All of those questions are analogous to asking a heroin addict if they'd like to quit. They will certainly say no, but a desire to keep the behavior going says nothing about the sustainability of that behavior. That's the problem with creating dependency.

My assertion is that more and more people are sitting down, looking at the numbers with a realistic mindset, and recognizing that there's no way we can continue to pay for these programs without borrowing money at an increasing rate. At some point, we will no longer be able to service that debt, nor will or creditors be convinced that we have intentions to pay it back legitimately. We're running bigger deficits than ever before, and there's been no real attempt by either party to address that. This, essentially, has been the core of the tea party movement.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 4:41:46 PM

Hahaha....this shit is gold.

Quote :

"Email dated 10/12/10 from mathisentinc@aol.com to lawson.bj@gmail.com: B.J.- I hope the campaign is going well. We talked a while back. I just wanted to let you know that if you're interested, I am going to have the several celebrities in studio this week to record some campaign ads for radio and TV...Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, John Ratzenberger, Powers Booth, John O'Hurley, Pat Boone, astronaut Buzz Aldrin, Craig T. Nelson, Rabert Davi, Morgan Brittany and probably Ben Stein and Robert Duvall. I could have them cut an ad for you if you're interested. Some are particularly good for targeting specific voter demographics or issues, and I could have an ad scripted, shot and ready to air within a couple days. I'll also have the personal voice doubles for Morgan Freeman, William Shatner, Donald Sutherland, Sam Elliott, Queen Latifah, John Goodman, and Ray Romano in studio cutting ads for us. A voice double is the person hired by a celebrity to do "voice matching" for the celeb when they are unavailable to re-record audio in post on a project. The audience never notices the difference. It's one of those little secrets of Hollywood. We've used them with great success in political ads. We of course never say that they are the actual celebrity, but voters recogniza their voice and trust it. Would you like for me to have any of those record a radio or tv spot for you? I think you'll find that these celebrity endorsement ads have proven to be big game changers in past races especially when released in the final weeks of the race. They ad a lot of class to a campaign and people trust a voice or face they know. It also generates a lot of earned media. You can go to our website at http://www.meipolitical.com to check out some of our celebrity radio and tv ads from past campaigns. Just let me know if you would be interested. I'll have them in studio this week, so you'd need to let me know today or tomorrow. Thanks. Best, Benjamin Mathis MEI Political Universal Studios Hollywood 10 Universal Plaza, Ste. 2000 Universal City, CA 91608 http://www.meipolitical.com Email dated 11/1/10 from mathisentinc@aol.com to lawson.bj@gmail.com: B.J.- I specifically told you that you couldn't go promoting Morgan Freeman's name in association with the campaign. Now I see press releases all over the internet, and I'm getting calls from the press. This is not ok. If the press start asking his reps for comment, I imagine he's going to deny any affiliation with the campaign. I told you that you couldn't go around using Morgan Freeman's name without permission. Please do not refer the press to me again and leave my name out of this. Furthermore, I recorded a radio ad for you, but I now see that it's being used as the narration for a television spot which is not what we agreed to. I am extremely disturbed by this latest turn of events. Best, Benjamin Mathis Email dated 11/1/10 from mathisentinc@aol.com to lawson.bj@gmail.com: B.J.- It's the day before the election and I don't have time to deal with this controversy which you guys have opened up now. I thought I made it clear when we spoke on the phone that this was Morgan's voice double, not Morgan himself doing the ad. When I initially emailed you on October 4, offering to cut an ad for you, I specified "celebrities and/or celebrity voice doubles" and in my email dated October 12, I specifically stated that I could offer a Morgan Freeman voice double, not Morgan Freeman. Furthermore, when we spoke on the phone I told you that you could not go around promoting this as an endorsement from Morgan Freeman. I also said if you wanted an actual celebrity to give you an endorsement in an ad, I had a number of other options for celebrities (not voice doubles) who would be willing to do that. I told you that I could give you that Morgan Freeman-like voice for an ad, but you couldn't go around telling people it was Morgan Freeman, but you did so anyway. I'm sure you don't need this kind of controversy on the day before the election so I would suggest that you make it clear to the press and all parties concerned that this was a miscommunication and that it is someone who sounds "similar" to Morgan Freeman, but not actually Morgan Freeman. And please leave my company and my name out of it. The last thing I need is for a campaign to misrepresent my work as Morgan Freeman and get me sued by Morgan Freeman. I've never had a campaign do anything like this in my life. And I also never gave you permission to use that narration on a television commercial. Kindly set the record straight for the press and leave me out of it. Best, Benjamin Mathis"

DURRRRRR

11/2/2010 4:43:36 PM

Quote :

"The bigger issue, just like in 2008, is whose base is more riled up."

Since the electorate is, by definition, who shows up to vote . . . yes there has been a significant shift in the electorate this year. I have, however, never argued that there has been a sudden lurch in the US population as a whole.

Quote :

"don't kid yourself. The new money rules have allowed the messages to get out there earlier and earlier."

What? So only certain groups get out earlier and others don't? No, wait, specifically targeted campaign restrictions were the purview of the DISCLOSE act which was, mercifully, defeated multiple times. Again, big money resides in the groups I mentioned above, nothing legislatively has changed that. Example . . .

Quote :

"ON FRIDAY the Wall Street Journal provided a wonderful bit of irony: despite the howls of indignation from the Democrats over private campaign spending, it turns out that the biggest sugar daddy is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a public-sector labour union that spends almost all of its cash for the Democrats. AFSCME accounts for roughly 30% of spending from pro-Democratic groups. A piece from US News and World Report points out that, in total, "Big Labour" is spending more private cash than the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads (Karl Rove's outfit) combined. Since the WSJ article most of the commentary has involved arguments over possible Democratic hypocrisy (pro, con), but that debate misses the point. The Democrats are electorally beholden to union support, and this often leads to bad policy."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/unions_america?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/labourleft

Quote :

"they've been too busy playing defense for the past decade to actually get out there and articulate a message to the voters. "

If you're playing defense in politics it is because you don't have anything compelling to sell the voters . . . the fact of the matter is, the left has become the establishment in government and academia and is having trouble (as all establishments do) in dealing with an insurgency (which the Tea Party is in a political sense) that doesn't view the world in the same framework that it does. Now, there are shittons of demographic reasons why the Democratic Party will only have to weather this for a decade or so before the Tea Party peters out, but in the mean time it isn't going to be fun for Liberal Democrats.

11/2/2010 5:01:41 PM

Quote :

"What? So only certain groups get out earlier and others don't? No, wait, specifically targeted campaign restrictions were the purview of the DISCLOSE act which was, mercifully, defeated multiple times. Again, big money resides in the groups I mentioned above, nothing legislatively has changed that. Example . . ."

Yes, the newer groups got out earlier, since they tended to break the traditional rules. The old money forces came out with their cash at the end, but too late for the money bombs to work like they used to. We saw this in the primaries and now in the generals.

Quote :

"If you're playing defense in politics it is because you don't have anything compelling to sell the voters . . . the fact of the matter is, the left has become the establishment in government and academia and is having trouble (as all establishments do) in dealing with an insurgency (which the Tea Party is in a political sense) that doesn't view the world in the same framework that it does. Now, there are shittons of demographic reasons why the Democratic Party will only have to weather this for a decade or so before the Tea Party peters out, but in the mean time it isn't going to be fun for Liberal Democrats."

The 2000s were marked by Democrats having to run away from the "weak on terror" label and never gained their voice in order to articulate their message. The 2000s proved that the Democrats are a weak party leadership wise. It doesn't mean they don't have a message, just the leaders are weak.

And the Democrats won't have to wait for long. Only about 2 years. The tea party won't be here for long as it has already been taken over by the Republican establishment.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 5:09:49 PM

All the lib fairies can suck a big fat sac, Lawson is going to win. FACE

11/2/2010 8:11:38 PM

tied right now.

11/2/2010 8:30:21 PM

wonder if anyone who early voted for Lawson regrets voting for him because of the morgan freeman deal? probably not, but i've wondered if something more serious happens before the election can people who early voted retract their vote?

11/2/2010 8:55:13 PM

i don't know why anyone would care about something like that, as long as their ends were met

11/2/2010 9:01:17 PM

Quote :

"All the lib fairies can suck a big fat sac, Lawson is going to win. FACE"

11/2/2010 9:26:07 PM

What an embarrassing district, they'd vote for a watermelon if it was on the ballot with a D next to its name. Just no capability to reason.

11/2/2010 10:02:56 PM

Game, fairies.

11/2/2010 10:17:53 PM

The anti-american sentiment runs so deep in c-h and durham that its not even worthwhile to run on a pro-american platform. Know your audience.

11/2/2010 10:59:38 PM

Quote :

"The anti-american sentiment runs so deep in c-h and durham that its not even worthwhile to run on a pro-american platform. Know your audience."

Why do you hate America?

11/2/2010 11:00:52 PM

I think BJ Lawson has made more headline news running for congress than Price has in his entire career

Jimmy Kimmel did a thing on BJ last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCI5HMJYZsU

11/4/2010 3:43:22 PM

This election shows turnout is everything.

Lawson got 115k votes this year.
He got 153K votes in '08.

Price got 152K this year.

If you are one of those 38K voters, I hate you.

This district is only winnable if you show up.

11/4/2010 4:07:46 PM

That's discouraging.

11/4/2010 4:19:34 PM

if you are one of those 38K voters, you obviously thought Lawson's desire to reinstate Glass-Steagel was a matter of "too much government"

wait, what you mean that didn't even cross all 38K your minds?

11/4/2010 4:20:18 PM

If there were no Fed or FDIC, Glass-Steagle wouldn't be necessary.

11/4/2010 4:23:25 PM

tell that to the 38K people!

11/4/2010 4:28:23 PM