We Have a New Look
January 31, 2008
As you may have noticed, we’ve put together a new look for the site. While we’re not 100% done yet, we are getting close. Over the next couple of days Randall and I will be working to “tweak” the site for both look and feel. We wanted a site that not only looked good, but more importantly, allowed you as our readers an ease of operation and functionality. Please be sure to give us your feedback, let us know what you think and tell us if you would like to see any changes. Read more
Kennedy Comes Through
January 30, 2008
Yesterday’s endorsement of Barack Obama by Senator Kennedy marks a milestone for the senior senator - he usually does not endorse candidates this early in the race and he never compares them to his famous brother, John F. Kennedy. This makes me happy. In my opinion, this is Kennedy coming through when it matters. His recent heated conversations with Bill Clinton aside, he is smart enough to know what the last four years of his term (and perhaps his career) would be like if the Clintons were once again given the keys to the White House. I imagine spending the twilight of his career dealing with them did not look very appetizing. Read more
So, What’s on your Reader?
January 30, 2008
In a post yesterday, I started to describe how you can organize the overwhelming rush of information that is available on the internet into a more manageable and user friendly format using Google Reader.
Today, let’s talk about what happens behind the scenes and what makes Google Reader tick. Specifically, it’s a tool called Really Simply Syndication or RSS for short. According to Wikipedia, RSS
“is a family of Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content such as blog entries, news headlines or podcasts”. Read more
Why Un-Enrolled Voters are so Important
January 29, 2008
One of the happiest days of my life was when I dropped out. It was a liberating feeling. No, I’m not talking about dropping out of school. I’m referring to the day when I changed my party affiliation for the last time and joined the ranks of Massachusetts’ un-enrolled voters (this is what the Commonwealth calls its independent voters). I’d had just about enough after spending years looking for a party of like-minded people willing to look at things from different perspectives. That’s when I realized that there are plenty of others who share my distaste for party politics and choose not to officially register as party members. If freeing ones-self from groupthink and being taken for granted is dropping-out, then I think we need more drop-outs.
According to the Elections Division of the Commonwealth, in 1948 there were approximately 2.4 million registered voters in Massachusetts. 50% of those voters, about 1.2 million, were classified as un-enrolled. Amazingly, the other 50% of voters, about 1.2 million, were evenly split between the Republican and Democratic parties - each had about 600,000 members.
As of 2004, there were about 4 million registered voters. Again, 50% of those voters were un-enrolled. However, of the remaining 2 million voters, 1.5 million were democrats and only 500,000 were republicans. Democrats now overpower republicans 3:1 and it shows in the state legislature and our representation in Washington. Massachusetts politicians not affiliated with the Democratic Party would have a tough time fielding a softball team. This is not good for anyone. Democrats are so entrenched that it takes its members’ votes for granted. Republican votes, although much more sparse, are also expected to follow party lines which, in Massachusetts, is an exercise in futility; republicans rarely win anything.
Drop-outs (okay, un-enrolled voter is starting to sound better) are not taken for granted by anybody. In fact, the role they are playing in this election is beautiful. For example, during primaries they get to choose their own ballots, Democratic or Republican. So, in Massachusetts, each party has a pool of approximately 2 million voters to appeal to (”reaching out” in campaign strategist jargon). Simply put, the more of us that are unaffiliated, the less presumptuous the candidates can afford to be. Politicians have to put a little more elbow grease into campaigning and doing their jobs due to the reduced level of assumed support.
How do you change your party affiliation to un-enrolled? The same way you registered, but ask for a change of affiliation card instead. Check out John’s post The Importance of Voting if you need a reminder.
Here’s the beauty, you can still vote for “your party” whenever you want. Just don’t let them take it for granted. Drop out now.
* In case you were wondering, as of 2004, libertarians and greens together made up less than 35,000 of the 4 million registered voters, or about 1%.
What is Google Reader and How Does it Work?
January 29, 2008
If you’re like me you listen to music while you work and exercise. I use my iPod when on the go and iTunes on my PC while at home. My stuff (music, videos, podcasts, etc.) is consolidated, organized, and available. The thought of having stacks and stacks of CDs to search through, insert, eject, and keep organized does not appeal to me. In fact, I don’t think it appeals to anyone with the means to avoid it. Why then do so many people waste precious time surfing through each and every one of their favorite websites when they could just use Google Reader?
What is Google Reader, you ask? Here’s Google’s own definition and a quick list of benefits:
Google Reader makes it easier to keep up with your ever-expanding reading list of content from across the web. You can:
- Automatically get the latest news and updates from your favorite sites.
- Sort your reading list based on what’s most relevant to you.
- Organize what you read with labels and stars.
- Quickly share interesting items with friends via email or by blogging them, directly from Reader.
You can learn more with this Google Reader FAQ
Just as iTunes automatically consolidates all of the media files on your PC under its control (so you don’t have to go and find each one on your hard drive when you want to play them), your reader constantly gets fed updates from your favorite sites. So, instead of checking each site on my ever-growing list of daily stops, I “theoretically” only have to check one. I say theoretically because readers are fed through a number of ways but primarily through Really Simply Syndication (RSS) feeds and not all sites have them (most sites worth reading do publish updates through RSS).
More on RSS in the next post.
For today, if you want to subscribe to TheCandidacy.com, you can do so via reader by simply clicking here. Or, you can submit your email address in the box at the top right and have our daily updates delivered directly to your email box.
Hillary’s Record (Part II)
January 28, 2008
In my last post I asked how many people actually believe Hillary’s claim of “executive” experience. More importantly, if we do believe what she has to say, then why isn’t their any discussion about some of the bad decisions she must have surely been involved in?
Here is some more food for thought.
Hillary is under the impression that she has been fighting for civil rights in general and women’s rights specifically for thirty five years. In a general sense I’m sure she could document this claim pretty well. Unfortunately, when it comes down to such rights and what is best for her career - Hillary always chooses Hillary. You can’t claim to support oppressed women only to abandon them when your husband is the oppressor. Hillary, and every other so-called feminist, erupted with anger at Clarence Thomas for the Anita Hill incident, but their silence was deafening when it came to Bill’s multiple and credible accusers. But Hillary was more than silent. She played a major role in the now famous “bimbo eruption” squad of Bill’s political machine (this we can actually document). The purpose of the group was to completely destroy any of the mountains of potential women who could come forward with juicy stories. I guess their rights weren’t worth as much as what was most politically expedient for the Clinton’s.
If you’re going to claim extensive experience you have to be able to document it and, most importantly, you have to take the good with the bad. If only there were documents which could corroborate Hillary claims of extensive, hands-on leadership experience, for example, personal records from her eight years in the White House (who cares about Little Rock). Oh yeah, there are records, but the Clinton’s refuse to release them. Who else could get away with claiming eight years of experience and then refusing to release the only documents that could corroborate the claim? Bill is right, there is a media bias involving Hillary.
Hillary’s Record (Part 1)
January 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton has recently repeated that Bill’s role in her administration would be as a close advisor and confidant - the same role she played when he was president. I am wondering how many people are really buying her “experience” as depicted by her campaign. She was a first lady for twenty years (eight in the White House and twelve in the Governor’s Mansion). She wasn’t the first to serve as either, but she is the first to spin it like this. She claims that her role was so pivotal that it qualifies her to serve as president of the world’s only superpower. Then, she cherry-picks and links herself to past events that her pollsters have determined would give her the most potential boost; never mind that her role does not seem to be documented anywhere by anybody, including her husband’s own biography. But, if she expects to justify her claim as the most experienced candidate by linking herself so closely to her husband’s career, then she has to be accountable for all of it.
Who wouldn’t want to be linked to playing a part in the Northern Ireland peace process, a thriving economy, and other positive highlights inherent to any administration? You can always find something good that went on. But why do so many just accept her selective association without bringing up grave concerns about past events?
What was her role in the following?
- The Somalia debacle that resulted in the famous “Blackhawk Down” incident.
- Bill reneging on his promise (the first of many) to lift the ban on gays in the military.
- The firing of the White House travel office staff.
- FBI filegate.
- The bombing of the Balkan Peninsula without UN Security Council approval only to criticize Bush for later doing the same thing.
- The bombing of Iraq on the eve of Monica Lewinsky’s testimony before a grand jury and the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan (most forget that Clinton bombed at least four Muslim countries during his tenure in office).
- Drastically cutting intelligence resources and the failure to take Bin Laden’s threats seriously long before September 11th.
Do I even need to mention Vince Foster? Ok. That was below the belt. See my recent post about dirty tactics.
I think, if asked about these events, her answer would likely be that Bill was the elected official and, ultimately, final decisions rested with him. That’s very true. So, where actually does her executive leadership experience come from then? When has she ever been in a position where she couldn’t just take credit for the good things and pass the buck for the bad? Leaders are responsible for everything that happens, or fails to happen, on their watch - EVERTHING.
Al Gore’s wallet vs. Developing Nations
January 24, 2008
DR1 is reporting that Al Gore will NOT be speaking at the XVI Environmental Ministers Forum for Latin America and the Caribbean scheduled to be held at the end of the month in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (where I currently live and blog from).
Is seems that his requested fee of US$250,000 was a bit too steep for the developing nations that people like him claim to respect and support. I wonder if US$250,000 has always been his standard speaking fee or if he raised it after receiving his Academy Award and Nobel Prize?
I’m not against people making money, but isn’t US$250,000 a little excessive? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the market will set the price. But, isn’t he the one who drones on endlessly about “moral courage”? Thank God the organizers of this even had the courage to say no instead of blowing their whole budget on somebody who is apparently concerned primarily with his own wallet. Do you think he and John Edwards go to the same barber?
“Eating” up your Contributions
January 24, 2008
I remember Ross Perot giving a press conference after participating in the first presidential debate of 1992. He blasted the other candidates for the high-budget, bureaucratic way in which they approached everything. He especially seemed to enjoy highlighting how many staffers each of the other candidates required. For example, all of the other candidates had advanced arrival teams that showed up at the venue early to ensure that everything was as perfect as possible for “their guy” - including the lighting, room temperature, and heights of their podiums. Perot had arrived with two other people in a rental car. This scored him big points with the electorate. Yes, as a candidate he turned out to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but that’s not the point. The point is that when it comes down to it, most people appreciate simplicity and, perhaps more importantly, humility and common sense.
Unfortunately, since Perot’s run for office, the contest has gotten worse. Staffs are bigger and candidates are higher maintenance. Incredibly, each major candidate will spend up to $100,000,000 before all is said and done. All for a job that pays about $400,000 per year. Isn’t that just a little bit excessive? Anyway, Politico.com has an interesting story up about recent campaign food expenses in Nevada by the Clinton and Obama camps.
“Chef Barry Dakake…delivered around $200 worth of food, including two Kobe burgers, two organic chicken sandwiches and one order of Dover sole, to Obama in a conference room at the Las Vegas Signature Terminal.”
“The Clintons’ tab came to $1,530 and included entrees of nine steaks, three chicken, three salmon and three Maine scallops, two lobster pappardelle, salads, sashimi, rock shrimp, and various side dishes.”
It’s so easy to spend other people’s money. I don’t expect them to eat macaroni and cheese every day, but shouldn’t they stretch those dollars a bit more? I don’t even want to know how much they’re spending on transportation (not to mention the carbon footprint and pollution left behind by their fleets of vehicles and aircraft). So, if you’re wondering where your $50 contribution went, some campaign staffer has probably eaten it by now.
Why are we Doing This and What do we Hope to Accomplish? Part II
January 23, 2008
In Monday’s post we outlined the five most common questions we’ve received since we started this blog. Over the next week or two, we will do our best to answer them as we create a Frequently Asked Questions portion of our blog.
Q: What is the purpose of this web-site?
A: We launched TheCandidacy.com to satisfy a few different needs:
- Document the process and steps necessary to get Randall elected to the U.S. Senate. We will cover everything from what it takes to get on the ballot and running a campaign from scratch, to outlining and memorializing Randall’s positions on today’s important issues.
- Provide an outlet for some creative energy for both Randall and me. If you haven’t already done so, I would encourage you to read our background information (RHM - JSI) along with the About section of our blog for more information on this.
- As a vehicle for Randall’s rants and opinions on today’s hot political topics.
- Mostly we are doing this because we can and that’s one of the many things we love about our country. While the idea for TheCandidacy.com started as a casual conversation and we will indeed try to keep it entertaining, we are serious about this site and making it one of your favorite online destinations.
-
VOTE FOR THECANDIDACY.COM
