• Skipper – 83% GOP
• Gilligan – 69% Dem
• Mary Ann – 61% GOP
• Ginger – 83% Dem
• Professor (the only “near tie”) – 47% Dem 41% Libertarian
• Mr. & Mrs. Howell – both at 72% GOP

The outcome made me wonder what the result would be if I looked at other classic TV series. As I discussed the idea with some friends, one that drew a lot of discussion was “Friends”. It seems there is a lot of disagreement about how Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Phoebe, Joey and Monica would cast their ballots.

Now here’s your chance to tell me what you think.

You’ll notice I added “Green” as an option for Phoebe as a number of people indicated their thought that she’d lean that way.

• The Professor – This would normally be an easy lift. He’d likely be the typical liberal academic. Definitely a Democrat.
• The Skipper – Former Navy man, the guy everyone looks to for tough leadership. He’s definitely a Republican.
• The Millionaire and Lovey – They’re unabashedly rich, and have no qualms about it. They’re Republican.
• Ginger – Like the prof, she’s the typical Hollywood starlet. She may not actually be liberal, but that’s the trendy thing, so she goes along. That’s a Democrat.
• Mary Ann – A girl from the heartland with mid-western values. She probably digs God, Guns, Country, and country music. She’s a Republican.
• Gilligan – He’s kind of clueless and rarely gets anything right. He’s a Democrat.

Like I said, that was easy enough. Until, that is, I started talking to my friend Paul about the list. He’s a liberal, so he views the world through a skewed perspective, but he had some interesting thoughts.

For instance, the Professor, he argues, is a dedicated academic, but also has a heavy lean toward technology. That may indicate he is more Libertarian. Ginger, he suggests, strikes him more as a Patricia Heaton type. He thinks she would actually lean GOP. What about Mary Ann? She may be a farm girl, but she also comes across as a bleeding heart. Could she be a closet lefty? Could “means well, but usually gets it wrong” be applied equally to paint Gilligan as a Republican? While we agree on the Howell’s, could they actually be limousine liberals?

So I decided to change the focus of this post. Rather than declaring how the Island would vote, I’m asking. I’d love to get your thoughts. I’ll tabulate it all and report back on the consensus (if there is one) view.

The RNC’s Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors

Specifically distressing is the second point:

PROTECT MEDICARE AND NOT CUT IT IN THE NAME OF HEALTH CARE REFORM: President Obama and Congressional Democrats are promoting a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to be used to pay for their plan. Medicare should not be raided to pay for another entitlement.

Since when are we about “protecting” medicare? It’s a bloated program full of fraud and abuse. If we guarantee it won’t be “raided to pay for another entitlement”, we’re essentially demanding that government create two conflicting and somewhat duplicative health programs – both of which will likely be full of fraud and abuse.

To a cynic’s eye, this ‘proposal’ is the “let’s rile and confuse seniors so they’ll get even more flummoxed” plan. It’s disgusting to me that the party of small government is pushing a plan that would guarantee bureaucratic longevity simply to curry favor with seniors.

I’ve got a better idea for a plan. Why don’t we make the government fix Medicare and Medicaid – thus demonstrating they have a clue – before we let them create yet another program. If they can’t be fixed, then let’s figure out how to dismantle them.

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, is 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.

My problems have to do with Meghan McCain as a pseudo-celeb trying to force her views on people. It’s the same problem I have with people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian telling me what to think – people who have achieved nothing in life other than being born well.

Her latest appearance on The View was much like her written rant about Karl Rove – exaggeration, fabrication, and utter mind-humbing rot coming from a woman who would be unemployable if she weren’t the daughter of a former POTUS candidate. She has never met a truth she couldn’t stretch.

I joined Twitter a few months ago…

No, you didn’t. You joined six weeks ago. You know how I know that? Because you tweeted it on March 7.

We need to take Twitter back from the creepy people.

The creepy people who have been on Twitter for months or even years longer than you have? That’s right, Rove was on twitter two months before you were? What’s next? Are you going to demand we take America back from those creepy Native Americans that live near your parents’ house in Scottsdale?

Let us, instead, look at who contributes more to Twitter. Karl Rove has 43,000 followers and follows 40,000. That’s right. He actually listens to just about as many people as he talks to. What about you, Meghan?

Followers: 26327
Following: 68

Sixty-eight? I have followed more than 68 people completely on accident! How do you have 26,000 followers, but only listen to 68 people? It’s clear you don’t give a shit about the opinions of more than 99.7% of the people interested in your drivel.

Sometimes [Karl Rove] takes questions; other times he talks about his appearances on cable news and other shows. But he doesn’t say anything substantive.

Oh… so we should judge the two of you on substance. Ok… Surely, for someone with a lot to say, you must really put some thought provoking content up on Twitter, right?

I have a very exciting meeting today and the only dilemma is what to wear.

I remember some frito pies and I feel like I ate a lot of chicken patties and jello growing up 2, I loved my cafeteria!

I used to have the hugest crush on Eminem when I was in high school and he still looks hot in his new music video!!

Howard [Stern], I would so go on your show (but I would go on in a suit and keep my clothes on)

Now compare that to Karl Rove:

Please take time 2 read at least 1 of the interrogation memos. I’ve posted them on my website here > http://twurl.nl/b7iiik

Polling News & Notes: The Internet’s Growing Role in American Politics (PDF Download) http://twurl.nl/xm0eon

Politicians ignore tea parties at their peril. http://jijr.com/hehc

Wow! Clearly Meghan’s is a superior intellect. Why talk about foreign policy, trends in American politics, and political activism when you can talk about clothes, not taking your clothes off, jello and eminem.

(Meghan then goes on to pump up her dad’s use of Twitter and how it’s all him. Of course, this is the same guy that told us he couldn’t use a Blackberry because of his arm injuries. So which is it? Is he an invalid who can’t work his own thumbs, but wanted to keep a finger on the nuclear trigger? Or is he a twittering fool?)

Now, like I said, I have no problem with Meghan’s criticism of the GOP. She’s right on many counts.

What I do find tremendously offensive about her is the the fact that trashing the GOP seems to be more of a routine she performs to keep the media spotlight on herself. Now that dear old dad is no longer running for office, how can I keep people’s attention. I’ve got it. Rather than try to be a constructive voice, I’ll just kick the GOP while it’s down. That should get me on camera.

And don’t, for even a moment, think I am a big fan of Karl’s. For all his recent embrace of the Internet and jumping into the discussion, I have seen firsthand his real disdain for that discussion. I don’t buy his bullshit at all.

However, given a choice between the hypocrite and the ridiculous preening of the media whore, I had to flip a coin…

…and Meghan, you lost.

There is a closed street outside our door that is not on any GPS system. Everyday 10 cars drive right up to the brick wall, because the GPS said to.

That statement was sent to me via Twitter in response to a point I made about the GOP Tech Summit. I had said that the best GPS in the world won’t get you anywhere if you don’t know where you want to go.

Much of the chatter I heard from the Summit centered around the tools, the technology, the apps, Twitter, etc. But none of it addressed the much larger point – we need to know where we want to go before we can ever turn on the GPS.

The summit is a good idea, and I commend the RNC for having the idea.

However, I think the party really needs a better sense of where it wants to go. It is not enough to simply want to get back in power. It’s not enought to say you want to win elections. It is certainly not enough to say we want to deploy new toys and gadgets without any idea of what we want to do.

In the 1990s, we had a vision. We had an agenda. We had a set of core concepts around which we could rally.

Today, we have none of that.

Are we for fiscal responsibility and small government? That’s kind of hard for people to believe based on immediate past experience. Obama, rightly, beat us about the head and neck with that one in his presser. We simply have no credibility on those issues.

Are we for ethics and accountability in elected officials? Well, we kind of pooched that one too.

The way to demonstrate our commitment to these ideals is using the technology to put our money where our mouths are.

We need to identify dirty politicians – not just dirty Democrats. If our guys are implicated, we need to primary them.

We need to put all legislation online for public discussion – not three days before it’s law, but the moment it is suggested. Imagine all the legislation of Thomas together with all the power of a Wiki? What if we allowed the people direct participation in the legislation our elected Republicans submit? How could the Democrats refuse to hear bills if they carried the signature of tens or hundreds of thousands of co-sponsors?

These are just a couple of ways we can use tools to support our agenda. Unless we’re having that sort of discussion, all of the “we should use Twitter more” nonsense will do us no good at all.

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?

The Washington Times reports on the fuzzy numbers behind Obama’s tax “cut”. WashTimes looks at the rather questionable assertion that you can give a tax cut to people who already pay no taxes. To achieve their goal of “cutting” taxes for 95% of America, it seems Team Obama will simply take $500 or $1000 from some people, and give it to somebody else – no questions asked.

That idea caught the attention of AFP’s Phil Kerpen (a very bright guy):

It’s got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes.

Obama’s folks are justifying this wealth redistribution scheme by suggesting that Social Security taxes paid are now “refundable” through income tax rebates even if no income taxes were paid.

Unlike conservatives who have consistently pointed to the cumulative amount of taxes, the Democrats have suddenly discovered the “total tax burden”. They will use income taxes paid by some to rebate back Social Security taxes paid by others.

How exactly will that work, given that the Social Security trust is broke and about to start paying out far more that it takes in? Well, I suspect we’ll soon see another “soak the rich” campaign removing the social security cap so “the rich” will see dramatic increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the gap created by Obama’s rebates.

If you doubt that, you should read the quote from Obama’s campaign advisor. It may be the scariest thing you’ll ever see in print.

“Senator Obama believes that the tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of ‘welfare’ or ‘redistribution’ – they think it is only fair to reward work,” said Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s chief economic adviser.

You heard that right. Work that results in someone not getting ahead is to be rewarded with money taken from those whose work results in them actually making money (which is apparently work that needs to be punished).

An Obama administration will first absolve a huge segment of taxpayers from any tax responsibility at all, and then shift that obligation to those who create jobs and get ahead. The wealth redistribution schemes the Obama team wants to put in place should scare the bejeezus out of anybody with one ounce of grey matter in their brain case.

The Politico today covers the decision by the NRCC to pull funding from Congressional races for good, conservative challengers so they can prop up the campaigns of flailing Republicans.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect the NRCC to behave this way. They are, after all, a campaign organization run by friends and colleagues of those currently serving. They will protect their own first, and build our numbers second.

What makes me uneasy with that now, is the specific names the Politico mentions.

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Frankly, it hasn’t caught me by surprise. All of those listed voted for the $700 billion – or is it $850 billion or $1.5 trillion, I guess it depends on whose scoring it – boondoggle foisted upon the taxpayers. These guys are solidly Republican living in solidly Republican districts, and they’re suddenly at risk of losing their seats just two short weeks after pissing on the taxpayer? Hrrrrmmmm… I wonder why.

What should stand out in particular are the names Shadegg and Terry. They’re among the sellouts who switched from No votes to Yes votes. Apparently they guessed wrong. That vote for political expediency may cost real conservatives – like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, perhaps the best candidate we have running this cycle – a seat. It may guarantee that the one chance we have to hold a seat – any seat – in NM is lost.

It is unfortunate that the NRCC feels it’s better to protect weak Republicans than to elect strong ones.

Well I won’t be supporting the NRCC until we see a new Chairman – one who is willing to support good candidates, not just good friends.

Now, I’ll first repeat my firmly held position that John McCain is no great shakes, but come on. How do you, with a straight face, suggest that Obama, who even CNN admits largely owes his political career to someone who targeted his fellow Americans with explosives, should be held harmless for that association? How do you then, in the very next breath, suggest that McCain and Palin are somehow responsible for what one or two unhinged nutbags say or do while attending a rally?

Further, when most of the Democratic party online has spent the last five years calling Bush a war criminal, a traitor, or worse, how do you feign indignation when someone suggests that calling our military a bunch of baby killers is tantamount to treason? Here is Obama’s exact quote in context:

Now you have narco drug lords who are helping to finance the Taliban, so we’ve got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages, and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Compare that to John Kerry’s now infamous winter soldier testimony:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

This portrayal of our military as a bunch of mongols ravaging the countryside with little regard for “killing civilians” and “air raiding villages” is epidemic in the Democratic Party. It is part of the anti-military talking points. You can’t possibly act surprised that people take Obama’s remarks as an attack on our military.

Yet we’re supposed to look the other way when a man who wishes to be Commander in Chief denigrates our troops?

At the same time, we’re supposed to give a candidate a pass for associating with a man who apparently believed, and remains without remorse for the belief, that the only appropriate use of military power should be against civilians working in our own government? A man who, after bombing his countrymen, still says he wishes he could have done more for his cause.

Honestly? You will defend Barack Obama’s associations with that man, and his own disdain for our troops, yet you will try, with flimsy reasoning, to connect the GOP ticket with some random crowd members?

What if the roles were reversed. What if John McCain had spent 15 years cuddling up to Tim McVeigh? What if Terry Nichols had held a campaign kickoff event for J-Mac in his home? What if McVeigh had worked to secure tens of millions of dollars for an initiative that John McCain ran? Would you give him a pass? I doubt it.

While I am shocked by the Democrats’ indifference to Ayers, I also think the events of the Vietnam war were, as Obama says, 40 years ago. People have moved on.

However, I do not see how you can ignore that, also ignore your candidates defamation of our military’s service on behalf of our nation, and then try, laughably, to make McCain and Palin responsible for some random nutjob in a crowd of thousands.

It makes you look hypocritical and ridiculous.