&Follow SJoin OnSugar
Political BUT heads... "HEY! Stuff we probably should pay more attention to!" Opinions are encouraged. Sharing ideas is valued. There is no right/vs/wrong---just points of view.

Need an American Alarm Clock?

Posted By cheekyredhead on Jul 3, 2010 at 3:29PM

Snopes Link at the bottom of page)
This is very informative. You have to read the catalog of events, then, ask
yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring
our troops home, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no
one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began
in November 1979 . . .

US Navy Captain Dan Ouimette was the Executive Officer at
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave on 2/17/2003. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.


That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been 'Get Out of Bed!' In fact, the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran . This seizure was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency The attack on this sovereign U. S. Embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine
raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a
symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America 's military had been decimated and down sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East . America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait , and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhine-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City . Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they
see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since
1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to 'Get out of Bed' and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said '... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant.'

This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

Dan Ouimette

Here is a recap: Nov. 1979 U.S. Embassy in Tehran is attacked by Iranian Students

Oct. 1981 several Americans are kidnapped in Middle East

Apr. 1983 Beirut Embassy attacked by suicide bombers 63 KIA

Oct. 1983 U.S. Marines HQ in Beirut attacked by suicide bombers 241 KIA

Sept.1984 U.S. Embassy in Beirut bombed again

Apr. 1985 Restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers in Madrid bombed

August 1985 US Air Force Base main gate at Rhine-Main VW with HE blows up, 22 KIA

Oct.1985 Cruise ship, Achille Lauro hijacked an American in a wheelchair is executed

April 1986 TWA Flight 840 attacked 4 KIA
1988 Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, 259 KIA.

Jan. 1993, two CIA agents shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley

Feb. 1993, a rented van packed with explosives is detonated in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City . Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured was an outright attack on American soil

November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing . 7 KIA

June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound

in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, 500 injured, 19 KIA.

Two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . These attacks were planned with precision. 224 KIA.

Oct. 12, 2000; USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen refueling when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors

Sept. 11 2001, Twin Towers over 3000 KIA

If you don't believe we are at WAR then you don't understand the above facts. All of these incidents took place on American soil and against Americans. (except the incident in Madrid) What is the one thing all of these attackers have in common? Hmmmm.... ISLAM

If you believe in this should be a "Get out of Bed" alarm, forward it to as many people as you can, especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it, roll over and go back to sleep.


Obama's Empathy Card

Posted By cheekyredhead on Jun 22, 2010 at 11:37PM

June 23, 2010

Obama's Empathy Card
By Miguel A. Guanipa

Behold Barack H. Obama, the ambitious, "in your face" young man who shrewdly campaigned and cruised to victory on the auspiciously timed "change the old way of doing things" motif.

Far more competent predecessors have endured less hospitable tenures than what has been lavished upon this favored son by the disheartened masses, whose nearly unconditional approval he did garner with much greater ease than at present.

Indeed, from his meagerly documented Harvard Law School days to his remarkably (to say the least) brief senatorial debut and eventual presidential election, Obama seems to have providentially benefited, again and again, from his followers' peculiar dependence on fleeting emotional impulses -- in particular the mystifying, near-invincible pathos of empathy, which liberals rank as the most reliable gauge for making life-altering decisions.

Politics is, after all, a sport where competence does not always dictate who is chosen, where not everything is always what it seems, and where raw emotions play a very significant role in victory. Liberals usually excel in all three arenas, as they are often guided by image, rarely giving much weight to qualifications or substance. They routinely operate on a theoretical plateau rather than a practical one, and they are consistently governed by emotions.

But the peculiar brand of empathy which propelled Barack Obama to stardom was really more of a wager with a distinct patronizing flair from his liberal base, designed to empower the "oppressed" hordes by extrapolation -- the oppressed minorities who have, presumably since time immemorial, been engaged in a battle against the racially intolerant mentality of an elitist establishment, of which liberals are loath to count themselves the necessary, yet most reluctant of participants.

It is this empathy -- an emotion that is either sustained or depleted in proportion to the receiving party's investment in suggested corrective measures toward personal maturity -- that may also prove to be Obama's undoing. This is precisely because when the recipient of empathy is more focused on conjuring new scapegoats to bear the brunt of his foibles, and when he habitually responds to criticism with a casual contempt for the grace that has been extended in view of his inexperience and shortcomings, the well of empathy quickly dries up, leaving only the muddy trails of disillusionment and resentment of those whose trust has been betrayed.

And so reality has a funny way of unraveling, forcing the one who was furiously advertised as a world-changer to shed his bogus imperial robes, revealing that which many willingly ignored: an alarming lack of preparedness and -- to use a favorite word of Obama's -- an unprecedented level of incompetence, all adding up to a steady erosion of credibility, even down to his most faithful acolytes, who are already considering the arguable virtues of defection.

However, if there is one thing we have learned from this administration, it is that we can never underestimate its ability to find ways to capitalize from its ringleader's sinking approval ratings.

Indeed, Obama has already crossed the threshold beyond depreciation of his once-charismatic appeal. But this new station may be cleverly recast into the compelling narrative of a tenacious leader swimming against the cruel current of opposition. A well-orchestrated damage control maneuver has the potential to instantly transform a crisis -- which this administration never likes to waste -- into an opportunity, and to help assuage the public's growing frustration with Obama's chronic mishaps. This anger could then be laid at the doorstep of expediently created adversaries, who can be easily portrayed as consumed by an unfounded hatred for the president. Such a strategy might, once again, make him eminently worthy of the puerile empathy from his die-hard fans, who believe that ultimately, it is intentions -- rather than results -- that really count. This is a mainstay in the worldview of most liberals.

This approach also has the exciting potential to galvanize a vigorous alliance of fresh supporters under Obama's renewed status as underdog. And it presents a most provocative narrative, in which Obama -- with the willing arm of the long-suffering media -- would eagerly accept the role of main protagonist; not to mention one he has appealed to in the past, whenever there's the need to rouse his most gullible followers into action.

Yet this same Obama Cult of Personality who helped him get elected should bear most of the responsibility for his -- hence our -- current predicament. Their mistake was to forget that misguided empathy only further enables the arrogant soul to presume upon the kindness of others. And they are now learning that once forbearance reaches the stage where it will no longer underwrite ineptitude, a corrupt leadership is not ashamed to profit even from low expectations.


Tanning: The New Racial Slurr

Posted By cheekyredhead on Jun 13, 2010 at 11:33AM

OMG...it IS racial.

Okay for the record I must state I have never had a spray tan or even tried a tanning salon. I embrace my paleness so that I can worry less about melanoma. Having tried painfully to acquire a tan when I was younger it became clear that I was not ever going to be golden.

So...does anyone else think that taxing the fair-skinned Americans is a good thing tax? One must wonder if a tax
was levied on only minority establishments just how much outcry would occur...and I would say it would be deafening.

A tan.....seriously...if you aren't born with it then you shouldn't have it right? Gosh. Pale Americans all over our nation are annoyed. Who says we can't be more colorful? How dare you desire to be something as trivial as being golden?

That is exactly how I see this tax. It sends this message yet I do not hear the ACLU screaming "UNFAIR" do you? It just isn't in their best interest. This tax will affect only the pale....not who they defend typically...if ever.

When do we stand up and say enough? To be honest my disgust has nothing to do with this tax BUT the reason most of us sit quietly by and shrug. It would be politically incorrect to point out that taxing whites (or anyone who happens to be pale and would perhaps like some color) is inappropriate....but it is exactly what we should be doing.

Those who have spoken up have been shamed into silence by the accusing darker crowd as if racial bias is always on the paler side of anything. Anyone with a natural tan will be quick to object as if they are the only ones who can conveniently toss the term "racial bias" around. Oh crap...how much trouble am I going to get over that sentence? Is that sentence racial? Not if we truly have equality here in America.

A tax on those who happen to be born with a lacking skin pigmentation is profiling.

Is lack of skin pigmentation perhaps a disability? To allow something so vile to be shrugged at should be criminal. That is exactly what the ACLU would be saying if we were taxing something like...um...hair straightening. BUT a tax on that would be perceived as a racial profile issue even though clearly more than one race may straighten their hair. These pale people are disadvantaged but the ACLU could care less.

Why aren't more people angry? They are but they just aren't being listened to. They don't have the power that the ACLU or other special interest groups has to make noise. The paleness of our resolve is wearing thin.

The skinny on the skin tax is this....it IS racial. If you don't think it is then prove it. Yeah...let's go tax ONLY the pale small businesses and somehow say it is not racial.

See the meek pale business woman shrug as if she can do nothing about this this tax:


Have we all become so politically-correct and bashed into future aimless shrugs... as if it is okay to single out those who for years have been wearing the weight of a past we are not connected to...to pay for the wrong doing of over a century ago? Are we all doomed to be labeled racist merely because we were born pale?

Dare I say that Caucasians everywhere often bow out of a conversation where there could be any vague attack upon us based on only being born pale? Are we to remain speechless out of fear of that terrible possibility... that we would be accused of being racist merely by having a difference of opinion? It happens everyday.

So....if we quietly let this pass what will be next? Is a tan really that important? I say that the moral obligation to say "UNFAIR" should be there regardless. If it had been a tax on only hair straightening salons the objections would be astounding because it would be clearly seen as a racial profiling of minority small businesses.. .even if the spirit of that tax had nothing at all to do with race.

You see...Tanning is the new racial slurr. That is reality.

Repubicans On Rampage

Posted By cheekyredhead on Apr 8, 2010 at 11:52PM

Hey----According to the following message I got in a private email, apparently Republicans are still running amok and allowing truth about the healthcare reform to be blurted out for just about anyone to hear. I wonder about this because Democrats are quick to tell anyone that will listen that they have won a great battle....but then they turn around and beg for more money to quiet Repubicans. This email pleads for more money to fight for a cause that the Democracts will in the same breath say they have already won. How many morons send money to these people?

This is the email minus the links to go give your hard earned cash to:

Dear MoveOn member,

Republicans are on a rampage to repeal health care.

And with so much misinformation out there, we need to fight back with the truth.

So we've got an ambitious plan to go into Republican districts with ads that let voters know what the health care reform law means for their families and hit the Republicans for being against it. To make this work we're going to need to raise $200,000 this week— and that will take a few more donations from people in your town. Can you chip in $5?


Our new ad campaign is one of the strongest we have ever created.

It features real life stories from Americans who will be helped by reform—small business owners, parents of children with pre-existing conditions, families who struggle with concerns about job security and the economy—and shows how health care reform will make a real difference for people all over the country.

The personal appeals are powerful. And they lay the truth bare: When American families needed help and courage from Washington, the Republicans were united against them.

It's time to put the Republicans on the defensive and we need to get started right away. Every day that we're silent is another day that Republican fear mongering goes unchallenged.

Please chip in $5:


The next few weeks will determine how the story of health care reform will be told this year—it's up to us to make sure it's the right one.

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Laura, Peter, Ilyse and the rest of the team

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to............on April 8, 2010


Another Cheeky note: Who the hell are these people?

"Old" Votes Count...when is the next election?

Posted By cheekyredhead on Apr 3, 2010 at 7:55PM

Yep, the hell with the ultra-liberal old AARP (American Association for Retired People),

Join the new AARP...Armed And Really Pissed.

Let me get this straight. Obama's health care plan was written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it; passed by a Congress which hasn't read it; signed by a President who smokes; funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes; overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese; and financed by a country that is bankrupt.

Now............ what could possibly go wrong?

Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books, and there is some evidence that they can't read them either. - Gore Vidal

Political Correctness

Posted By cheekyredhead on Mar 16, 2010 at 10:14PM

Sometimes you are encouraged about our country's future when you see something like this:

Specifically, there is an annual contest at Texas A&M University calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.


This year's term was

 "Political Correctness."

The winner wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

................................Education IS the answer.

Obama Bow Ouch

Posted By cheekyredhead on Feb 9, 2010 at 9:44PM


U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.
The mayor is thinking...... (what the heck is this man doing?)

Seriously...this man is the leader of our nation.

Baptist Leader: Obama ‘Very Dangerous,’ Causing ‘Severe Damage’

Posted By cheekyredhead on Nov 22, 2009 at 11:44PM

Baptist Leader: Obama ‘Very Dangerous,’ Causing ‘Severe Damage’


One of the leaders of the nation’s influential Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) tells Newsmax that President Obama is “very dangerous” in his economic policies and his foreign policy is causing “severe damage” to U.S. standing in the world.


Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and author of the book “The Divided State of America: What Liberals and Conservatives Are Missing In The God And Country Shouting Match”, told Newsmax.TV that the cultural war is heating up. Christians must remember that God is not partisan.


“And on many of the most important issues we deal with as a society, God does have a side,” Land said. “God’s not a Democrat; God’s not a Republican, but God’s pro-life.”




“Religious groups need to maintain their integrity and the truth of their principles,” Land said.


He pointed out that Southern Baptist make up a “disproportionate” membership in the Armed Forces and that the SBC strongly opposes any changes to military policies relating to gays in the military. He suggested that changes Obama has stated he will make would undermine military readiness because it could cause many evangelicals serving in the military to leave.




Land said the SBC has been fighting liberal social policies, and had played a leading role in getting anti-abortion proposals passed in the House under the Pitts-Stupak Amendment that banned federal funding in the new health care bill.


Land noted the role Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., an evangelical who received the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s distinguished service award in the past year, played and important role in getting the amendment passed in conjunction with Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. Though the nation’s Catholic bishops had been credited with helping push the amendment through Congress, Land said several players made the funding cut-off possible,


“The Catholic bishops certainly played a major role, but so did the National Association of Evangelicals, so did Southern Baptists, so did the American Family Association run by Don Wildmon, and so did Focus on the Family,” Land said. “A lot of these organizations are basically Evangelical Protestant.


Land suggested that religious groups also need to look beyond social issues and unite on practical solutions to economic questions.


He gave President Obama a failing grade on his handling of the economy.


“High confiscatory taxation does not work; it does not bring about prosperity,” he said. “Let’s look at China and India. China was a communist country that became a capitalist country economically. It has addressed far more poverty as a capitalist country than it ever addressed as a communist country.”


The Obama administration’s rush to head in the opposite economic direction of where India and China have been heading particularly troubles Land.


“I think [Obama] can be particularly dangerous,” Land said. “I think he can do significant damage to our economy; I think he is doing significant damage to our economy …The stimulus package has clearly not worked.”


Land compares the Obama administration’s economic policies to those of Japan, which have kept Japan mired in a recession for more than a decade.


He said Obama would have found greater success had he emulated the policies Ronald Reagan followed in the early 1980s to stamp out similar high unemployment and other economic problems by cutting taxes and putting money in people’s pockets.


Turning to international matters, Land offered a similar pessimistic assessment of Obama’s handling of U.S. foreign policy.


“I also think he could do severe damage to peace in the world,” Land said. “Unfortunately, I think a lot of the really bad people in the world don’t believe that Barack Obama is a tough guy.


“They see him more as Hamlet: ‘To be or not to be.’”


Land says Obama should trust the advice Gen. Stanley McChrystal has given him with regard to the number of troops he has requested in Afghanistan to ensure he is successful.


“I believe he should either fulfill general’s request and give him the troops and the materials he needs to finish the job, or we ought to withdraw,” Land said. “The most immoral thing we could do is to leave just enough troops there to get killed, but not enough to do the job we have asked them to do.”


Obama, he said, should take a stronger line against the Iranian regime and its effort to pursue nuclear weapons by imposing a gasoline embargo against the nation and supporting the opposition.


“I think it has been disgraceful that Obama has not been more supportive in his statements about the Iranian dissidents that want to overthrow the rogue regime that runs Iran,” Land said.


Helping the opposition to overthrow the Islamic government, he said, is especially important to prevent the Israelis from attack Iran and thus trigger a wider conflict. He told Newsmax he has no regrets about having sent a letter to former President George W. Bush endorsing the war in Iraq as a just war because it has led to Iraq becoming the most democratic country in the Arab world.


Land expressed particular concern over the implications of the Fort Hood shooting and the military’s embrace of political correctness and its failure to follow up on the warning signs Maj. Nidal Hasan displayed prior to the massacre.


“This guy should have been kicked out of the Army a long time ago,” Land said. “If we sacrifice that kind of political correctness that refused to remove this guy then maybe we can have diversity and safety for our troops.”


Link back to original article and videos:


Explaining the African Vote: Your Stimulus $ at work

Posted By cheekyredhead on Nov 19, 2009 at 8:47PM

Your Stimulus Money at Work?




Grant: $233,825 - National Science Foundation - Jul. 19, 2009 -

Award Description:

Despite pouring millions of dollars into programs to further the democratization of Africa, donors remain uninformed about one of the most important facets of politics on the continent: Why do Africans vote they way they do? Most observers of African elections view the process as a mere ethnic headcount: all citizens vote for their own ethnic group regardless of the performance of the incumbent government and without reference to the issues of the day. Yet there is scant evidence to support this view. In the vast majority of African countries a single ethnic group cannot achieve a majority of the votes. Ethnic coalitions break down and shift frequently and politicians from the same ethnic group are members of different political parties.


The salience of ethnicity to politics in African countries varies widely and elections produce violence in some cases but not others. Moreover, our knowledge of the motivations of African voters remains murky, based primarily upon anecdotal reports, studies of a small number of (unscientifically selected) cases, or surveys that measure attitudes but not actual electoral behavior. Surprisingly, few scholars up to this point have employed the most powerful tool to measure vote choice: the exit poll.


The investigators plan to explore the determinants of voting in Namibia, a transitioning democracy that features a dominant ethnic group: the Ovambo in Namibia represent nearly half the population. Scholars and policymakers consider Namibia to be on its way to stable democracy. However, a single party (SWAPO) has dominated politics since independence.


To what extent is this dominance based on ethnic claims, and to what extent of performance or issue evaluations? Understanding the motivations of its voters opens the way to a deeper understanding of African politics, and help to inform scholarly opinion and the challenges (or not) that remain with respect to democracy promotion. This project will have broader impacts by placing four graduate students and one undergraduate student in the field.


The knowledge they will receive through helping to construct, manage, and analyze this exit poll is required to advance training beyond the classroom. For two of the students, it will be their first experience in Africa. For all, it will be the first time they are involved in generating quantitative scientifically produced primary data. This nation-wide exercise will also help in the participation and training of hundreds of enumerators in Namibia.


Finally, the poll can also provide another check on the official electoral results which may prove unreliable given the challenges faced by the Namibian electoral commission to conduct a free and fair election.

Project Description:

The primary objective of this project is, thus, to identify the micro-foundations of vote choice in sub-Saharan Africa through extensive analysis of individual-level exit poll data. Our project requires gathering sociodemographic, census, and political data to help us to design our poll well, writing and testing our exit poll in the field, training and supervising staff in the field, collecting and entering exit poll data into databases, analyzing and testing those data, and publishing the results of our analyses.


We will disseminate our research results widely to academic and policy audiences as well as develop a comprehensive dataset that will be accessible to the public. These efforts will result in a robust understanding of how Africans vote, which will in turn allow for a better targeting our external aid funds aimed at promoting democracy on the continent.

Jobs Summary:

Nothing to report, however future 7.98 FTE will include .17 FTE for both Principal Investigator's effort over the course of the project, .19 FTE for Graduate Student Researchers at UCSD, .44 FTE for Graduate Student Researchers at Georgetown, and 7.29 FTE for polling workers at Steadman (subaward) in Africa. (Total jobs reported: 0)

Project Status: Less Than 50% Completed

This award's data was last updated on Jul. 19, 2009. 

Funds Recipient

LA JOLLA, CA 92093
See more awards to this recipient

Place of Performance

9500 GILMAN DR, DEPT 0934
La Jolla, CA 92093
See more awards in this zip code

Cheeky interpretation.....................................................

Is this what our stimulus package was supposed to do?

I don't think so!

Filed in: News & Politics | Tagged with: Stimulus Stupidity

The Dunn Debacle:Is Anita Done?

Posted By cheekyredhead on Nov 12, 2009 at 3:22PM

Anita Dunn has proven to be one of Obama’s greatest assets and now perhaps one of his greatest mishaps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today….well perhaps aside from FOX News.


As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and is a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has been most recently Obama’s /the White House’s communications chief. Recently she quietly stepped down from her post, resigning and is attempting to tip-toe out of the building and her past revelations which I assert will haunt her and her career in the future.


What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Administrator; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her. In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns.

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”


So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you: “A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people — calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money — skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”


Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself: “In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”


Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.


Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders. Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant” now. She still has the ear of our president and leaders but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity.


During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting the excess out of the payroll instead of just changing the official title of someone. As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas” but that is simply a mirage.


She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much needed guidance. Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation: “I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”


Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid.


She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters seem to think they had voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on. Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents.


Suddenly we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it—based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle. While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.


Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda.


How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate?

Let’s ask Anita: “There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?...

 “What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”


So you are asking yourself “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.


Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans?


Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email. I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”



http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/anita_dunn/ http://www.mahalo.com/anita-dunn http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567701,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568706,00.html