October 19, 2011
E-Mail to Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren
I sent this e-mail to Elizabeth Warren's twice through her campaign web site. I made some changes and sent it a third time, for a reason I explain in the e-mail, and will keep sending it.
To whom it may concern:
Even though I'm a liberal, I wasn't sure if I wanted Mrs. Warren to run for Senate. Not because I didn't think she'd make a good Senator, but because she's too good for the Senate. I'm serious.
Also, my fear was that once she decided to run, Mrs. Warren would do the knee-jerk thing and raise millions of dollars and turn into a typical politician. I'm sure she'd deny that, at least the latter, but I'm a cynic when it comes to politics and would have to believe it to see it. And that's why I'm writing. I have a few ideas for her campaign. They're a bit wild, but all I'm asking for is that whoever is reading this, make sure she gets it.
(I sent this twice last month but I'm sure whoever read it, deleted it, and didn't pass it on to Mrs. Warren. So I wanted to give it another shot.)
Mrs. Warren, I'm sure you hate what Congress has become and don't consider yourself a politician. So don't become one. Don't hire a team of political consultants who tell you what to say and how to say it. Don't talk like a press release. And don't hold focus groups. Be real. Talk to the voters like you do to your family around the dinner table. Admit that you alone will not change Washington (because you, alone, can't). And please don't say you're going to "fight for (fill in the blank)" because it makes you look like a politician.
Admit that you don't have all the answers, especially on issues you may not be familiar with. So be honest. Novel idea, huh? And admit that you're - gasp! - a liberal. Hey, you're going to be accused of being one, so you might as well embrace it and prove what you believe in by using the truth, the facts and reason, not lies, spin and talking points.
A political candidate running on truth, facts, honesty and the power of persuasion. Who'da thunk it?
The point I'm trying to make is that you should run on YOUR terms; not the knee-jerk "Politics 101" "stay on message" scripted campaigns we see from every typical politician. Be your own campaign manager.
I have another idea. It's even more wild.
The money in politics is obscene. It's everything that's wrong with our system. And we're never going to clean up the system until the money is taken out of the process. And the only way to get the money out is to ban all paid TV and radio campaign advertising. I know, I know, "the First Amendment." But if Congress can get the tobacco and liquor industries to agree to stop running TV and radio ads, then there's no reason why "We the People" can't get political candidates who have polluted the airwaves for decades to do the same. No paid ads by the candidates or the parties, and no ads by individuals or groups on behalf of a candidate or party. No ads means, no ads. Period (since they wouldn't be able to raise money, the DNC and RNC would no longer exist. Hey, so much the better!).
While it's too late to have this legislated for your campaign, assuming it could be, there's nothing stopping you from doing this on your own. Please, just hear me out. So this means:
1) You will only accept contributions from residents of Massachusetts and only up to the maximum allowed (so you'd have to return all the money you've received so far from contributors outside Massachusetts). These contributions will pay your day to day campaign expenses.
I know what you're thinking. How will the voters get to know you? That's easy. 1) Shaking hands and kissing babies, 2) streaming Internet video campaigning and conferencing, 3) town hall meetings (also streamed via the internet), 4) the news, 5) the free media, where you can get onto every TV and radio show in the region, and 6) debates.
Nobody's putting a gun to the head of political candidates forcing them to run campaign ads. So there's nothing preventing you, or any other candidate, from not running any.
This idea doesn't mean an end to ads altogether. Invite your supporters to make their own ads and put them on the internet. It's the paid TV and radio advertising that has to go because that would remove the reason for having to raise this obscene amount of legalized bribery. And if you win, you'd be the only one in Washington who wouldn't be beholden to a single special interest. In fact, your "lobbyists" would be the residents of Massachusetts.
These rules would also apply to your primary, so challenge your opponents to do the same. Assuming you win, challenge Scott Brown to follow the same rules. He won't, but so what? Let him raise millions of dollars from corporations, let him flood the airwaves with his moronic ads, and let him be the candidate who's bought and paid for. You can be the smart and honest candidate that has ideas - remember them? - and backs them up with facts.
You can challenge Sen. Brown to a series of debates beginning next summer, including "single issue" debates (or at least debates divided into two, three or four issues) so you can spend more then 60 seconds on health care, the economy and Social Security. And assuming he doesn't agree to that - and he won't - then what would he be afraid of? He can't defend his opinions in real debates?
If you did this, you would inspire other smart, honest, creative non-politicians across the country to run for public office under these same strict self-imposed rules (candidates for House seats would only be allowed to raise money from residents within the district). And as more and more candidates run their campaigns this way, it would eventually shame life-long politicians into doing it as well. So this idea can be implemented without any legislation at all. Therefore, the First Amendment would be rendered irrelevant (even though the tobacco and liquor TV and radio advertising bans were legislated).
Hey, if this is what it takes to clean up the system AND send better and smarter men and women to office, so be it. It would be best gift any (non) politician ever gave to her (perspective) constituents. And I'd take it as a slap in the face by any politician - Democrat or Republican - who wouldn't do it.
This would be a bold and somewhat risky move on your part, no doubt. But I think it would pay off, big, because this is exactly what Americans are are looking for. Someone who's honest, who won't take a penny of corporate or out-of-state money, who won't run nauseating TV ads that insult the public's intelligence, who won't sling mud (because that's the only way they can win), and who is so smart, she can support her opinions by using facts, logic, intelligent thought and the power of persuasion, not lies, spin and talking points. Isn't that what honest debate, campaigns and governance should be about?
I have another idea. This one isn't wild, it's radical. But I think you can get away with it in Massachusetts.
Take on the NRA. Yes, yes, I know, "gun control is a loser for Democrats." But how did it become such a loser? It's an issue that Democrats have been intimidated into either ignoring or becoming gun nuts themselves. Ted Kennedy never even brought it up. And in the meantime, the NRA has hijacked the Second Amendment, bullied whatever gun control movement there was into silence, and call the shots, so to speak, on the country's weakened gun laws. I'm tired of Democrats abandoning the issue altogether. So it's time to take the issue back; or at least try to.
Sure, if you go through with my ideas you could lose. But you could lose running a "typical politician's" "talking point" "stay on message" multi-million dollar campaign too. And you'd lose your credibility in the process.
But I think you'd have a great chance - even a better chance - to win this election by implementing these ideas. Especially in Massachusetts.
Again, this comes down to running and hopefully winning on your terms. And that means not raising millions of dollars, not running a single TV or radio ad, not running as a typical politician, not running away from what you believe in, and using the truth and the facts to support your positions. So it also means a campaign void of spin and talking points. Imagine that.
But this also means that you shouldn't pander to the left either. Yes, if it's fair and good for the country, then by all means support it. But if not - and no group should get everything - then no. Somebody has to be the adult in the room.
You can stand politics and the Democratic Party on its head with a campaign like this. It's called honesty and integrity. And that's exactly what the country and the Occupy Wall Street protestors are looking for.
So how about it?
+/- show/hide this post
