Category: media and media people

Categories
media and media people

The Most Loathed Lobbyist

Michael Needham is a lobbyist. At least, he was called a “conservative lobbyist” repeatedly during his recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Now, I don’t have anything against lobbyists, per se. We have the right to petition government, as individuals, or for businesses, civic leagues, unions. Disagree with a group? Balk at a group’s influence? Well, when millions and billions are handed out — or taken away — through programs, taxes and regulations enacted on any given day in Washington, a company neglects to hire the eyes and ears and mouth of a lobbyist at its own risk. How can we begrudge them their defense?Mike Needham

On the other hand, the right to plead for special favors doesn’t justify our government doing the bidding of those special-​interest pleaders.

“The problem,” Needham explained, is “33,000 lobbyists” that mostly work to preserve the “status quo in Washington D.C.”

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell snarkily shot back, “And how are those lobbyists different from you as a lobbyist?”

Unfortunately, he didn’t get a chance to answer: time ran out.

Allow me.

Needham heads up Heritage Action, a 700,000 member grassroots “lobbying organization” that advocates for conservative policies promoted by the Heritage Foundation.

He is not asking for a bridge project, a tweak to the tax code, a money-​making regulatory advantage. He is advocating for what he and thousands of Americans believe is the right set of general policies for the country.

I don’t always agree with Needham or Heritage Action, certainly, but it’s sad to see him slapped with the misleading “lobbyist” label — for the more you lobby for the public interest, the more loathed you are in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

Camp, Kitsch, Goofy Pitch

The pitches aired in service of Obamacare have descended from the twee and lightly vulgar to worse than disastrously kitschy and outrageously camp.

The latest example is not the pajama boy icon for Obamacare, a young man wearing a onesie and demonstrating all the manliness of Peter Pan. Of that, Nick Gillespie agrees, it’s egregious: “For many — arguably most — Americans, this guy is hipster douchitude on a cracker.” But, Gillespie reminds me, I’m not the campaign’s audience. Young single women are.

Hmmm?

No, the nadir of fawning, in-​groupy appeal went much further in a video advertisement concocted, we are told, for the LGBT community. You have to see it to believe it — or better yet, just take my word for it. The first minute is jaw-​droppingly silly; the second goes beyond tasteless.

Its propaganda value? Dubious. I would not be surprised to discover that this was made as a parody, for comic purposes alone.

But I think I know enough about camp — the theory of which I’ll leave to Camille Paglia — to not be surprised that someone, somewhere, might actually think it a good way to reach the LGBT community.

Folks often complain about advertising. Well, the pandering, lip-​smacking vulgarity of “capitalist realism” has now come to the welfare state — even if at the hands of folks not directly connected to government. But to those in the know, let me confess: what gets my goat the most is its frank promotion of “assistance to help you pay.”

With the singer making the most vulgar gesture of all, a show-​me-​the-​money shot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

For the People?

Politicians always talk about how hard they work for us.

Of course, not even the most recent tumblers off the proverbial turnip truck believe them. Politicians don’t work so hard, first of all, and certainly not with the idea of putting what “We, the People” want ahead of what “They, the Politicians” want.

This is true across party lines. Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is under fire and two high-​level appointees have resigned over allegations that they closed two highway access lanes from Fort Lee, New Jersey, over the George Washington Bridge into New York City, causing a massive traffic jam just to punish the town’s mayor for not endorsing Christie in the election.

Working hard for the people or turning the screws of government for one’s own benefit?

Meanwhile, a new report by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency, finds that the Obama White House “systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election.”

ACUS also determined that delays in issuing regulations “under Obama went well beyond those of his predecessors” and were caused by “concerns about the agencies issuing costly or controversial rules prior to the November 2012 election.”

Notice that the Obama Administration wasn’t willing to permanently shelve any rules as too burdensome. The only concern? Delaying the pain they intended to inflict on folks until after the election, when voters would have less effective means for expressing their disapproval.

Hardly working for the people; working hard for themselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access links media and media people

NOT on Townhall: In Defense of “Spoilers”

The place of minor parties — challenger parties — in American politics needs to be rethought.

Last weekend I wrote one of my regular columns for Townhall​.com. I considered what the Libertarian Party challenge means to limited-​government folks in the Republican Party. Unfortunately, while I was told they would be publishing that column, it has still not been. 

That’s a first. I’ve been writing a regular column, finalizing it every Saturday (minus one or two vacations) since late 2003. And even when I’ve criticized conservatives, the good folks at Townhall have been kind enough published my words. This time, well, maybe it’s a horrible column. You tell me. Click on over to the column at my archive on this Common Sense site, and then come back here and give me your opinion.

Now, I understand that this is a somewhat controversial issue.

Voting, after all, is a tricky business, with one’s choices very limited. Voting for the lesser of evils might (a) prevent an awful lot of extra evil, or (b) endorse, as a self-​fulfilling prophecy, an outcome that guarantees (at least some degree of) malevolence.

Since I believe most of us when we cast our ballot are making the best choices we can to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, I’m not quick to find fault — either with those voting against the worst evil or those opting for the candidate best representing their principles, regardless of the chance to win.

But I do find fault in the attitude that says folks are foolish if they don’t vote for a candidate with whom they have major disagreements, your preferred candidate, instead of a candidate they enthusiastically endorse, because they should despise the other guy even more. If Republicans want Libertarian, or small‑l libertarian votes, they’ll have to actually earn them.

“I get that libertarianism is not Republicanism,” writes Carrie Sheffield at Forbes. “But in a two-​party, winner-​take-​all system (for better or worse, that’s just the reality), it begs the question why someone committed to a small-​government philosophy would knowingly generate a big-​government winner.”

But aren’t those who nominate a Republican candidate unable to win the libertarian votes needed to prevail in the election just as culpable in generating “a big-​government winner” as the libertarians who decline to vote for that GOP candidate?

And certainly my suggestion, late in my column, shows a way around the problem. The problem, as it is right now, is that “the best” (the Libertarian Party? — yes, for some of us) serves as the enemy of the “good” (or at least “better than the Democrat”). By altering the manner in which we cast and count ballots — whether IRV or proportional representation, or something similar — the best will not work against the “good enough.”

It seems like an idea whose time has come.

This is especially droll since the mathematician who first spotted the problem, French philosopher Condorcet, did so before the drawing up of the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps its time for a revolution in our heads, or a new rethink of democracy. You know, to make it more, not less democratic; more, not less, republican.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

And these links provide some additional food for thought:

Categories
media and media people

The Independents Streak

I learned something the other night, on the new Fox Business show The Independents: Mr. John Stossel’s eponymous show is the highest-​rated show on that same network.

It’s no shock. It’s my favorite show, there, too. And I know folks who have even upped their cable or satellite packages solely to view Stossel every week.

Call it a comfort, call it a relief, call it whatever, but it’s nice to know that one’s own political and rhetorical tastes are shared by a growing number of others.

One thing to like about Stossel is also a reason to like The Independents. The hostess, saucy Kennedy (of MTV fame), and her cadre of commentators, Matt Welch and Kmele Foster, aim to keep the debate civil. They said as much. And followed through. No yelling; a minimum of over-​talk. Apparently the format of the show is to invite two guest commentators every episode (one from “the left” and one from “the right”), and on the debut episode we watched Fox contributors Basil Smikle and Jedediah Bila … the latter ostensibly a conservative, but who sounded just as libertarian as the show’s core committee.

Fox’s increasing independent-​minded viewership — and, like the show’s creators, I’m using “independent” partly as a code word for “libertarian” — is being rewarded with more fare to their tastes.

Modern society needs an independent streak. We gain; Fox gains.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people too much government

Got Ads?

First the hush-​hush secrecy; then the lies. Now something even … worse?

President Barack Obama doesn’t think the American people can handle the truth. Neither do several progressive non-​profit groups in Colorado that have produced a plethora of cringe-​worthy ads promoting Obamacare.

One print ad, “Let’s Get Physical,” pictures a young women giving a thumbs up sign and showing off her birth control pills standing next to a scruffy-​faced man-​boy, with the text: “OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers.* I got insurance.”

No worries, eh? The asterisk informs readers that, “The pill doesn’t protect you from STDs.”

Another advertisement, “Brosurance,” reaches out to young … drunkards. “Keg stands are crazy,” we’re informed. “Not having health insurance is crazier.” It continues: “Don’t tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills. We got it covered.”

Gee, thanks. In fact, both print ads end with the “thanks obamacare!” slogan.

So, can floundering Obamacare be saved by harnessing the awesome power of sex appeal and inebriation and huge dollops of kitsch and irony? Only if young people are as vacuous as these ads insinuate.

“Younger Americans may indeed be reckless enough to do keg stands and have unprotected sex on a regular basis,” Nick Gillespie wrote in Time, “but they’re not so dumb as the ‘Got Insurance?’ ads — or the architects of Obamacare — seem to think.”

Because, as Gillespie and others point out, Obamacare overcharges young people to supposedly lower costs for others. Let’s get real, bro.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.