MichaelTurk's blog

Via Twitter today, I stumbled upon a link to PETA's blog.  If you're not inclined to click through, I totally get that, and don't worry, I'll save you the trouble and just include the punchline here:

That's right.  The organization's official blog is titled "The PETA Files" (pronounced "pedophiles", in case it's not obvious to some).

The same tactless folks at PETA that brought you the infamous "got prostate cancer?" ad are back in the business of hilarity with their "political wit".  Either that or nobody in their proofing process caught the fairly apparent allusion to child molestation.

I don't buy that it was an accident.  If it was, they need more people in their approval chain.  I'm more inclined to think someone thought it was funny.  As a friend commented to me via Facebook, it's "very instructive about their core beliefs. Vegan running shoes are important, while abused children are the fodder for humor."

Stay classy, PETA.

In trying to quell the uproar over the government takeover of medical care in the US, Obama made a point that I think is really worth exploring.  He said:

[I]f the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems. (emphasis mine)

This argument really breaks down on a number of levels, and it's worth a look at all of them.

First, let's start with the fact that Obama's comparing the most advanced medical care system in the world with the job of moving a package from Point A to Point B.  Any schmuck can take a package - which has your name and address right on it - and get it from here to there. If I gave anyone reading this post an addressed package, you could jump in your car and drive it to the destination with minimal failure (allowing for flat tires, the recipient having moved and left no address, random explosion of the house, whatever).

The fact is, shipping isn't a teribly complicated business.  Yet even Obama admits that the Government option is the one that gets it wrong.  He points out that FedEx and UPS are doing it right, but the USPS isn't.

So that raises the next point of failure in his argument.  It's not like FedEx and UPS were doing it first, and the government created a new mail delivery vehicle to force FedEx and UPS to lower their costs.  FedEx and UPS, to the contrary, sprung up in response to a near complete failure of the government option.  They arose from the ashes of countless lost packages, and inefficient government bungling.  They recognized a market for reliable package delivery.

Let us imagine, however, that we treat package delivery the way we treat medical care.  In the package delivery business, you must a) declare the value of your package, and b) acknowledge that should it be lost or damaged, you will be entitled to only that amount.

In May of 1996, a man cut off his own hand believing it to be evil. He refused to let doctors reattach the hand, then sued them for not doing so.  He claimed they should have known he was nuts and forced him to accept the reattachment of the hand.  While this is an extreme example, this sort of frivolous suit is filed every day.  Malpractice suits and insurance contribute a staggering amount to the costs of health care.  The total amount can be debated, but a Congressional Budget Office Brief looking at malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors rose twice as fast as medical spending between 2000 and 2002 - roughly 15%.  For general surgeons the hike was even greater running at 33%.

In package delivery, the cost of package breakage doesn't rise dramatically year over year.  If it did, the companies would look at ways to reduce breakage and loss.  Yet our government has ignored the skyrocketing costs of malpractice and malpractice insurance as a part of the reform debate.

Costs are a huge problem. We get that.  But that raises another key difference between the healthcare debate and the President's chosen analogy of package delivery.  Research into package delivery technology isn't a dramatic portion of the package delivery costs.  Do they buy equipment? Yes.  Do they invest in dfferent ways to scan barcodes and create shipping labels? Of course.  Are they handwritten package slips a huge pain in the ass versus the barcoded, Internet-generated slips? I imagine they are.  But unlike, for instance, pharmaceutical companies, the amount they spend on R&D is fairly constrained.  They don't spend a decade or longer trying to figure out a way to move ONE particular size and shape of package.

As a result, comparing the amount of money invested in drug research and clinical trials to the box moving industry is probably a silly thing to do.  Yet their was POTUS, telling us that the two are somehow equivalent.

Looking at his argument,  the one part of the example the President got right was when he said, "It's the [Government] that's always having problems."  If you think the same people that brought you Katrina, the US Postal Service, the missing $400 million dollar Mars Global Surveyor, the $600 hammer and the $900 toilet seat, and countless other blunders will do a better job with health of every American, look no further than the countless stories of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.

The fact is, Obama's example probably gives us more to think about as an example of why we shouldn't let government manhandle our health care system.  As Obama points out, and as the famed economist Milton Friedman said, "The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem."

I realize I'm inviting much ridicule from my friends on the left, but I'm going to write this post anyway, and I'm going to leave the title intact - Why Twitter Matters & The Left Should Be Nervous. It's no doubt going to generate some giggles among the online intelligentsia in the Democratic Party. That's ok with me.

I have, for several months now, seen a string of posts and tweets from these same lefty friends that are either mocking or dismissive of the Conservatives nascent efforts on Twitter. Here's one example courtesy of TechPresident's own Micah Sifry.

It's positively quaint to listen to Republicans murmur optimistically about their "dominance" on Twitter. #polc09, #tcot, #p2

The very first time I saw one, it reminded me immediately of comments I had seen and heard before. They were the openly dismissive comments directed by complacent and cocky Republicans at the Democrats efforts online.

I specifically remember more than a few people, myself included, who watched the rise of the online left with initial derision. As late as 2004 and 2005, I heard things like, "The Democrats and their blogs. How's that working out for them? All that effort and how many wins has it resulted in?"

Beginning with Conrad Burns and George Allen, we began to quickly see the results of "those blogs". It's a lesson we failed to heed early on, and it contributed greatly to our demise.

What we failed to recognize was the infancy of an effort to use new technology to mobilize. It was an effort to build a new network and the infrastructure to disseminate a coherent message.

I have argued that the reason the Democrats never mastered talk radio was very simple - they never had to. In modern politics, the insurgent party will adapt to the most interactive (and the most real-time) technology available at the time. In 1992, having lost the White House, House and Senate, the GOP gravitated toward talk radio. Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country.

The Democrats, rising out of the loss in 2000, had to coallesce around a platform. Talk radio, had the Internet not been available, would likely have become the staging area and the rise of the left on talk radio would have been a near certainty. But a funny thing happened on the march toward the AM dial.

With the Internet, blogs and Meetup became the new polis for the exiled Democrats.

Now you could argue that two data points is hardly enough to qualify my central thesis - the adaption of interactive forums by the out party. But keep in mind that Americans detachment from one another and from in-person communities really didn't explode until about this same time. Prior to that, most people who were politically active simply turned to their party and its structures. It's just the last 20 years that have split us from our parties and each other, so we can only look at the data available.

That brings us back to the present day and the Republicans.

Now that we are the out party, we are turning to the Internet to discuss, debate and strategize the party's future. It is no longer, however, simple enough to label "The Internet" as a monolithic thing the way we did with the Democratic use of the medium. The Internet is no longer about websites as it was with blogs and Meetup. The Internet, as it exists today, is more a generic platform for advanced communication services - whether they are site based, text messages, cellular applications, or anything else.

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution).

For the Democrats that dismiss Republican testing of many and various models of activism on Twitter, you should watch very closely what's going on, rather than simply mocking it. Complacency and satisfaction with your status quo is a slippery slope and it's very easy to fall into the "yes, but what has it gotten them" mindset.

It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Until then, to my friends on the left, let me say two things. First, we'll keep using Twitter, and you can keep cracking jokes. Second, as long as you do, we'll see you on the other side, soon enough.

Update: Based on further conversation (via Twitter) about this post, I need to clarify a point.  I'm not claiming the GOP is currently "dominant" on Twitter.  That was Micah's reference.  I'm simply looking at the tendency for conservatives to adapt to Twitter faster and easier than they have other online venues.

The left's attitude (represented by Micah's comment) seems to me to be that the GOP is putting all its eggs in the Twitter basket without doing all the other things that the left did to be successful.  My argument is that's a false assumption.  It requires that the GOP mimic the left to advance online.  Just as the left bypassed the right's use of talk radio and went straight on to a different model, I think the right may be able to skip directly past the duplication of the left's infrastructure by simply making use of what are currently the most advanced communications and mobilization tools. I see evidence that many in the right are developing new models in an effort to do just that.

Those new models have not yet become "dominant". My central premise is, however, that many on the left  and right seem to believe we must embrace the left's status quo.  I, on the other hand, believe our salvation will not come in duplicating their model, but in creating a new paradigm for our own activism.

RNC Chair candidate Chip Saltsman has a blog post up on "rebuilding online".  In it, he runs through his plan for addressing our online deficit, and pays brief attention to RebuildTheParty.com - he is one of the two candidates who have endorsed the plan.

Unfortunately, his plan is defective in a major way.  He begins well enough with a true statement.

We need to break the mold when it comes to our tactics and strategy online.

I would actually drop the word 'online' from that sentence, however.  I think we need to modernize not just our online operations, but our entire approach to campaigning.  As an example of what I'm talking about, let me look at one suggestion Chip made.

I recommend that we reorganize the party structure by integrating e-Campaign staff into every department. In fact, the committee should consider making the e-Campaign director deputy chief of staff.

The first part of that, inserting an eCampaign specialist in each department, is something I believed in through the BC04 camapign and my tenure at the RNC.  I discovered, however, that it actually doesn't work.  While it sounds great on paper, it ends up creating a half dozen or so marginalized positions on the staff.  Why? The simple answer is the division heads.

Rather than address this just to Chip's people, I thought I'd post it here so anyone can chime in, and all the candidates for Chairman can consider it.

Staff

I have worked with a lot of political professionals over the last 15 years. I have worked with some who really understand the potential of online campaigning, but don't understand the actual technology.  I have worked with many who viewed it as a threat to what they understand to be "the way" to campaign.  And I have worked with some who could have been truly transformative figures in a new era of campaigning.

Unfortunately, the division heads at the RNC don't fall into that latter category. Typically they fall into the second. The rare exception falls in the first.

You can put any eCampaign specialist into a department, but if the head of that department sees technology as a distraction or a fad (I've heard both words used to describe what we do), then that person will never be effective.

Instead of making a handful of staffers really unhappy, Saltsman should commit to hiring division heads who have demonstrated an understanding of online campaigns.  There are plenty of people that could fit that bill.

Structure

The next chair should rethink the fundamental structure of the RNC and the job functions of each department.  For instance, Communications is typically responsible for both the press and mass market appeals (like the web).  Anyone who has worked in both roles knows that you don't talk to people via your website the way you talk to reporters (though traditional Comms tactics may help you work with bloggers).

Why not rethink the way we communicate to bring it more inline with what has been proven to work in corporate America. 

Rarely do investor relations, media relations, and marketing rest in the same office. Typically sales and marketing share a common business line, as do media and investor communications. 

In politics, we typically separate sales (Political) and Marketing (Strategy, eCampaign) into separate pieces.  I would suggest the next RNC chair consider a realignment of these functions.  Political and Mass Communications (web or TV or radio or mail) should be closely linked and completely separate from the guys talking to the LA Times (assuming it's still around in 2-4 years).

Specific Examples of the Type of People You Need

If I were the RNC Chair, I would hire someone like Jon Henke to be the Communications Director.  He understands traditional media, but he also understands bloggers, how to read them, how to forecast them, and how to gauge what stories will move from new media to traditional media. You cannot underestimate the value of having someone who can see the future and know what the media will be talking about next week.  Someone who reads the paper every morning and reacts is of little use anymore.

As Political Director, I'd look to someone like Brian Donahue.  He was responsible for 72 hour programs at the RNC so he gets turnout and moving voters' feet.  He also understands the implications of the web in getting that job done.  He uderstands how volunteers can be brought in, groomed, and used to mobilize voters. More than that, given his current job, he also understands the media, and specifically the blend of traditional and new media.

I wouldn't have an eCampaign Director.  I think the very idea of that job serves only to perpetuate the idea of "the online campaign" as somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the RNC.  As the former eCampaign Director, I can say without reservation that the position simply creates a distinction that shouldn't exist.

You need someone who understands technology, databases, web/application development, list growth, etc, but that person is secondary to having someone who can drive the entire organization toward a philosophy that embraces these tactics.

I would look for a Chief of Staff who "gets it".  The Chief of Staff needs to be fundamentally aligned with the RNC Chairman's vision, but they also need to understand how that vision can be empowered by technology.  They need to have the requisite skills in budget management, personnel, etc, but the RNC will never be successful if the Chief of Staff isn't fully invested in the use of technology.

Baby Steps

I often talk with organizations or people who tell me they want to "take baby steps" online.  I always tell them I think it's outstanding that they want to be that aggressive.  The fact is, babies are exceptionally aggressive about learning to walk.  Their steps may be small, but they are certainly not timid.  

I would argue that all of these people, from the Chair to the lowest staffer, be prepared to push very hard. Thinking out of the box, and taking big chances will be the only way we can rebuild quickly.  We won't reverse our fortunes by taking things slowly.

Update: I got a note suggesting that my position here may be contrary to the Rebuild The Party plan (which Chip endorsed) which states:

Reorganizing the RNC. In order to accomplish these goals, the RNC's organizational structure will need to change. It is not enough to have a dedicated eCampaign division if other departments fail to use the Internet to transform how they do business in this new environment. The Internet should pervade everything the RNC does, and leadership on this front must come directly from the Chairman's Office.

I don't think my suggestion is contrary to that at all.  I agree that the RNC needs to be restructured. I agree that an eCampaign division is not enough, and I agree that leadership needs to come from the top.  I just disagree that placing an eCampaign staffer in each department is what I would call "Reorganizing."  That, to me, is simply paying lip service if those people don't have the authority to actually force change.

When the Bush Administration wants the agencies to do anything, they push the directive through OMB because those are the people that approve the budget. You either need executive leadership and budgetary authority to drive an organization - especially in a direction its not inclined to go on its own.

I've read a lot of discussion on this blog and many other over the "failings" of the party and what we must do to rebuild.  The Washington Post today ran a feature story on the Rebuild the Party effort and talked a lot about the effort to get the GOP to take seriously our deficiency in online organization and mobilization.

Much of the Rebuild the Party discussion has focused on the three things Patrick lined out in his post today - infrastructure, message and leadership.  It has troubled me that one thing has been missing, but I couldn't quite put a finger on what that was. 

Fortunately, another Washington publication caught the omission for me.

They can't quite get to policy disputes or serious analysis, because they're too busy mulling over the implications of liberals joining forces with Islamofascists, the United Nations, and Mexican immigrants to execute some kind of nefarious plot.

Worse, Kevin noted that when these blogs do consider key policies, such as global warming and growing income inequality, they tend to believe the problems don't exist.

While written with the harsh lefty tilt you've come to expect online, there is a serious point built into that shot.

Republicans continue to be against things.  We're against serious exploration of alternative fuels simply because it conforms to our messaging that global warming is caused by trees, cow farts, etc, or because we simply refuse to acknowledge environmental concerns. 

But where is the harm in moving beyond that discussion and into a serious conversation about other alternatives simply because it may improve a) our economy b) our position as innovators in the world or c) our quality of life? 

We have, in short, become reactionary.  Most of the discussion of "honing our message" is still aimed at reframing the ideology/theology of the past rather than having serious discussions of the future.  We're focused on the message, but not the ideas behind it.

Why not embrace the environment as a message, but distance ourselves from government mandates as the answer. 

Whether true or not, the perception of the environment is that something must be done to "fix" it.  By denying that, we have framed the debate as a choice between the government must do something to address it, or we simply do nothing.

There is a third, and more politically profitable alternative.  We can make this a referendum on how government must address the issue. The GOP should engage in debate over "going green" not in the context of stopping global warming, but in the context of supporting new technologies and businesses.

Take, for instance, FuelMaker Corporation. This is a company that seeks to address the distribution problem of alternative fuels by creating a fuel distribution system in your home. Installation of a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling system in your home would enable you to skip the gas station and have a permanent refueling option in your home.

The GOP should propose tax credits for investment in such a refueling system and cars (or conversion of cars) that run on CNG.  Such a move would combine our support of lower taxes with a recognition that green technologies aren't a bad thing.  We would reverse our identity as a party that supports dirty fuels to one that supports clean fuels and co-opt the eco-issues purely as a business move - rather than "having to cave" on global warming.

If our fight with the Democrats shifts from a question of whether global warming exists to one of who is more serious about investment in green technologies, we win back turf that we have given up.  What's more, we win it back in a "smart government" or "pro-innovation" context.

You could make the same argument for home installation of wind/solar systems.  You can still support coal/nuclear/oil, but still embrace other forms of energy.

This would also extend to using the power of government - such as it is - to guide investment into quality of life issues from a pro-capitalist perspective.  We should not view our ideas through the prism of "us versus the Democrats." What we must do, is explore the issues that resonate with the people (and the environment is only one) and engage in discourse based on an approach that favors putting people, innovation, and yes, even business first.

My grandmother used to describe people as "again'ers".  They were the people who were against everything.  That's what we have become.  We need to engage in healthy debate and reinvest in our intellectual capacity as much as we must invest in our Internet organization and the semantics we use.

It's no surprise that I am a big believer in Fred Thompson.  I was making the case for Fred several months before getting involved with his campaign.  He is a stalwart supporter of the principles of the party - small government, personal responsibility, Federalism, and traditional values.

In looking at the race for RNC Chair, count me among the many voices who have made the argument that Fred should be our guy. As General Chairman of the party, he would be fantastic.  He is solid on principles, good on camera and able to articulate our party's message in a way that resonates with real people, and firmly committed to electing solid conservatives.

It's that last point that leads me to write this post. 

I have heard a number of people talking up Michael Steele as a potential party chair. While I think Steele is an appealing candidate with a great narrative (I love that he used to be a monk), I have to judge him on performance leading an organization like the RNC.

Steele has, most recently, been the Chairman of GOPAC.  If that name is familiar, it's because of the tremendous role it played in the '94 revolution. It was once a powerhouse in GOP campaigns.  It provided candidate training nationwide and recruited some great candidates.

Under Michael Steele, as of October 15, GOPAC had raised a whopping $77,135 this year.  Of that, it gave just over $29,000 to candidates - with $5,000 of that going to Steele's own campaign in Maryland.

By comparison, Fred Thompson launched FredPAC at the beginning of September - just 60 days before the election.  In that 60 days, Fred contributed $42,000 to candidates, recorded ads and robo-calls for GOP candidates, and criss-crossed the country trying to elect Republicans and the McCain-Palin ticket.

In trying to answer the question "Who is better able to rebuild the party, raise money, and actively campaign for our candidates?" I think we need to look at what the candidates have done to actually help candidates. 

Given that Steele raised very little, contributed very little, and took 17% for himself, I'm just not sure he's the best guy to dig us out of this particular hole.

A friend dropped by Saturday to chat about the state of the GOP, our loss, the future, and specifically the problems the GOP is having online.  He's not an online guy, and is much better connected to the offline establishment.  In our discussion, he really crystallized some thoughts I have been having lately.  One comment, in particular, got me thinking.

I hear what you guys are saying about the GOP needing to change our approach to the Internet, but I have to admit, it's often the way you say it. You guys have a tendency to come across like the Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons - talking down to anyone who knows less than you do.

While I disagree with the choice of analogy, I fully apppreciate his point.  I would actually suggest that we're much more like Jack Black's character Barry in High Fidelity.

According to an American Spectator item this morning, the race for RNC Chair appears to be over. Or maybe it's not. But the game of who is in and who is out has some tongues wagging.

It seems the South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson has been campaigning for the gig since last year sometime (Ok, not really. Just since the convention, according to the AS piece.)

Dawson, the owner of an auto-parts-supply company, has been calling GOP donors and fundraisers, among others, telling them he has lined up enough votes within the 168-member national committee to make him a prohibitive favorite for the job.

"He's made it clear he doesn't expect John McCain to win the presidency," says one RNC fundraiser who has received such a call. "Katon's an ambitious guy. He's made no bones about the fact that he wants the RNC job."

But no one takes seriously the notion that Dawson is anywhere close to having a large voting bloc of RNC votes. "There are too many others poised to get into the race," says one RNC member. "We're looking at between 10 to 15 potential candidates and maybe seven or eight of them already have constituencies on the committee. No one is in a position to call this thing over, particularly since our next president, John McCain, gets to pick the next chairman."

That point is something that Dawson has seemingly overlooked, and his aggressive campaigning at a time when most Republicans are fighting hard to get McCain elected President has angered a number of Republicans because they understand why Dawson, who has been a local GOP chair in South Carolina, and won the state party job in 2002, is running: in part, to help jumpstart a presidential bid for the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford...

Dawson was actually campaigning for the job during the Republican Convention, something that angered not only the McCain campaign, but other Republicans with longtime ties to the RNC.

Apparently, some people are upset because Katon Dawson is actively campaigning while they're trying to elect John McCain. On the heels of all the "reform the rightroots movement" posts, this may stirke some people as odd.

I'd like to throw this out for discussion. Given all the chatter about reforming the GOP, is it bad form to start a campaign for Chairman months before the election?

I suspect it will only be another 36 hours or so before we see a lot more people jockeying for the RNC gig. After all, it is one of the three most visible positions within the GOP if McCain should fail to hold the White House. However, how early is "too early"? Should the body be cold before campaigning begins? Does it even need to be dead?

Despite being three years old, the "Dear Red States" Craigslist posting from 2005 is suddenly circulating again.  I guess it must be election season that has revived this.  But I figured I'd take a quick shot at a response.

Dear Red States... We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

Hot Damn.  Thanks.  You're like people who have stayed long after the rest of the party goers have gone home. We've been hoping you'd finally leave, but we're too polite to simply throw you out.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

Well, actually, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Washington are typically considered "swing states", but you can have them.  Congratulations. You got two states too cold to live in, a failing automotive industry, and Washington.

As for the beaches, we got the entire gulf coast and the Atlantic up to North Carolina.  You got the rocky coast of the northwest and the Jersey Shore (whose tourism board just recently announced their new slogan "Guidos in Speedos").  Again.  Congrats.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

I don't mean to quibble with your argument, but Bank of America is the nation's largest and one of the few solvent banks.  It's located in North Carolina.  We'll take that.

I also suspect that most of the corporate CEOs that built that wealth will move in with us since better than 75% of them vote Republican.

You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

You can have the tax revenue.  We'll give the other 1/3 back to the people since they know how to spend it better than your army of bureaucrats.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire

Since our troops will be coming home in a year under President Bush's plan anyway, that's fine with us.  

You're also likely impose strict gun control while we a) have a tendency to support regime change and b) own a lot of guns. In addition, since most of America's nuclear arsenal sits in silos in the red states, if we ever decide we want New California back...  Well, let's just say, "Sleep tight!" 

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90 % of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 % of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 %of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

You got me there.  Let's just hope that all the Asian students who are attending those schools will let you mow their lawns when they graduate.

While I will miss the pineapple, I think I speak for my red state family when I say we're ok giving up the wine and stinky cheese.  After all, we still have all the Jack Daniels from Tennesee, all the Coors and Budweiser beer products from Colorado and Missouri, most of America's steak, and all the cigars we can roll with that North Carolina tobacco.

You also seem to forget that a) we will get most of America's total acreage.  We get America's strategic oil reserve, we get all the oil in Texas and Alaska.  With a much smaller population, we'll have enough energy to last generations.  If we run short, we have no problem drilling off the coast of New California since we know we won't run into you there. Even if we do, like I said, we have all the guns.

That is a shame about the condors.  I hear they're good eatin'.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 % of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

I can live with that.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. Additionally, 38 % of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico .

Peace out,
Blue States

Ugh! You get Hollywood?  Bummer.  You've just taken on a huge sector of the economy that creates little of actual value, yet gets paid better than most CEOs.  But we're willing to accept that since you have agreed to permanently dispose of Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, and Britney Spears.  Thanks for taking care of that for us.

In closing, let me simply say thank you again. I think this arrangement will work out beautifully.

There is a lot of chatter on the wires about the 2001 radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court's role in addressing "political and economic justice" and redistribution of wealth.  Taken together with his "spread the wealth around" comments to Joe the Plumber, a lot of people are seeing a pattern. Many have begun to suggest that Obama is a closet socialist just waiting to spring a trap on an unsuspecting America.

Well, let's look at this analytically beginning with an accepted definition of Socialism.  For sake of a common source, I'll use Wikipedia.  I'm not a big fan of it for discussions like this, but since the people have collectively "spoken" and regard it is sound, it's common ground, I guess.  It's definition of socialism includes this:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.^[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Many people equate socialism with communism and Marxism, but those are really false analogies.  Communism is predicated on a classless society with no government.  To that extent, what we call communist nations are not actually communist at all.  There have been countries that attempted to create a communist state, but most ended up totalitarian regimes.  Even China, one of the stalwart adherents to communism, has realized they need to open the door to capitalism more and more.

So what's the difference between communist/Marxist, and socialist societies? Well, the answer to that is long enough to earn you an advanced degree in most colleges, but let's define it as a question of two things - revolution and control.

Under Marxist theory, a revolution would be necessary to wrest control of the means of production from the hands of the upper class.  That would be followed by a period of control by a type of revolutionary council, and then eventually the abolition of government in favor of the collective.  This latter period is where most Marxist states have gone wrong.  They get caught up in the fervor of being in power, and end up inviting a revolution.

Socialism, by comparison, doesn't necessarily require revolution.  In fact, many argue that despite the fear of an Obama administration, the US is already well on the road to socialism thanks to the collapse of Wall Street and the intervention of the Bush economic team.

All socialism requires, per the definition above, is either "complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange or state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

It is in the latter framework that we need to address the question of "Obama's socialism".  Obama's team has reiterated, ad nauseum, their claims that Obama is committed to the free market. In response to the 2001 radio interview, his team had this to say.

In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better.

Actually, that's not what he said.  If you listen to the interview, he said that he could easily develop an argument that the court's could carry out the task of ordering redistributive policies, but that the administrative overhead would be too great for the courts so such change must come through Congress.

He also, quite specifically, never said he opposed redistributive policies, only that they must originate in legislation, not court doctrine.

So where is Congress on this?  Even Nancy Pelosi, a devout liberal, is on the free market bandwagon, right?

We are all believers in the free market -- it's part of our democracy. We know that the free markets create jobs, create capital, and create wealth -- that's very important. But recently, left unregulated and undisciplined and unsupervised, they create chaos.

Well, frankly we don't know if that's true because we don't have a free market.  We have a regulated market. "Free markets" by definition, are free of outside influence.  All transactions are between buyer and seller.  When you introduce even basic constraints - say fraud protection, lemon laws, etc. - you no longer have a free market.  Pelosi's comments seem to indicate that she's in favor of a regulated market.

So which does Obama favor?  A free market or a regulated market? From his statement about the plan for government taking ownership stakes in banks, it appears to be the latter:

[T]he plan appears to extend a broader set of guarantees to banks without requiring any additional regulation, which represents more of the same failed philosophy that got us into this mess.

Ok.  So Obama wants government regulation.  So what's wrong with that?

Well, let's look back at that "widely accepted" definition of Socialism.

[O]thers advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

We now have government with a sizable ownership interest in banks, insurance, and securities.  We're also heavily involved in an automotive bailout.  You can argue the current wave of nationalization started under Bush - which is true - but it's not like Obama has opposed it.

Further,  I suspect we'll start to see justifications for expanding that reach into energy and telecommunications.  The government is encroaching more and more on the people.

While it is not yet the complete nationalization of the means of production, it's getting a lot closer.

Obama is in support of the government role in banks, wants more regulation (read: control) of the market.  His cheerleaders in Congress want the same.  He has talked openly of using government power to "spread the wealth" around.  He has made coherent arguments that redistributive policies must come from government. (That alone leads me to believe he has spent a good deal of time thinking about it.)

With all that, I ask you, is there honestly anyone alive who can make that claim that the term "socialist" doesn't apply here?