October 9, 1998

Political media points:

 -- Did anyone else notice the skimpy coverage since January of the
    campaign finance story?  Everytime one or another congressman
    or committee announced the death and burial of the issue, the
    nearest reporter quickly repeated it, tsk-tsk'ing the apathy of it all.
    Then the bill would resurface unannounced and slog back forward
    for another vote, fairly unremarked.  Until it was "dead" again.
    Right now it is hanging by an opposing filibuster in the Senate
    from being law.
    If "soft money" or publicly-financed broadcast time or other parts
    of campaigning are reformed, broadcasters stand to lose millions of
    dollars in ad revenues.
    You wouldn't expect broadcasters to contribute to understanding
    and momentum of legislation which reduces their revenues and
    gatekeeper influence at election time, would you?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -

>I heard today that Ralph Nader is calling for a referrendum on the
>Clinton/Starr matter.  Personally, I think this would be a good idea,
>and if you think the same contact your representatives.  One easy way to
>do this is by calling the congress switchboard at 202-224-3121 and
>asking for your representative.  Of course you have to know your
>representative first,

 --  There already is a referendum scheduled in all 50 states.  It is called
      electing the House of Representatives.
      As that realization spreads, and Democrats smell blood in being able
      upend Newt and his Newtzies by defeating only 11 Republican seats,
      voters can stop impeachment, Starr's malice, and the Christian Demolition
      Nov. 3 at the ballot box.  As Nader suggests.
      He's sound-baiting everyone; and I'm contradicting the media echo that
      seems to be trying to tiptoe past the volatile anger seething under
this election.
      During my personal days many people say they are going to make it
      a point to vote this time, where they sometimes might not.
      Poll numbers show a rising -- not flat or falling -- "likely voter"
percentage
      among registered Democrats.
      The largest partisan bloc right now is the anti-Republicans.

      The Democrat strategy to hammer their issues on local, case-by-case bases
      hasn't drawn traction for their candidates as much as backlash
      against Republicans has.  There could be a late-race strategy change
      that nationalizes the congressional elections as anti-impeachment/
      vengence/destructiveness votes, particularly if it's the only strategy
      that focusgroups as energizing middle mutterers.
      Points regarding an anti-Republican strategy shift are:  1) It's an
easy idea
      to bumpersnicker -- [ Stop the Impornment ],  [ Vote anti-Newtzi ];
      2) It can be distributed quickly -- it is easier to pull all campaigns
to a
      national theme than it is to pull away from a national theme and
"localize"
      each campaign -- so anti-GOP could tack faster than GOP could react;
      3) Groups are already planning nationwide protests on Halloween, touted
      as "You don't scare us" demonstrations, only 3 days before election day;
      4) Republican embarrassment and (possibly) the passing of Ronald
      Reagan on Oct. 14 could depress Republican voter turnout.

      Most of my stuff is unorthodox by media punditocracy considerations,
      (but keeping in mind that Rupert Murdoch laid off $4 million on Newtie
      upon his reaching Speakership, it is both fair and wise to be skeptical
      and look for the money trail in the media's mouthings), and I even have
      a personal opinion helping select the points I keep.  So?
      Compare your own reactions to what media say with your reactions
      to what I say:  Which slant sounds fresher and gives the tinglier
sensation?
      It's valid to extrapolate your own reaction to (some) others.

      Framing votes for Democrats as "defending Clinton's behavior" does not
play
      as well as does framing anti-Republican votes as ballots fired at
injustice and
      loss of freedoms.
      Electing Republicans still lets Clinton darken our days, but
      unelecting Republicans brightens the country's prospects,
      and hence everyone's, noticeably.

      Although the Chomsky list, of all groups, should certainly understand
      that most choices of candidates offer no difference -- both oppressors.

      But voting, even just to stay in practice and have the machinery oiled,
      is better than withdrawing and disengaging.  Please go vote.
      Vote like it was the last vote you get.  In case it may be.

      Vote on this:  What should we call our passage?  Impeachment?  Or
      impornment?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------