we could only afford to contact citizens in San Francisco who have demonstrated a high level of political involvement and commitment to the Republican Party.” (This must have been the result of my repeated replayings of King Crimson’s 1981 classic, “Elephant Talk.") They urge me to complete and return an enclosed “California Public Policy Survey on the Obama Agenda for America,” and lord help me I’m gonna do it.
The letter is a regurgitation of all the soiled, tawdry talking points I’ve grown sick of refuting over the past year or decade or however long it’s been, citing how Americans are waking up to how much the Obama agenda is going to cost us and that Obama has “greatly overstepped in trying to ram through radical, far reaching schemes that will have enormous consequences for our nation” (as if that’s a bad thing!). They even offer up once again, right on page 1, that Obama and the “Democrat-controlled Congress” have proposed an “energy tax that will cost each household an estimated $1,761 per year”. Oh, the whole thing is golden, but pales to pyrite next to the survey itself. I can’t keep from sharing it. Remember, this isn’t a Fox News survey - it’s actually supposed to inform the Elephantines about how “real Murkans” feel about - oh, forget it, I’ll just type it in. Hope you enjoy:
DOMESTIC ISSUES:
1. Do you think the Obama Administration is over exaggerating the problems facing our country and labeling everything a “crisis” in order to get more government control over the private sector? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: I think they’re finally dentifying the actual crises we are facing, and not mouthing off about leaders who can’t possibly harm us or the threat posed by the disenfranchised who seek the same civil rights as we claim to enjoy ourselves. I’m frankly relieved that the status of Christmas and marriage are no longer official “crises.” Did you forget what that word even means?
2. Are you concerned that the federal government’s investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in auto companies and other industries poses a long term threat to our free market and economic freedom? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Absolutely - get Halliburton and the oil companies out of the - oh damn, sorry, I mean no.
3. Do you worry that the Obama Administration’s excessive multi-trillion dollar spending will bury America in unsustainable debt that will seriously hurt our nation’s future economic security? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: You have got to be kidding me. The problem is the debt Obama inherited from, who, Coolidge? What’s more significant, Mike, if you have any actual interest in gauging American sentiment, is that you need to write a question that doesn’t contain its own (inaccurate and loaded) answer.
4. Do you feel that President Obama and the Democrats are wrong to raise taxes on successful Americans who already pay the highest tax rates in order to “redistribute wealth?” (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: I think it’s wrong that the richest among us glean by far the greatest benefits in our society but bear a radically disproportionately small share of the burden of sustaining this nation. And anyone who thinks they don’t “benefit” from government action hasn’t read Howard Zinn.
5. Many Democrats have recently been suggesting that we need a second “economic stimulus bill.” Given that the first stimulus bill is not working, would you support another economic stimulus bill? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Given that you clearly have no grasp of current events, economic trends, or Keynsian economics, why do you consider yourself qualified even to ask this question?
6. Do you fear that a government-run health insurance progam will eventually force other insurance companies out of business and evolve into a federal bureaucracy whose size, cost and intrusion into Americans’ daily lives will spin out of control? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: I fear being denied health insurance, having to go into debt to pay for surgery, and living in a nation where being poor or unemployed means I’m at risk of serious but preventable infirmity. And if private enterprise is so all-fired awesome those insurers will just knuckle down and kick the govt out of the insurance business, right? And if they can’t, well, go back and familiarize yourself with Social Darwinism.
7. Is the Obama Administration wrong to create new multi-billion dollar federal programs while our current Social Security and Medicare systems are not financially stable enough to fulfill their future obligations? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Multi-billion dollar programs like the Iraq War and the “I’m Reading Your Email” program? Like “No Child Left Untested” and “Abstinence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?” If we can’t fulfill our obligations to the elderly and poor to help them not die unless practically unavoidable, our priorities are pretty messed up. And the new programs I think you’re asking me about look like a good way to help undo some of the damage this nation has endured at the hands of the oligarchy and zealots.
8. Is the Obama Administration being too alarmist about global warming? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Not alarmist enough, Mike. I think they could pick up the pace on weaning us off the petrocarbon teat. However, they are letting scientific findings speak for themselves, and you can ask Christie Whitman how that worked under B-43.
9. Should the Obama Administration step back from their rush to create “cap and trade” energy legislation that will cost jobs, harm future economic growth and impose an estimated $1,761 new energy tax on America’s families? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Nearly a year into the Administration a lot of big legislation has been proposed but cap and trade is still in the “drawing table” phase - so maybe “rush” is a bit of an overstatement. However, I suggest you “step back” from that ridiculous $1761 figure that’s been so thoroughly and repeatedly disproven and disavowed. The only people likely to lose from C&T are those who make their living off oil revenues, and even then, only the ones at the very top. The rest of us will profit from new efficiencies, new industries, and a healthier and more sustainable environment. Given that, maybe we’re not rushing quite enough.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
10. Are you comfortable with the “hands-off” diplomatic policies the Obama Administration is pursuing in relation to Iran, or should America be more forward in working to promote democracy in that country? (OK with “hands off” policy, Should promote democracy, NO OPINION)
Rejoinder: Telling Iran how to improve democracy is a sure way of consolidating them against us. Restraint, dialogue, and the searing light of public exposure seem to be having a greater impact on the people of that nation than anything either Bush ever tried. When is the last time they had mass protests in Iran that were not about kicking us out of their country, before this year? Or do you think we did such a great job fixing up Iraq that it’s time for a reprise?
11. Should the Obama Administration do more to ensure that Iran and North Korea do not further pursue building an arsenal of nuclear weapons? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Exactly what do you have in mind? Exacerbating the paranoia of unbalanced dictators, or just bombing them and confirming that paranoia?
12. Do you agree or disagree with those who say that President Obama hurts America by criticizing our nation when he travels to other countries and speaks to foreign audiences? (Agree, Disagree, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: I agree with those who appreciate his frankness and honesty. I disagree with those who think he should mindlessly parrot the claims of an administration that was soundly defeated after lying to us for eight years. I’m sorry, which answer does that go under?
13. How would you rate the Obama Administration’s efforts thus far in fighting the war on terrorism? (You can check more than one answer.) (They are pursuing responsible policies; They are too obsessed with being politically correct; They should not shut down Guantanamo and bring terrorists to the U.S.; NO OPINION)
Rejoinder: The “WOT” was a talking point that even B-43 rejected by the end of his administration - it’s not that we lost it but that we gave up fighting it before it really started. If you want to talk about obsessions, you’re talking about the wrong administration. And if you don’t think our supermax prisons are capable of securing a handful of terrorists thousands of miles from their homes, you don’t have the faith in American know-how that you ought to have. But really, most of those at Gitmo are far less of a threat to our national security than the fearmongers on my television every night and the self-righteous native-born nutjobs who bring guns to political rallies or who threaten violence against elected officals over matters of political disagreement.
14. How would you rate the Obama Administration thus far? (Positive, Fair, Negative, Not Sure)
Rejoinder: How’d you let any question this objective or well-constructed through? Somebody’s asleep at the switch!
15. Do you think special interest groups who embrace a leftist political philosophy have too much influence in the Obama Administration? (Yes, No, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Considering how little they’ve done to end DADT, to change our energy infrastructure, to silence conservative voices from the media, to restrict the rights of those with whom they disagree, or to dismantle the hegemony of subsidies and cronyism that still seems to govern so much of government, um, I’m going with “no.”
16. Are you worried that the Obama Administration will follow through on their threats to rein-in talk radio via strict enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine and thus limit criticism of their activities?
Rejoinder: Is somebody delivering your RSS feed six months late or something? This was a non-issue the day it was foisted upon us. There is no effort to impose fairness on the media. Though some days I think we’d be better off if there were at least a Truth-o-meter at the bottom of our teevee screens to let us know when somebody was flat-out lying to us, as, for example, by intimating that there is any threat to “rein-in” the xenophobic, mysogynistic, reactionary, anti-democratic tripe that passes for “conservative talk radio” these days.
17. Do you oppose so-called “card check” legislation, which eliminates secret ballot elections during unionization drives and puts workers at risk of intimidation by labor bosses? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: This question is excessively redolent of the ignorance of those who have never had to fight for represenation or a fair shake from an employer. The level of stupidty here renders any answer other than “no opinion” inherently inaccurate.
18. Do you think the national media is too pro-Obama or do you feel they present voters with balanced news that will enable voters to cast informed ballots in the 2010 elections? (Too Pro-Obama; They present balanced news; NO OPINION)
Rejoinder: Well, we got rid of Lou D. That’s a good start.
19. Are you concerned that the White House is conducting a “witch hunt” to gather names and information about citizens who disagree with their “plans” for America? (Y, N, No Opinion)
Rejoinder: Okay, wrong president again. The Enemies List was about talking to suspected potentially terroristic foreign unAmerican types. I’m not concerned that Obama is going to ram through legislation to listen to my phone calls if I hit the wrong area code. And what’s your problem with Wiccans, anyway?
20. What worries you most about the Democrats having control of the White House and Congress? (You can check more than one answer.) (Massive government spending; Tax increases; Ever expanding government; More regulations that strangle opportunites to create more jobs; Backing down in the War on Terrorism; Federal courts packed with liberal judges; Too much power for unions and other liberal special interests; Unrealistic energy policies; More government intrusion in our personal lives; Futher breakdown of traditional values.)
Rejoinder: None possible. Words fail me. Oh, no, wait: you left out “Rabid Wookie attack” and “Illegal aliens stealing my 401(k) to buy drugs.” Which I also wouldn’t choose as answers here.
The survey concludes with a warm and heartfelt plea for my financial support. The “yes” box ("YES I stand with you. To help ensure that the RNC has the financial resorces to distribute 10 million [of these crappy] surveys in the next three months and challenge the Democrats in the upcoming elections to stop their liberal socialist policies....) offers me options of donating from a high of $500 to a low of $25 or just “other: ____”. The “no” box still obliges me to enclose $15 “to help process, tabulate and distribute the results of my Survey answers.” Dude, really, $15 to tabulate this crap? Hire a brasero, already!
So that’s pretty much all Mikey had to tell me today. I wonder if he’ll write back after he gets my responses?
