The Key to the 2008 Presidential Election

The key to the 2008 Presidential Election...

Is the reference group mindset of the voters.

A reference group is a set of individuals that a person identifies with or aspires to.

To whom the voters mentally refer to - is influenced by the imagery, metaphors and languages used by the political campaigns.

For example, in the Joe the Plumber analogy, who do voters picture themselves as? Who do voters identify with?

Do voters see themselves as Joe the Plumber working hard every day to hopefully earn enough some day to take over the business?

Or do voters picture themselves on the other end spectrum, as those needing government handouts (redistribution of your wealth) to survive.

President Bush's "Ownership Society" was a hallmark of his 2004 re-election campaign, and was wisely configured to take advantage of voters' reference group mindset.

In an Ownership Society, voters were encouraged to think "If my neighbor owned a house, I too wanted to own my own house." Voters were encourage to think of "the Joneses" down the street, at work or in their social circle - and how the re-election of President Bush would increase their chance at keeping up with the standard of living they aspired to.

But voter reference groups can also backfire, as President Bush learned when it came to Social Security reform.

The reference group of voters wasn't a large portable retirement fund that could be left to heirs, but rather voters pictured themselves in the mental position of losing all their retirement money in the stock market.

Therefore, the key to winning the 2008 Presidential election - is the campaign that can best utilize the imagery, metaphors and language of voters' reference group to attract their vote (and their support for key platform issues).

The Right Metaphor

Ever since Obama made his "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plumber, many emails have been circulating around the internet - all attempting to find the right metaphor for describing Obama's plan to redistribute your wealth.

Most email attempts at finding the right metaphor use children to symbolize taxpaying citizens, and parents to symbolize the Obama government-mandated redistribution of your wealth.

One example has a child collect Halloween candy - and then at the end of the night, the parent takes away half and gives it to neighbor kid that didn't go trick-or-treating. But this metaphor doesn't cut it in my book - for the parents are merely redistributing the charity that the child received - the child didn't earn the candy.

A real metaphor would be - the child:
* Gets up early each day for a week
* Works with Dad to construct out of wood and paint a lemonade stand
* Works errands around the house to earn enough allowance to be able to buy a couple canisters of lemonade
* Runs to the store with the allowance to purchase the lemonade canisters
* Brings home the lemonade, mixes it up, and adds ice cubes
* Brings the lemonade along with a set of drinking glasses outside
* Sets up the lemonade stand for business
* After looking at the competition, decides on a profitable price point
* Sits outside all day long a hot summer day
* Makes lemonade sales pitches to passing pedestrians and cars

Now under the Obama plan to "spread your wealth around:"
* The profit from the kids' lemonade stand endeavor
* Would be taken by Obama and ("spread") given to the lazy kid next door who slept in and played video games all week.

Yet with a straight face, Obama will tell the enterprising kid that "he isn't punishing his success" and that "spreading the wealth around is good for everybody."

And with that, the entrepreneurial child has learned a valuable lesson about how the Democrats and government politicians feel entitled to steal his/her business profits.

How's that for the right metaphor?

Analyzing "Spread the Wealth Around"

At an Ohio campaign stop, Joe the Plumber asked Obama why he is raising taxes on hard-working Americans like himself.

Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wants to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's use of the phrase "spread the wealth around" is enlightening when analyzed.

Obviously, the phrase is socialist in nature, and offensive to all liberty-minded individuals such as conservatives and libertarians.

But let's look at the phrase at an even deeper level.

"The Wealth" - There is no "the wealth."

All wealth is earned by someone.

There is only my wealth, or your wealth, or someone else's wealth.

So by using the term "the wealth" obfuscates who rightfully earned and deserves the wealth in the first place.

Therefore, Obama is saying "Spread your wealth around."

"Spread" - "To spread" is a verb. A verb expresses action.

To whom is "the subject" that the verb asserts the action of?

In this case "the subject" is Obama.

Therefore, he is saying "Obama will spread your wealth around."

"Around" - Who decides who receives your wealth?

Answer - Obama will decide who receives your wealth.

So your hard-earned wealth will be taken from you - and Obama will decide who will receive your wealth.

You have no control over who Obama decides to give your wealth to, nor will the recipients know that it came from you.

Funny how Obama and the Democrats can't understand how offensive and repulsive the concept of "them deciding how to spread your wealth" is to liberty-minded people.

How many people have to die?

A Fitchburg man was arrested Waukesha County for his 11th drunk driving charge.

He was convicted of drunk driving: once in 1987, twice in 1991, four times in 1992, once in 1995, once in 1997 and once in 2000.

After his 10th drunk driving conviction in 2000 - he was sent to prison for 3 years and a year of probation.

How many people have to die before he is taken off the road for good?

The justice system needs to get serious about the threat this man poses to society!

He could face over 12 years in prison if convicted of his 11th drunk driving charge.

Why not protect the good, law-abiding taxpayers and put this guy away for the max - and get him off the road for good?

He's had a 2nd chance, a 3rd chance, a 4th chance, a 5th chance...and even an 11th chance.

It's time to protect society from this dangerous menace.

The Question That No One Can Answer

If a state can't afford to provide government-funded health care for just its' children...

What makes Obama and the Democrats think that a federal version of government-funded health care for all citizens will be affordable?

The answer is - government-funded health care isn't affordable.

If a state can't afford it - surely the feds can't afford it.

Every state that has enacted state-funded health care for children, seniors or the poor are facing huge shortfalls, sometimes numbering in the tens of millions of dollars.

These underfunded state health care plans are looking to the federal government to bail them out.

The question becomes when Obama and the Democrats attempt a federal version of these state government-funded health care - who will bail them out?

The answer - unfortunately, you and I, Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer.

Stand up and say "NO!" to government-funded health care!

The Value of a Life

Unbelievable!

A 45-year-old woman, who drove while high on marijuana - hit and killed a bicyclist.

* The bicyclist smashed into her windshield and bumper.
* She failed to stop and deliver aid to the person she ran over.
* She left the scene of the crime.
* She failed to contact police or emergency officials.
* Her husband waited two hours before contacting police to tell them "she may have run over something."

Her punishment - several years in prison? Nope.

Four years probation. No time in prison. Absolutely ridiculous!

The lame excuse provided by negligent Assistant District Attorney Karie Cattanach was that "to be able to prosecute that beyond a reasonable doubt would have been difficult."

I guess the Assistant DA didn't possess the legal skills to prove that: the bicyclist was killed by the driver, the bicyclist smashed into the windshield, the driver's positive drug test, the perpetrator leaving the scene, failure to render aid or call police.

So feel free to drive around impaired killing people and leaving them to die - the worst you'll receive is probation - because apparently our DAs are so inept they can't prove a simple case of impaired hit, kill and run.

Spare Not The Rod

Let me get this straight...

Facts of the Case:
* A respected Poynette pastor gave his 12-year-old son two swats on the butt with a paddle as a punishment for lying.
* The father cried during the paddling.
* The 12-year-old was warned that he could be paddled for bad behavior.
* The father gave the son a chance to tell the truth, but he admits to continuing to lie.
* The son understands why he was disciplined.
* The son has learned a lesson from the experience.
* The hospital doctor did not think the son was abused.
* The boy did not think he was abused.
* The boy says he loves his father.
* The boy feels safe at home.
* When taken to the hospital by social services, the boy was in no pain, had no swelling, and only faint bruises on his butt.
* Yet the father has been brought up on felony child abuse charges and is facing up to 3 years in prison and $10,000 in fines being ...how absolutely ridiculous!

Why haven't the religious right, social conservatives and libertarians in WI come to this fathers defense? Where is the public outcry and media attention?

And people wonder we have of generation of narcissistic & ego-centric kids and teenagers that are undisciplined, disrespectful of authority, and all too often engaging in dangerous and illegal behavior.

It is my view that the only charges that should be brought in this case is for an out-of-control District Attorney Jane Kohlwey who should be brought up on "abuse of power" and "frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits" charges.

A History Lesson Is In Order

When Barack Obama says that his tax plan doesn't raise taxes for families making $250,000 or less a year (Obama wants to repeal Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year)...

Conservatives and libertarians need to cite history as an example to refute this erroneous claim.

As George Santayana once remarked, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."

Many taxes in the U.S. - initially started out only applying to the wealthy. This allows greedy politicians to get their grubby feet in the door.

But once inside, the unquenchable thirst that politicians have for more and more of your money - leads to a slippery slope where soon the bar gets lower and lower (and applies to more and more taxpayers).

History is repeating itself yet again:

1. Income Tax - Re-proposed in 1894, Sixteenth Amendment ratified on February 12, 1913. Initially, only one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers paid any income taxes (ironically applied only to those making about $250,000 in today's dollars). To ensure passage of the constitutional amendment, Democrats waged an extensive public relations campaign contending that it would only apply to the rich.
2. Alternative Minimum Tax - Proposed in 1969, implemented in 1970. Was intended to ensure that highest of high-income families paid taxes (and did not avoid paying taxes).
   
3. Death Tax -Implemented in 1916. Was implemented to make sure the wealthy were paying for the cost of military protection and because of concerns about "concentrations of wealth."
   

As Joe the Plumber adeptly noted, there's nothing stopping an Obama administration from deciding that $150,000 is "pretty rich too" and lowering the bar to raise the taxes on yet more hard-working Americans.

Every time Obama & Biden claim that most American families won't see their taxes raised - conservatives and libertarians need to cite the history of taxes in the U.S. - for it is only a matter of time before the tax applies to you too.

As the Pastor Martin Niemoller "First they came..." poem demonstrates (with a simple search and replace)...

First they came for (those making $250,000),
- but I was not (making $250,000) so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the (those making $200,000 & $150,000),
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for (those making $100,000),
- but I was not (making $100,000) so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

As an immensely respected and extremely wise man once remarked, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."