QUOTE OF THE MONTH: “I’ve fought big spenders in both parties who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, and the first big spending pork barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will their names.”
2008 Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech
FACT OF THE MONTH: According to the Washington Post, as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Republican nominee for Vice President Sarah Palin accepted almost $27 million in earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents in her final four years as mayor. That is more than $4,000 per resident. The earmarks included $15 million for a rail project intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where indicted Senator Ted Stevens has a house. Other earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land, and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agriculture processing facility. To accomplish this, Palin presided over the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska’s most senior Republicans including Rep. Don Young and Senator Stevens. In less than 2 years as Governor, Palin has received over $200 million in earmarks for the State of Alaska.
SENSE AND NONSENSE -- A PEEK AT THE REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK
From the editor: It is certainly appropriate and helpful for the Democratic Party and all Democratic political candidates to ask themselves: “Why is the race for President of the United States still a dead heat when Democrats are on the smart side of all policy issues from the economy to the war?” To answer this question, Democrats have to think like a Republican election strategist. The fictional Republican law firm of Cheatum, Leavum, and Greed has distributed the following playbook to a secret list of Republican operatives.
Principle #1: Provide simple answers to complicated problems. Simplicity makes voters feel safe and smart.
Example: The Washington Post reports in a Sept. 9 article written by Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin, “As the U.S. housing crisis deepens and job losses accelerate, Sen. John McCain is trying to distill the debate over the economy into a simple, and familiar, message over taxes.
“I’ll keep taxes low and cut ‘em where I can,” the Republican candidate vowed Monday afternoon at a rally in the swing state of Missouri. “My opponent will raise your taxes! My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate ‘em.”
Note: In truth, Obama will give tax cuts to 81% of all taxpayers and 95% of taxpayers with children. He will only increase taxes to those making more than $250,000 per year.
Principle #2: Appeal to emotion. Emotion, especially the emotion of fear, trumps reason every time.
Classic example: How can an entire country be led into an illegal, preemptive war against a dictator who posed no threat? Answer: Invoke the image of weapons of mass destruction in general and “a mushroom cloud” in particular.
Principle #3: Be willing to call “white” “black” and “black” “white.” Don’t worry about blurring the distinction between the truth and a lie. Tell voters what they want to hear. Not what they need to hear.
Prime example: “I told the government ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to the bridge to nowhere.
Note: In truth, Palin was for the bridge to nowhere while running for Governor. In addition, she kept the $220 million appropriation as part of the Federal Highway appropriation after Congress killed the “bridge to nowhere” earmark.
Principle #4: Become an expert on “bait and switch” tactics. The chief weapons in this arsenal are wedge issues that appeal to single-issue voters. The most effective wedge issues are those that invoke God, guns, and gays. Fortunately for us, Sarah Palin embodies and embraces all three issues.
Example: Palin, herself, is a great wedge issue. Democrats who criticize her inexperience, policies and management style will be accused of sexism.
Warning to fellow Republicans: Be prepared for a possible backlash or “blowback” from women who are insulted that Palin will be handed the banner of feminism by a male-dominated Republican political campaign.
The author of “Vagina Monologues” Eve Ensler writes, “But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.”
Principle #5: If all else fails, steal the election. Florida taught us that it is possible to purge the voter rolls to an extent that gives Republicans a numerical advantage.
Example: Fortunately for Republicans, we have become very good at stealing elections. In 2000, we used everything from a “butterfly ballot” to targeting populations, especially black voters, for purging from the rolls. The exit polls showed that people who thought they were voting for Gore actually voted for Pat Buchanan. What a stroke of genius on the part of Kathryn Harris. We were also able to purge anyone charged with a felony whether they were actually convicted or not. We contracted that responsibility out to a private firm so that we could not be held accountable. It worked like a charm. We won Florida by 537 votes after millions of votes were cast. In 2004, we were able to use some of the same tactics to make sure that black voters did not get a chance to vote in Ohio. Again, the actual vote counts contradicted what the exit polls were showing. If we can put a Republican in key state offices such as Secretary of State or State Attorney Generals, we can control the outcome of “swing state” elections. We are very good at it.
Warning to all Republicans: The only thing that can beat us is that registered Democratic and Independent voters turn out in record numbers. To counter this possibility, the McCain campaign has launched a huge “voter caging” effort to purge registered voters (particularly minorities) off the rolls by mailing absentee ballot applications to Democrats and Independents. If those applications are returned as “undeliverable,” we have a good chance of removing that voter from the rolls. Our biggest nightmare will be if Democrats and Independents vote in huge numbers and challenge any effort to prevent them from voting.
WHAT IS VOTER CAGING?>
From the Brennan Center for Justice: Following are excerpts from a report prepared by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. The report is entitled “A Guide to Voter Caging Analysis.” It was released June 29, 2007.
“Voter caging is again in the news, following revelations that the practice was anticipated or used in five states in 2004 and that it may have been condoned or authorized by senior national campaign officials. Voter caging is a notoriously unreliable means of calling the voter rolls into question and can lead to unwarranted purges or challenges of eligible citizens. When it is targeted at minority voters (as it often is, unfortunately), it is also illegal.”
“Caging is a generic term that describes the sorting of returned direct-mail pieces sometimes to process contributions, and sometimes to weed out unprofitable addresses. The term is reportedly derived from the postal cubby holes, resembling cages, that are used for sorting mail. In many of its applications, caging is both standard practice and benign.”
“Voter caging is a distinct form of caging and much more dangerous. Voter caging is the practice of sending mail to addresses on the voter rolls, compiling a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and using that list to purge or challenge voters registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses.”
“Supporters of voter caging defend the practice as a means of preventing votes cast by ineligible voters. Voter caging, however, is notoriously unreliable. If it is treated (unjustifiably) as the sole basis for determining that a voter is ineligible or does not live at the address at which he or she registered, it can lead to the unwarranted purge or challenge of eligible voters.”
“Moreover, these purges or challenges are seldom neutral. Voter caging is almost always pursued with partisan aims, and caging lists are often targeted expressly at registered members of the opposing party. Moreover, the practice has often been targeted at minority voters, making the effects even more pernicious. In 1986, for example, a notorious memorandum unearthed in litigation, sent from one regional party political director to another, described the likely effect of a voter caging program on the upcoming Senate race in Louisiana.”
Quoting the memo, “I know this race is really important to you. I would guess that this program will eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls…If it’s a close race, which I’m assuming it is, this could keep the black vote down considerably.”
“Moreover, Congress has recognized that voter caging is unreliable. It has, for example, strictly limited the extent to which states can use caging techniques to purge their voter rolls under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, Public Law No. 103-31 (May 20, 1993) In particular, Congress recognized that voters move, and that the voter rolls may become outdated; it also recognized that there are many reasons why mail may go awry. The NVRA therefore carefully regulates the conditions under which a state may purge a registered voter based only on undelivered mail.”
For example, “Mail used for this purpose must be forwardable, with a notice to the voter to return an enclosed postage-paid card to the relevant registrar. If the voter does not return the card, she can be flagged but she remains eligible to vote, and need only confirm her address before voting. Once the mail is sent, the voter has at least two federal elections to show up, confirm her address, and vote, before a purge can take effect.
(Editor’s Note: Many states privatize the task of purging voter rolls. Voting machine companies such as ES&S often hold a contract to purge the rolls. Oversight of these companies is often lacking or non-existent.)
The Compass Society Newsletter
Maynard Chapman, Editor
Copyright © 2008, The Compass Society
