Wolf PAC

[aaron]

Re: Wolf PAC

I signed it. I am already on the government shit list, I am sure.

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

I think it makes people more responsive. When you represent 30,000 people, 6,000 votes is more than enough to win. You eat in the down, you drink in the town, the 6,000 people meet and see you. You can't be quite as shady. And you can't hurt the neighborhood so bad. How corrupt is Vermont? Maine? New Hampshire?

I think your examples are less to do with lack of resource extraction/size than it has to do with ethic. The 3 states you name also happen to be Progressive/liberal (small l) states - and are all in New England.

Yet in New England, we also have Rhode Island.

Thus I express grave doubts as to size being the issue; after all, if those 3000 voters all want pork barrel - is that corruption?

If 500,000 California voters want their own equivalent of pork barrel, is that corruption?

I personally think the real problem isn't the operational aspects of politics - it is that those who aspire and/or are elected to leadership these days seem to exhibit little or none of it. Not that this has ever consistently been true, but I do strongly believe that the leadership we see today is as dismal as it has ever been - even compared to the notable eras like Coolidge, Harding, and Grant.

Thus in my view the real problem isn't that people aren't getting what they want.

I actually think people are - it is just that what they want isn't what is going to work. The whole point of leadership is to steer people towards what is going to benefit them - even if they don't like it.

In contrast, leadership today seems characterized primarily by publicly acceding to what distractions various political interest groups push, but privately accomplishing whatever business interest groups want. Actual leadership? None.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

If the Constitutional Convention doesn't succeed because people are afraid of it getting out of control, here's an alternative idea: a billionaire patriot is found who will finance a two year television and print campaign to convince people that the two main parties will only give them choices of candidates who will protect and preserve the interests of those who finance their campaigns.

About a year ago I suggested to a community with some longstanding ties to Ross Perot that wouldn't it be cool if he tried to mess with the entrenched system one more time.

But rather than trying to fight the two entrenched parties in an arena they dominate, burn the arena to the ground.

Spend a billion on the way to the grave with the likes of Saatchi & Saatchi to brand politicians that accept campaign contributions to be perceived along the lines of child molesters and spies.

A well funded and professionally run(well vetted) effort mostly living on the internet and social media that would have no political agenda(truly non partisan) or purpose beyond severing the influence/control of special interests(no more money) and lobbyists(require all lobbyist/politician meetings to be public and recorded).

Appeal to everyone from the center left to center right(where most people live) to solve the problem together, before they start battling again on a more fair and level playing field once anti-corruption efforts are achieved.

You could even push a branded Red, White, and Blue White Ribbon campaign where elected politicians can visually display their support for the effort.

A bit like the militant/fervent anti-communist 1950's, changed to anti-corruption.

[shiny!]

Re: Wolf PAC

About a year ago I suggested to a community with some longstanding ties to Ross Perot that wouldn't it be cool if he tried to mess with the entrenched system one more time.

But rather than trying to fight the two entrenched parties in an arena they dominate, burn the arena to the ground.

Spend a billion on the way to the grave with the likes of Saatchi & Saatchi to brand politicians that accept campaign contributions to be perceived along the lines of child molesters and spies.

A well funded and professionally run(well vetted) effort mostly living on the internet and social media that would have no political agenda(truly non partisan) or purpose beyond severing the influence/control of special interests(no more money) and lobbyists(require all lobbyist/politician meetings to be public and recorded).

Appeal to everyone from the center left to center right(where most people live) to solve the problem together, before they start battling again on a more fair and level playing field once anti-corruption efforts are achieved.

You could even push a branded Red, White, and Blue White Ribbon campaign where elected politicians can visually display their support for the effort.

A bit like the militant/fervent anti-communist 1950's, changed to anti-corruption.

Interesting idea. Have you tried writing to Perot?

Another person who might be able to pull this off is Steve Forbes. He has both money and a publication bullhorn. He was a proponent of the flat tax and understood the connection between fiat money, inflation and the breakdown of the family, but might now be too entrenched with the Republicans to want to do this.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

Interesting idea. Have you tried writing to Perot?

Another person who might be able to pull this off is Steve Forbes. He has both money and a publication bullhorn. He was a proponent of the flat tax and understood the connection between fiat money, inflation and the breakdown of the family, but might now be too entrenched with the Republicans to want to do this.

There are some acquaintances I know in a community(of which I'm not a part) who have a long standing relationship with Perot(Perot supports their community).

My flippant, half joking idea wasn't exactly received with a standing ovation, so i think it unlikely that it germinated enough to be pushed uphill.

I was actually a pretty big supporter of what Perot was trying to do, even though the consequences of his efforts could be viewed as negative(vote splitting...true or not) by a decent chunk of the US.

In his own way he tried to warn the US about some of the things we are going through now.

It's a shame he didn't defer/deflect more of his obvious strong right leaning social issues simply as State issues and focus on the core. The majority of his support came from the middle class.

About the worst character assassination I've ever witnessed was of his running mate James Stockdale during the 1992 debates. Destroyed in a comedic videobyte. A man of great character, integrity, intelligence, and honest candor.

Superficially, I think Ross Perot would be exceptionally well placed to lead/fund such an effort.

I'm not a psychologist, but one thing I do is help to assess people.

The way I would assess Ross Perot(again superifically) is:

He has the independent financial resources.

He is, and would likely be perceived as, independant(albeit on the right side of the spectrum).

He was right.

He can't have many years left in him, which when combined with his long track record of success and what I perceive of his personality type, Ross Perot may view 92 & 96 as unfinished business which I do not think would sit well with him.

He's already been through the mass media ringer so I doubt he could be "Elliot Spitzer'd".

Ross Perot purchased and sold an early copy of the Magna Carta, donating the funds to some great causes.

Finally, Ross Perot has a history of considerable persistance and resilience in not just business activity but also in support of those he feels ultimately responsible for.

In 1979 two of his employees were incarcerated in Iran. He didn't accept it and financed a successful outside the box effort to bust them out of jail and exfil them out of the country.

I think that loyalty to his people also extends to his sense of loyalty the US and it's people.

I think if you ad up the pieces I think Ross Perot would be exceptionally well placed to finance and lead(or maybe chair) an outside the box(he's already tried inside the box) technology driven(he IS old school early generation tech leader) "insurgency" effort to bust the US out of it's special interest financed funk.

I think(or would LIKE to think), the unfinished business of successfully reprogramming the two party, no choice system is exactly the legacy Ross Perot would want to leave behind.

I don't think he would ever want the spotlight or accolades for it, just the quiet satisfaction of knowing he gave entrenched interests the middle finger.

If only.......

Just my 0.02c

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

I think Ross Perot of the '90s might have, but I really question just how interested as well as capable Ross Perot of 2013 is. Reagan was considered old to run for President - and he was 10 years younger when he first ran as compared to Mr. Perot now.

The above scenario also makes the very questionable assumption that the MSM would be willing to cut its nose off to spite its face. There are a number of well documented instances where even brandishing money isn't enough to get certain types of view aired - why would the MSM be willing to cooperate with a program which directly threatens their political campaign spending golden goose?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

I think Ross Perot of the '90s might have, but I really question just how interested as well as capable Ross Perot of 2013 is. Reagan was considered old to run for President - and he was 10 years younger when he first ran as compared to Mr. Perot now.

The above scenario also makes the very questionable assumption that the MSM would be willing to cut its nose off to spite its face. There are a number of well documented instances where even brandishing money isn't enough to get certain types of view aired - why would the MSM be willing to cooperate with a program which directly threatens their political campaign spending golden goose?

I don't disagree with Perot and his advancing age....hence my mention of chair, rather than day to day operational lead.

A figurehead with the money, celebrity, network, and personality to attempt it as well as have a higher likelihood of success(which doesn't equate to high likelihood of success) than most any other person with heaps of money and a desire to effect change.

But I don't think Perot would be all that keen on leveraging MSM......based on two things:

1)His prior experience with, and likely perceptions of, it

2)Perot's history of examples where he has gone unconventional/asymmetric(in an agressive but calculated/conservative way)

The internet is mainstream. Back in 92 the internet was academic, in 96 it was a cute new accessory known to early adopters.

What would Ross Perot have done if the ubiquity of the internet today, was available in 92 or 96?

The internet is now mainstream.

And while it has been leveraged with varying degrees of success in political campaigns, it's STILL largely been a growing supporting role.

What if instead of a 3rd political party it was simply a single issue, single purpose temporary digital movement with virtually unlimited funding?

I don't think Ross Perot(or anyone) would be keen on taking on NATO(GOP) AND the Warsaw Pact(Democrats) concurrently on THEIR conventional battlefield time and space(MSM) circa 1985.

I see an opportunity for a digital(and proverbial...NOT literal) political insurgency....or disruptor.

How can you attack an idea such as a desire to eliminate(in reality mitigate) corruption?

Either you support corruption, spies, and child molesters or you don't.

There is no grey.

And unlike the decentralized Tea Party and OWS that were able to be hijacked, divided, and/or conquered.........such a non partisan movement would be largely attack proof.

Combine it with some professional structure and funding with the likes of Perot as figurehead(and a few key well regarded folks across the rainbow) and support from center left to center right would surely be near guaranteed and could achieve significant momentum within a single election cycle.

If something like it were started in the next 6 months it could work with the training wheels on for mid term 2014 and be ready for 2016.

GOP and Democrat parties would still be there.......don't fight the tide.......just filter out the poison.

So not a party......but an attack proof political filter.

Teak Party/OWS with collective single issue(political corruption) focus.

The pro-life and pro-choice people would still drive each other nuts.....but at least the politicians they contact incessantly over the issue would be less beholden to spend the day doing the bidding of lobbyists and campaign contributors.

Just my 0.02c

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

The internet is now mainstream.

If the Internet is now mainstream - and given what we see as mainstream - how does this support your view that it can be used as a counter-cultural agent of change?

The top 15 news web sites - outside the HuffPo (which has a poor track record for independence) and the Drudge report (equally so), the other 13 sites are offshoots of MSM.

http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites

The top 25 most visited web sites overall are equally dominated by either the tech titans - which can accurately be said to be, at a minimum, significantly compensated by the same dynamic as the MSM - or personal communications channels like Facebook/Twitter.

http://www.ranking.com/

Hence my curiosity as to how exactly an Internet impression can be made without accession of MSM resources/brand/audience.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

If the Internet is now mainstream - and given what we see as mainstream - how does this support your view that it can be used as a counter-cultural agent of change?

The top 15 news web sites - outside the HuffPo (which has a poor track record for independence) and the Drudge report (equally so), the other 13 sites are offshoots of MSM.

http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/news-websites

The top 25 most visited web sites overall are equally dominated by either the tech titans - which can accurately be said to be, at a minimum, significantly compensated by the same dynamic as the MSM - or personal communications channels like Facebook/Twitter.

http://www.ranking.com/

Hence my curiosity as to how exactly an Internet impression can be made without accession of MSM resources/brand/audience.

Twitter
Tumblr
Instagram

How long have they been in existence?

3-6 years

User base?

Tens to hundreds of millions each

Initial capital invested?

Single digit millions

Huff Post and Drudge are two great examples(and I completely agree with the left and right bias respectively).

Drudge gained traction on a single news story and is a massive traffic property based on a circa 1996 website design

HufPost is the anti-Drudge and launched specifically to be the anti-Drudge with great fanfare in a well coordinated fashion, but again on a single digit million budget to start.

----------

What I envisage is something along the lines of:

http://www.opensecrets.org

...but with a more brandable, less conspiracy theory sounding name.

How much would it take for Ross Perot to step forward and endorse/partner/mash-up with an existing outfit like this?

With a lifetime in the technology sector, surely Perot would have access to some very sharp and very expensive alpha-nerd programming and marketing talent no more than 1-2 degrees removed.

Imagine a mashup that could:

1)pull campaign finance/corruption data from opensecrets.org

2)automatically personalize and localize for each person via Facebook info

3)One click "name and shame" sharing to everyone on your contact list, but displaying to everyone else THEIR respective federal office candidates.

Example:

I use the app and it names/shames my candidates in my Congressional District and Senators in North Carolina.

I share it with you, but it shows your Congressional District and Senators in California.

Idiot proofed and personalized/localized.

Digital Witch Hunt...anyone that accepts special interest funding gets burned at the proverbial stake.

Whether a candidate wants a libertarian paradise reminiscent of Mogadishu or a candidate wants a utopia of farm collectives is irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is: who "owns" the candidates? Citizens or special interests?

All branded as non partisan, single issue corruption mitigation.

Thumbs Up! And you get the equivalent of a Heart Foundation Tick:
http://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/he...at-is-the-tick

Thumbs Down! And you get branded no different than a sexual predator or spy:
http://www.nsopw.gov/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Most importantly, I think such an effort would align with the interests of the vast majority of Americans and could easily be framed as such.

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

How much would it cost?

*A million bucks for building an off the shelf scalable social media platform that leverages and mashes existing platforms such as opensecrets.org, facebook, twitter, tumblr, etc.

*A million bucks for the likes of a top agency to help develop strategic M & A brand strategy and an arsenal of tactical viral brand messages.

*A million bucks in strategic PR with Perot launching and chairing the effort.

If MSM ignore you, go around them online:
http://friendorfollow.com/twitter/most-followers/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3360562.html

*Millions more to get the effort up to cruising altitude if needed and keep it there.

A multi-million dollar experiment is something well within reach and potential of Ross Perot....if it works.....throw more money at it....if it doesn't, pull the plug.

It would be rounding error money for him.

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

We have seen flash mobs at the local/tactical level.

And we have seen them run out of control like a runaway nuclear reactor going into meltdown with the Arab Spring.

Surely there is scope to attempt to create a managed strategic political flashmob that has a duration measured in months to years instead of the current minutes to hours.

----------

This link offers the most recent open source information I'm aware of trying to understand and develop a doctrine for unconventional warfare regarding social media.

http://www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/12263

Articles:
Page 8-12
Page 22-28
Page 29-34

----------

On this forum we often talk about the "two party, no choice" problem as well as the rigged financial markets.

The best option I can think of is trying to mitigate the former by simply going further upstream to install a filter......economy of effort/resources combined with an "attack proof" non partisan brand.

"Why does [INSERT LOCAL FEDERAL CANDIDATE HERE] love corruption?"

"Why does [INSERT LOCAL FEDERAL CANDIDATE HERE] hate democracy?"

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Wolf PAC

I guess the elevator pitch is:

There's an expression that goes "You can't unpoison a well."

It's wrong......install a filter.

[c1ue]

Re: Wolf PAC

Twitter
Tumblr
Instagram

How long have they been in existence?

3-6 years

User base?

Tens to hundreds of millions each

Initial capital invested?

Single digit millions

The total capital invested in Twitter was well over a billion dollars.

The total capital invested in Tumblr was 125 million dollars.

The total capital invested in Instagram was 57.5 million dollars.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that it was 'only a few million'. Sure, the Series A or seed might have been 'only a few million', but without all those other millions, these companies would not be what they are today especially since I'd also note that none of the above are profitable.

But even setting that aside, the real issue is revenue.

Drudge, HuffPo, etc etc are all heavily dependent on advertisers for what revenue they do get.

And who are these advertisers? I think you know.

This is what I'm pointing out: the notion that any entity involved in media would be willing to risk antagonizing its main sources of revenue - that would seem a major barrier.

[aaron]

Re: Wolf PAC

Perot has no interest in running. He believes (rightfully, so IMHO) that he did his best to help the country 20 years ago. He is a big reason why I blame the boomers for the predicament we are in. His charts, even to a teenager, explained in detail what was to come. Now that the future is here, our seniors and boomers want the young to pay for their mistakes. No, it was not ignorance. No, it was not "those people in the government" who screwed over everybody. It was the boomers and seniors.

The bills are due in 2016. Good luck squeezing the last blood from the gen x & gen y ... no jobs, no life, no future except debt servitude.


This is probably off-topic. Sorry for that. I cannot hold the urge back, now and then.