Randy's Views

Senator Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign has been impressive. Together with former President Bill Clinton, she has built a talented, battle tested, team of election professionals. So far, there is no other political organization (candidate based or otherwise) that can match their steamroller political machine. In fundraising, organization, communication, and messaging, the Clinton campaign has set the bar for the top tier of national campaigns. So can anyone stop this political behemoth on the steady march toward the White House?

On the Republican side, the various campaign organizations remain mired in the bog of message dilution that results from too many candidates and too many forums/debates. The top tier candidates are paralyzed by risk averse consultants who are unwilling to take chances to break out for fear of falling down. The second tier candidates appear content to vie for a vice presidential slot rather than take a real shot at heading the ticket. The result has been predictable strategies that have failed to resonate with deflated Republican primary voters eager for some sign of political life in a struggling political party.

Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign has locked in on a “presumptive nominee” strategy dependent on building a crescendo of eventuality based on organization and money. This strategy contemplates early victories in Iowa and the following early primary states. The hope is that by February 5, 2008 (when over twenty states hold their primaries) the race for the Republican nomination is over. While a win in Iowa will not guarantee a nomination, successive victories in Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida would. Concentrating resources in just the first few can translate in a bandwagon effect for the balance of the race.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign undoubtedly has zeroed in on a “national primary” strategy aimed at surviving the early primary battles in order to win the de facto national primary election on February 5th. Necessarily, this strategy assumes that two political dynamics are possible. First, it assumes that a Presidential campaign can survive early losses (i.e., something other than first place). Second, it assumes that the natural progression of the nomination process toward a two-candidate contest with other candidates dropping out with each passing primary election contest.

The political and mental toughness required for such a strategy is enormous. If still politically alive at the end of January, the Giuliani campaign will have to pivot the contest toward a single issue -- winability. If February 5th is about which Republican candidate has the best chance to win a general election against Hillary Clinton, then the Giuliani campaign will have gotten the referendum it wanted.

Senator John McCain’s campaign strategy is simple - survive. Notwithstanding insider labels of “politically dead man walking,” Senator McCain remains a factor on the national political landscape. Given the unpredictable twists and turns of national electoral politics (including the ability of candidates to self-destruct), simple survival is no small thing. For Senator McCain, there is no next time. As a result, there is no political downside to seeing it through. The ability to meaningfully survive is a different issue. There is a minimum level of resources necessary to be meaningful. His ability to raise the resources will remain his biggest challenge.

Senator Fred Thompson’s campaign must find the spark to tap into a movement that can overcome huge deficits in resources and organization. Late entrants into the Presidential political game start at an enormous disadvantage. Traditional political campaigns dependent on systematic fundraising and institutional political structures require years to build. While the internet and mass communications increase the chances of establishing the connectivity required for a movement driven candidacy, they do not change the discipline and drive required for old fashioned political machine building.

On the Democratic side, the strategy for Senator Barack Obama and Senator John Edwards is the same - and similar to the strategy employed by Mayor Giuliani -come in second at the initial primary election contests. The idea is that the risk of coalescing political opposition associated with a Clinton candidacy will simply be too much for Democratic party activists intent on retaining their newfound political power. The thought is that anxious Democratic primary voters will opt for the “other candidate,” whoever that might be. Of course, the key is to be the “other candidate” during the de facto national primary election.

So, having lost a few pounds over the past year, folks want know how to keep the weight off. After all, what good does it do to lose the weight, only to gain it all back or, worse yet, gain even more. The toughest part is unlearning behaviors from a different time.

“Clean your plate” was not a question. It meant that every morsel of food that found its way on the plate had to be completely and totally eaten. Admittedly, it was a way to force the consumption of unwanted vegetables. But, it was also a reflection of the worries of a generation that still remembered (and feared) the possibility that one day the plate might be empty.

The instruction was often accompanied by a hint of moral guilt if less than all of the food was eaten. After all, there were the people in the starving third world countries (the name of which varied depending on the news of the month) who were not so fortunate. At its height, extra biscuits were used to “sop up” (undoubtedly a foreign phrase to some readers) every speck of food so that the plate ended up cleaner than it began. But that was not all.

Then, there was the rule of the “last biscuit” - a concept that few under-30 folks have any reason to understand. Basically, for the person who had cleaned their plate first, there was the option to have the next (until the last) biscuit in the basket. (The same rule existed for the last piece of chicken/sausage/cake). Six biscuits - four people, the first two get an extra biscuit. (It is notable that mothers always seem to lose this contest - a reflection of a choice of a different kind for their children.) The result was the inevitable “speed eating.” Basically, there was a premium on “wolfing down” every piece of food as fast as possible in order to have the first option at the last biscuit. With those biscuits, it was no small thing.

Since then, the fast paced rapid-fire of the shot-clock generation on engrained speed eating is in the American lifestyle. Over time, the reflexes become automatic and the behaviors become habits. For one generation, the habits were grounded in a different time and failed to change when times did. For the next, it became sui generis - it is because it is.

Quantity was only a function of availability. The more there was - the more that had to be eaten. “It comes with the meal” meant “it is free extra food - take it.” After all, it was unconscionable to throw food away, especially when there were starving millions around the world.

Then came the all you-can-eat buffet and super sized value meals.

Rather than signal the possibility that the “clean your plate” idea and the “speed eating” challenge might have outlived their place, eating became a simple value proposition. “More food for the same price” meant simply eat more food - fast. For a generation that pinched the most out of every penny, the idea of more food for the same penny did not seem like a tricky one. Meanwhile, a whole generation (or two) grew up participating in the sport of food.

Worse yet, everyone got to choose exactly what they ate. So why eat filler foods like salad and fruit when it could be all steak (or fried chicken or pizza) - all the time.

Changing and staying changed involves three simple words - let it go. Just because it was, does not mean it has to be.

Three other words offer a practical application - eat less - slower. Try it. (One unintended, but potentially positive consequence could be that folks at the table with you can understand what you said - if you know what I mean.)

At its last meeting, the State Election Board voted to impose an $80,000 penalty -- the largest civil penalty imposed by the Board against an individual in Georgia history. For those who continue to doubt the scope and extent of voter fraud involving non-citizens in Georgia, the record in the case is telling. Here is the actual testimony in that record from a non-citizen under oath:

“Q. And what did [the candidate] tell you when you first met him?

A. He first introduced himself and he told me he was running for county commissioner and he wanted me to vote for him and I told him that I cannot vote because I’m not a U.S. citizen. And then he said you don’t have to be a U.S. citizen to vote. He said all you need is your driver’s license. He said you got a driver’s license, I said, yeah, I got a driver’s license. He said that’s all you need. He said let me have your driver’s license and it won’t take ten minutes and I’ll register you and I let him. …. And he took my driver’s license and went to his truck and his wife was there in the truck that had her laptop computer and about ten minutes later he come back and gave me my driver’s license and said I got everything done, all you got to do is sign right here. And I didn’t even read the paper, so I signed the papers. He said in about a week you’ll get some papers in the mail he said and you make sure you fill them out, you check my name and he said send them back or if you want to he said when you get the paper’s I’ll come back and help you fill it out.”

Isolated instance - not quite. Here, is a different non-citizen witness’ sworn testimony:

“Q. Okay, And did you hear [the candidate] -- I mean, what did [the candidate] tell you after you told him that your husband wasn’t a citizen?

A. Well, the only -- He told me that -- He asked me -- The first thing he asked me was did he have a driver’s license and I said yes, he does. And he says well, anyone with a valid Georgia’s Driver’s License is eligible to vote. And I told him I did not know that, I thought you had to be a U.S. citizen to vote and he said, no, no, anybody with a valid driver’s license is allowed to vote. So that’s when later Miquel had commented to me, he had told him the same thing and that he said he wanted -- he later brought in the voting ballot for him to sign and that he would bring in a box, to put in the box.”

“Q. Are you an American citizen? INTERPRETER: No. Q. Do you know [the candidate]? INTERPRETER: I don’t know him. He’s come to my house, but I don’t know him. Q. Okay, How many time (sic) has he come by your house? INTERPRETER: About tow (sic) or three times. Q. And what did he tell you when he first came by your house? INTERPRETER: He was promoting himself for votes and I’m not sure. Q. Okay. And what did you tell him when he asked you to vote for him? INTERPRETER: I couldn’t vote. Q. And why did you tell him you couldn’t vote? INTERPRETER: Because I’m not an American citizen. Q. And what did [the candidate] tell you after your told him that? INTERPRETER: He asked me if I had a social security number and a license. Q. And did you register to vote after [the candidate] told you that? INTERPRETER: I filled some paperwork out and then a ballot came to my house. . . . Q. And did you believe you were eligible to vote before [the candidate] told you that you could vote? INTERPRETER: I didn’t believer (sic) I could vote, but he told me I could vote with a license or social security number.”

Witness after witness - 483 total pages of proceedings. There is a voter fraud problem in Georgia. This one got caught. The price: $80,000.