Rarely does the name of Felix Grundy McConnell get brought up.
Felix was elected by the folks in the 7th district back in November 1842, and arrived in 1843 to assume his highly valued position of a Alabama House member in DC.
Felix had come a long way. Born in 1809 in Nashville....in the true sense of the word, he was marginally educated. His profession? He made saddles.
At some point in the mid-1830s....he moved to Talladega, Alabama. There, he decided that he had the talent to be a lawyer. He briefly attended a legal school, and in two years, had himself approved through the state bar association to be a lawyer.
It's best not to bring up the fact that he was marginally educated, and that these 'school' paths really didn't amount to much. As long as you paid up the state bar folks, and they gave you the slip of paper....that was it.
Within two years of that day.....Felix had him situated into the Alabama State Legislature. A year later, he was a state senator (serving for four years).
In November of 1842, Felix ran for the House seat, and won. So in 1843....he shows up in Washington DC. At the age of 33, he had remarkably blazed a path to success, and even in today's world....he would have been on the cover of magazines and newspapers.
So here's the remarkable thing about the next 3.5 years in Washington with Felix. If you were looking for the baddest of the bad boys....Felix was it.
While little factual evidence exists....it's safe to say that Felix was drunk 365 days a year, around the clock....during this period. We aren't talking about mildly drunk.....we mean absolutely drunk.
His behavior in this period? It didn't take much for him to throw out insults at just about anyone....even while in the House chambers. During this period, it's an open fact that while in DC....as a House or Senate member, you can do just about anything, and the police can't hold you or charge you with a crime. So Felix went from bad to worse over this period.
At some point in the final year (1846)....Felix had gotten himself into what you'd call today Delirium Tremens (the DTs). This is basically when your alcoholism has reached a level that you realize it's a serious problem, and you want to stop drinking....but then you start to imagine things (disillusions).
In today's world, you'd go off to rehab. Felix had no such avenue.
On 10 September 1846......Felix reached a peak with the Delirium Tremens. With a knife, he apparently stabbed himself and bled to death.
Dead by age 37.
It's an amazing story....young guy who was apparently a decent saddle maker....making the move into Alabama. Walking around marginally educated, but didn't let that stop him from attending law school, and getting all certified as a lawyer. Quickly moving up the political ladder.....in five short years, making a path to Washington.
Felix must have been a fairly likable Irish guy, with a talent to talk and say blunt things. If he'd avoided the alcoholism route? Well.....you just have to wonder.
There's no statues for this guy, just a burial site in Washington DC.
Sunday, 24 November 2019
Saturday, 23 November 2019
Demons, the Supernatural, and Impeachment
There was an interview this week between Rev Franklin Graham and journalist Eric Metaxes....discussing Trump, the impeachment, and perceptions.
So Graham laid out the topic and then bluntly suggested that all of this could only occur if the supernatural were at work. In simple terms....demons.
Metaxes then readily agrees, and this discussion goes to various connecting topics. Graham points out that with the booming economy.....people have more money to tithe, and thus the churches are raking in the cash to help the poor. On this, he does have a key point.....it's to everyone's advantage to want a booming economy.
At this point, you have to ask the question....are demons and the supernatural running the Democratic Party? It is a comical question, and in 90-percent of households....it won't come up.
In Alabama? Well, this Sunday, I expect most Baptist Churches to bring up the topic that Graham mentions and offer up a prayer for Democrats, and hoping that they can recover from demonic control. At that point, around a quarter of the congregations will stand up....stomp their feet, and leave out of the backdoor....never to return.
The same crowd will wander around for several weeks, trying to find other churches to accept them in the state, with the other ministers or deacons asking if they are still under demonic control.
As the primary season approaches, the question of supernatural 'control' will come up and various democrats will be trying to remove the 'curse'. Guys who used to make a big fuss of democratic agendas....will now have co-workers offering to pray for them, and setting off hostilities in the office place.
Somewhere along the way, it'll become common knowledge that the Chinese have been fighting the supernatural for thousands of years. Some of their methods will be used: (1) peach-wood pits will be carried in your pocket, (2) shamans will be hired to 'touch' you, and (3) spooning will start up (where you rub a silver spoon on your body to rid you of demons.
The thing about all of this is that Trump didn't come up with the idea, and he's probably kicking himself for missing it in the first place. He could have labeled Pelosi as 'Demon-Nancy'.
As silly as it sounds....this is how far from reality that we've slipped. Very briefly, we can be easily convinced that some idiot would get up at 1 AM in Chicago, in seriously low temperatures (minus situation) to wander over to a Subway shop and encounter KKK-type characters on the streets of Chicago. Going from that point to demons and the supernatural is just not that far.
So Graham laid out the topic and then bluntly suggested that all of this could only occur if the supernatural were at work. In simple terms....demons.
Metaxes then readily agrees, and this discussion goes to various connecting topics. Graham points out that with the booming economy.....people have more money to tithe, and thus the churches are raking in the cash to help the poor. On this, he does have a key point.....it's to everyone's advantage to want a booming economy.
At this point, you have to ask the question....are demons and the supernatural running the Democratic Party? It is a comical question, and in 90-percent of households....it won't come up.
In Alabama? Well, this Sunday, I expect most Baptist Churches to bring up the topic that Graham mentions and offer up a prayer for Democrats, and hoping that they can recover from demonic control. At that point, around a quarter of the congregations will stand up....stomp their feet, and leave out of the backdoor....never to return.
The same crowd will wander around for several weeks, trying to find other churches to accept them in the state, with the other ministers or deacons asking if they are still under demonic control.
As the primary season approaches, the question of supernatural 'control' will come up and various democrats will be trying to remove the 'curse'. Guys who used to make a big fuss of democratic agendas....will now have co-workers offering to pray for them, and setting off hostilities in the office place.
Somewhere along the way, it'll become common knowledge that the Chinese have been fighting the supernatural for thousands of years. Some of their methods will be used: (1) peach-wood pits will be carried in your pocket, (2) shamans will be hired to 'touch' you, and (3) spooning will start up (where you rub a silver spoon on your body to rid you of demons.
The thing about all of this is that Trump didn't come up with the idea, and he's probably kicking himself for missing it in the first place. He could have labeled Pelosi as 'Demon-Nancy'.
As silly as it sounds....this is how far from reality that we've slipped. Very briefly, we can be easily convinced that some idiot would get up at 1 AM in Chicago, in seriously low temperatures (minus situation) to wander over to a Subway shop and encounter KKK-type characters on the streets of Chicago. Going from that point to demons and the supernatural is just not that far.
Friday, 22 November 2019
The 'QPQ' Party Idea
I have this idea for a political party. The name for it? The Quid Pro Quo Party (QPQ).
So the idea is this, I want various political folks of both parties (maybe even the Greens and Libertarians) to come up and sign a pledge on ten to twenty things that they would do.....if we (the voters) supported them as a national party. If there is money involved, I want them to spell out where the money will come from.
Then our members (really voters) would go and give them our 'vote'.
If they failed to accomplish their promises? In the very next election, I'd fire them, by giving my vote automatically to the next party. I'd repeat this a couple of times, and they'd eventually learn.....either don't promise much of anything, or actually go and accomplish the promise.
The neat thing about the QPQ Party....is that we'd have no candidates...we'd just be freelance voters.
So the idea is this, I want various political folks of both parties (maybe even the Greens and Libertarians) to come up and sign a pledge on ten to twenty things that they would do.....if we (the voters) supported them as a national party. If there is money involved, I want them to spell out where the money will come from.
Then our members (really voters) would go and give them our 'vote'.
If they failed to accomplish their promises? In the very next election, I'd fire them, by giving my vote automatically to the next party. I'd repeat this a couple of times, and they'd eventually learn.....either don't promise much of anything, or actually go and accomplish the promise.
The neat thing about the QPQ Party....is that we'd have no candidates...we'd just be freelance voters.
Thursday, 21 November 2019
What Was the Pied-Piper Strategy?
Basically, you are running for office, and have this problem (weakness) in the general public. So you go to your news media friends, and issue an appeal. You ask them, in kind words, to elevate the weakest of the weak from the opposition party, and ensure that weaker candidate rises from the dozen-odd possibilities, and you are guaranteed to win.
Well....that was the intention.
One of the odd Wiki-Leaks emails from Hillary Clinton (dated 7 Apr 2015) was a two-page document which listed the priority of news media 'services'.
The three that Hillary hinted upon? Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump.
Based on some type of review (you have to wonder who told Hillary this was brilliant, and I doubt it was Bill).....these three were guaranteed to make the GOP unhappy, and ensure she won.
You can go back to the week prior to the 2016 election, and find various Hillary strategists who were practically begging for Donald Trump to be the convention winner, and be staged to gracefully (or doomed) to lose to Hillary Clinton.
So the question ought to be on your mind.....did the people who envisioned this strategy really know the general public in 2016?
For the past week, I've been on this topic and pondering it.
I've come to the conclusion that this strategy might have worked well in 2008, and might even suspect that in 2007....as things were drifting around for the primary season approaching....that Hillary's team were already at work, hyping up the Pied-Piper approach for 2008's election. Yes, convincing folks that John McCain was the perfect marginal candidate for the Republican Party, and the best loser possible.
I don't think McCain realized it, or cared (even if you had laid out the trap).
Then you come to this reality on the evening of 8 November 2016. Everything was set. The polls had faked everyone out, even the journalists, and the Hillary team itself. The journalists were prepared for this massive 'win-evening', and by 9 PM eastern time.....the party was dissolving. By 10 PM, folks were doing double-shots, weeping away, and in a state of 'Pied-Piper' shock. Every trap had been set, and yet failed.
But now we come to the 2019 situation....all of these new Pied-Piper strategies. The Mueller Report was supposed to eradicate Trump.....the media was all peppy for almost twelve months....with that Pied-Piper trap failing. The whole Russian-in-your-election fiasco? That Pied-Piper trap failed. This Ukrainian business enveloping into an impeachment, with the news media again all hyped up? You'd need a well weakened Republican senate to make that happen, and losers in the House who just let the impeachment hearings clear a path.
The problem with Pied-Piper thinking? It's basically a decade too late.
It's the kind of thing that worked before social media came along, or people noticing 'fake news', or hostility brewing within the working class. It was perfectly designed for 2000 to 2010. In 2016 and present? It won't work.
Before closing, what if some crazy guy picked up the Pied-Piper strategy, skipped the Republican National Committee, and the news media, and just went full-throttle with Twitter and public speeches? What if that guy intentionally rigged up the 2020 primary period for the most marginal candidate to face him...skipping virtually every single political 'gear-box'?
Just something to think about.
Well....that was the intention.
One of the odd Wiki-Leaks emails from Hillary Clinton (dated 7 Apr 2015) was a two-page document which listed the priority of news media 'services'.
The three that Hillary hinted upon? Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump.
Based on some type of review (you have to wonder who told Hillary this was brilliant, and I doubt it was Bill).....these three were guaranteed to make the GOP unhappy, and ensure she won.
You can go back to the week prior to the 2016 election, and find various Hillary strategists who were practically begging for Donald Trump to be the convention winner, and be staged to gracefully (or doomed) to lose to Hillary Clinton.
So the question ought to be on your mind.....did the people who envisioned this strategy really know the general public in 2016?
For the past week, I've been on this topic and pondering it.
I've come to the conclusion that this strategy might have worked well in 2008, and might even suspect that in 2007....as things were drifting around for the primary season approaching....that Hillary's team were already at work, hyping up the Pied-Piper approach for 2008's election. Yes, convincing folks that John McCain was the perfect marginal candidate for the Republican Party, and the best loser possible.
I don't think McCain realized it, or cared (even if you had laid out the trap).
Then you come to this reality on the evening of 8 November 2016. Everything was set. The polls had faked everyone out, even the journalists, and the Hillary team itself. The journalists were prepared for this massive 'win-evening', and by 9 PM eastern time.....the party was dissolving. By 10 PM, folks were doing double-shots, weeping away, and in a state of 'Pied-Piper' shock. Every trap had been set, and yet failed.
But now we come to the 2019 situation....all of these new Pied-Piper strategies. The Mueller Report was supposed to eradicate Trump.....the media was all peppy for almost twelve months....with that Pied-Piper trap failing. The whole Russian-in-your-election fiasco? That Pied-Piper trap failed. This Ukrainian business enveloping into an impeachment, with the news media again all hyped up? You'd need a well weakened Republican senate to make that happen, and losers in the House who just let the impeachment hearings clear a path.
The problem with Pied-Piper thinking? It's basically a decade too late.
It's the kind of thing that worked before social media came along, or people noticing 'fake news', or hostility brewing within the working class. It was perfectly designed for 2000 to 2010. In 2016 and present? It won't work.
Before closing, what if some crazy guy picked up the Pied-Piper strategy, skipped the Republican National Committee, and the news media, and just went full-throttle with Twitter and public speeches? What if that guy intentionally rigged up the 2020 primary period for the most marginal candidate to face him...skipping virtually every single political 'gear-box'?
Just something to think about.
Wednesday, 20 November 2019
Why Doesn't the Public Really Care About the House Hearings on Trump?
My ten observations:
1. It's not titillating. There's no NY City trampy gal coming over at 3 AM to service the President. There's no intern providing 'relief'. There's no banjo-playing Latino midget gal into bondage who secretly rides Air Force One for the President. There's no Russian bikini-wearing palm-reading lady that Trump has trusted for 30 years to predict his future and visits weekly.
2. There's no real understanding of Quid Pro Quo. If you asked 3,000 Americans...only about 25-percent would have a fundamental grasp of it. Some would answer that it's a Mexican dish at Taco Bell. Some would suggest it's a hotel chain in New Mexico. Some would suggest it's a bass boat company in Georgia. A few would suggest it was a 1988 x-rated movie that they watched in college. Some might even say it was a TV show with fake Amish people who talked about 'tarty-women'.
3. The statement that Quid Pro Quo is illegal? Since when? Bush II and Obama? You could count up a minimum of 300 Quid Pro Quo acts each. Your wife? She probably does Quid Pro Quo (QPQ) daily. Your son, your neighbor, your minister, your cousin Fred who does all your electrical work in the house, your bartender, your 5th grade teacher, your liaison gal on Friday afternoons, the chiropractor? They are all into QPQ.
4. Lets be honest, back in the early 70s, there was literally nothing on TV, so the Watergate Hearings was a big drama? Today? You've got Netflix, Jerry Springer with pregnant girlfriends, fighting cousins on tabloid TV, reruns of the Waltons, Mexican soccer league reruns from last night, soap operas from Brazil, and wrestling shows. There's tons of competition.
5. This Shiffy guy isn't Sam Ervin of 1973 Watergate Hearings 'fame'. The image of Shiffy compared against Inouye from Hawaii? It doesn't match up. Shiffy comes across as a comedian trying to pretend he's some true authority.
6. The carrying ability of the networks or NPR, or NY Times, for the Democratic message? It's just not at the level that existed in 1973, or in the 1990s with the Clinton episode. Most people label them as 'fake' and you can't convince people to watch.
7. In some ways, the public has adapted to Trump, and regard him in the same fashion as JFK. Go imagine some impeachment process with JFK, and how impossible it would be with the voting public.
8. If you want to chat over 'crimes'....go cite the federal code. If you can't cite a code....the general public starts laughing. This is almost like a Matlock show, without a murder or robbery....everyone sitting in the courtroom and awaiting some mystery guest to arrive and point out the crime, so that the show can start up.
9. Frankly, we are barely nine months past the Jussie Smollett episode, and people just don't take accusations and crime at the same level anymore. Everyone is convinced of a fake crime or fake accusation.
10. Finally, we've seen so much 'drama' in DC over the past ten years.....that this hype on the drama....really doesn't move much past two stars. Having an episode where Cheney shot his hunting partner.....that was drama. Having Senator Reid show up with a black eye....now that was a drama. Watching one of Hillary's coughing attacks, now that was a real drama.
1. It's not titillating. There's no NY City trampy gal coming over at 3 AM to service the President. There's no intern providing 'relief'. There's no banjo-playing Latino midget gal into bondage who secretly rides Air Force One for the President. There's no Russian bikini-wearing palm-reading lady that Trump has trusted for 30 years to predict his future and visits weekly.
2. There's no real understanding of Quid Pro Quo. If you asked 3,000 Americans...only about 25-percent would have a fundamental grasp of it. Some would answer that it's a Mexican dish at Taco Bell. Some would suggest it's a hotel chain in New Mexico. Some would suggest it's a bass boat company in Georgia. A few would suggest it was a 1988 x-rated movie that they watched in college. Some might even say it was a TV show with fake Amish people who talked about 'tarty-women'.
3. The statement that Quid Pro Quo is illegal? Since when? Bush II and Obama? You could count up a minimum of 300 Quid Pro Quo acts each. Your wife? She probably does Quid Pro Quo (QPQ) daily. Your son, your neighbor, your minister, your cousin Fred who does all your electrical work in the house, your bartender, your 5th grade teacher, your liaison gal on Friday afternoons, the chiropractor? They are all into QPQ.
4. Lets be honest, back in the early 70s, there was literally nothing on TV, so the Watergate Hearings was a big drama? Today? You've got Netflix, Jerry Springer with pregnant girlfriends, fighting cousins on tabloid TV, reruns of the Waltons, Mexican soccer league reruns from last night, soap operas from Brazil, and wrestling shows. There's tons of competition.
5. This Shiffy guy isn't Sam Ervin of 1973 Watergate Hearings 'fame'. The image of Shiffy compared against Inouye from Hawaii? It doesn't match up. Shiffy comes across as a comedian trying to pretend he's some true authority.
6. The carrying ability of the networks or NPR, or NY Times, for the Democratic message? It's just not at the level that existed in 1973, or in the 1990s with the Clinton episode. Most people label them as 'fake' and you can't convince people to watch.
7. In some ways, the public has adapted to Trump, and regard him in the same fashion as JFK. Go imagine some impeachment process with JFK, and how impossible it would be with the voting public.
8. If you want to chat over 'crimes'....go cite the federal code. If you can't cite a code....the general public starts laughing. This is almost like a Matlock show, without a murder or robbery....everyone sitting in the courtroom and awaiting some mystery guest to arrive and point out the crime, so that the show can start up.
9. Frankly, we are barely nine months past the Jussie Smollett episode, and people just don't take accusations and crime at the same level anymore. Everyone is convinced of a fake crime or fake accusation.
10. Finally, we've seen so much 'drama' in DC over the past ten years.....that this hype on the drama....really doesn't move much past two stars. Having an episode where Cheney shot his hunting partner.....that was drama. Having Senator Reid show up with a black eye....now that was a drama. Watching one of Hillary's coughing attacks, now that was a real drama.
Monday, 18 November 2019
NFL Clubs and Their Business 'Model'
I sat yesterday and read through a number of economic pieces over NFL football, and came to several realizations.
There are only three way that the NFL ownership (of each team)....score on profitability. They are: (1) gate receipts and junk/food bought for each home game, (2) the TV contract, and (3) fan gear.
With all the negative criticism on the NFL product today, one has to look at the profits.....or lack of profits, and wonder about the business model, and if it's doomed.
So put yourself into a NFL owner's shoes.
There are 17 regular season games in a season....with it generally split in 8 home games one year and 9 home games in the next. Preseason games? Some teams do four, and others do five. You can generally anticipate that preseason games rarely fill up a stadium, and most clubs have to offer serious discounting for preseason games...just to get 25,000 fans into a 48,000 seat facility.
So you look at ticket prices currently at NFL regular games. The lowest 'average' price is the Buffalo Bills entry for around $70. The Washington Redskins will average around $100. And at the very top, at $165, the LA Chargers. The majority of the successful clubs are $100 or more.
Parking? Most stadiums now charge $40 to $50 for parking a vehicle.
Food and beer? In most stadiums, you are talking about an adult fan costing around $75 minimum. If you were taking your son over to a game and eating decent ribs in the hour before the game, with a decent half-time burger, and four beers in the mix of the game....you probably are getting closer to $200 for the two of you.
So that visit (for two)....will run you in the $400 range. The owners will get a small cut of the parking, all of the entry ticket minus stadium costs, and a cut of the $200 on beer and food purchased.
Onto fan-gear. Before all this criticism in recent years....most of the big-name clubs (Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers, etc) were making a fairly decent cut on fan-gear. T-shirts, leather jackets, and hats topped the lists.
The great thing here was that sports gear shops were situated all around the US....even in non-sports towns. Most owners would admit 50-percent of their income was NFL gear. Hockey and baseball were much less, and the NBA gear somewhere in the middle.
Since the NFL 'tumble'? A lot of the sports gear shops are in trouble....they don't have the turnover in NFL gear to the extent they had ten years ago. Most marginally get by at this point, and are dependent on the other sports to make up for losses. I watched some video clip of a shop owner who pointed out at the end of 2018....they were surviving but they were also cutting their NFL gear orders by 50-percent.
The TV contract business? That's really the serious and continual contribution to owners....that they can depend upon. The contract change coming in 2022? No one talks much about it, or if the networks will cut the offer by some amount. My guess is that they should be expecting a 10-percent cut as a minimum.
The blunt side of this? The NFL model for business, simply doesn't work at this point. Supply and lack of demand will cut into the future, and players will eventually be handed the bill for the negativity....seeing a 10-to-20 percent cut coming after 2022 (in my humble opinion).
The sad thing here....is that a number of owners paid substantial prices for their clubs ten and twenty years ago, and the clubs at present....are marginally worth what they bought them for. In another two years, with the new TV contract....I suspect most clubs will be dropping on their value.
A new model coming out of this over the next decade? Maybe, but it'll mean less profits and less guarantees. The day of the $120 entry ticket? It might be shifting downward to $80.
There are only three way that the NFL ownership (of each team)....score on profitability. They are: (1) gate receipts and junk/food bought for each home game, (2) the TV contract, and (3) fan gear.
With all the negative criticism on the NFL product today, one has to look at the profits.....or lack of profits, and wonder about the business model, and if it's doomed.
So put yourself into a NFL owner's shoes.
There are 17 regular season games in a season....with it generally split in 8 home games one year and 9 home games in the next. Preseason games? Some teams do four, and others do five. You can generally anticipate that preseason games rarely fill up a stadium, and most clubs have to offer serious discounting for preseason games...just to get 25,000 fans into a 48,000 seat facility.
So you look at ticket prices currently at NFL regular games. The lowest 'average' price is the Buffalo Bills entry for around $70. The Washington Redskins will average around $100. And at the very top, at $165, the LA Chargers. The majority of the successful clubs are $100 or more.
Parking? Most stadiums now charge $40 to $50 for parking a vehicle.
Food and beer? In most stadiums, you are talking about an adult fan costing around $75 minimum. If you were taking your son over to a game and eating decent ribs in the hour before the game, with a decent half-time burger, and four beers in the mix of the game....you probably are getting closer to $200 for the two of you.
So that visit (for two)....will run you in the $400 range. The owners will get a small cut of the parking, all of the entry ticket minus stadium costs, and a cut of the $200 on beer and food purchased.
Onto fan-gear. Before all this criticism in recent years....most of the big-name clubs (Patriots, Cowboys, Steelers, etc) were making a fairly decent cut on fan-gear. T-shirts, leather jackets, and hats topped the lists.
The great thing here was that sports gear shops were situated all around the US....even in non-sports towns. Most owners would admit 50-percent of their income was NFL gear. Hockey and baseball were much less, and the NBA gear somewhere in the middle.
Since the NFL 'tumble'? A lot of the sports gear shops are in trouble....they don't have the turnover in NFL gear to the extent they had ten years ago. Most marginally get by at this point, and are dependent on the other sports to make up for losses. I watched some video clip of a shop owner who pointed out at the end of 2018....they were surviving but they were also cutting their NFL gear orders by 50-percent.
The TV contract business? That's really the serious and continual contribution to owners....that they can depend upon. The contract change coming in 2022? No one talks much about it, or if the networks will cut the offer by some amount. My guess is that they should be expecting a 10-percent cut as a minimum.
The blunt side of this? The NFL model for business, simply doesn't work at this point. Supply and lack of demand will cut into the future, and players will eventually be handed the bill for the negativity....seeing a 10-to-20 percent cut coming after 2022 (in my humble opinion).
The sad thing here....is that a number of owners paid substantial prices for their clubs ten and twenty years ago, and the clubs at present....are marginally worth what they bought them for. In another two years, with the new TV contract....I suspect most clubs will be dropping on their value.
A new model coming out of this over the next decade? Maybe, but it'll mean less profits and less guarantees. The day of the $120 entry ticket? It might be shifting downward to $80.
Saturday, 16 November 2019
A Four Minute Lecture
When the 1916 election came up (Wilson going for re-election, and Charles Hughes for the Republicans)....it presented an unusual election dilemma.
First, lets be blunt....Wilson won in 1912 only because Roosevelt returned to political life and felt the need to challenge his former friend....Robert Taft (GOP). Taft and Roosevelt divided the general vote across the nation, and Wilson with 6.2-million votes....essentially won 435 Electoral Votes....yet only got 41-percent of the national vote.
Four years go by and frankly, there's not a lot for Wilson to sell his campaign upon in 1916.
Second, the key feature in the summer and fall of 1916....to chat about across the nation....was the war in Europe. We hadn't entered the war, and virtually everything that Wilson talked about....was to avoid entry. If you measured the public response to that position....the majority were in favor of just watching and not participating.
Third, to sell the public on this Wilson anti-war position....the campaign decided early on in the summer to go and activate something that they would call the 'Four-Minute Men'.
At it's peak in 1917....there were around 80,000 'volunteers' across the US who were deemed Four-Minute Men.
Their job? They would be sent pamphlets and notes to give them material....bullet-statements, and from that they were given the task to engage in conversation in train stations, colleges, churches, and public settings. They were to talk (in four minutes) over Wilson's theme, and the direction of the Democratic Party.
So leading up to the election in 1916.....they convinced the public that ONLY Wilson could keep the nation out of the war. Hughes would lead the nation into the war. Roughly four weeks after the Wilson win....pamphlets flow out to the Four-Minute Men....that Wilson has the right plan to enter the war.
Propagandists? Yes. In the true sense of the word.
Did they limit it to just English? No....that's another amusing fact....they went into various ethnic neighborhoods, and spoke to the languages required.
You can figure that out of 103-million in 1916-1917.....virtually everyone got a dose of the Four-Minute Men a minimum of three occasions, and some might have gotten even a hundred doses. The national head of the group even bragged at one point....figuring a minimum of 7.5 speeches given by his propagandists.
Most historians leave the group at that point, and just kinda suggest that by 1920 (as a weak Wilson leaves office)....that the group is disbanded.
There is evidence that in the California governor's election of 1930....a Four-Minute Men mechanism went back into action. There's also a suggestion or two that in the 1932 national election period (1930 to 1932)....that FDR used the same type of resources.
The Bonus Army that marched on DC in 1932? Were they led by Four-Minute Men propaganda? Well....it's best not to bring that topic up, but Hoover's loss is dependent on the Bonus Army and the massive news coverage around it.
The Four-Minute Men at work today? This is an interesting discussion point.
Once you lay out the former Fox News guy Bill O'Reilly's method of news delivery....it's built into a bullet-like statement, and is the perfect vehicle to go and make you or your associates into Four-Minute Men.
Others from NPR, CNN, and the NY Times? Well....same story.
So do we have a modern-day Four-Minute Men problem....with propagandists on every corner? Absolutely. And are there counter-Four-Minute Men at work? Absolutely.
Just something to think about, and how we've been spoon fed for over a hundred years.
First, lets be blunt....Wilson won in 1912 only because Roosevelt returned to political life and felt the need to challenge his former friend....Robert Taft (GOP). Taft and Roosevelt divided the general vote across the nation, and Wilson with 6.2-million votes....essentially won 435 Electoral Votes....yet only got 41-percent of the national vote.
Four years go by and frankly, there's not a lot for Wilson to sell his campaign upon in 1916.
Second, the key feature in the summer and fall of 1916....to chat about across the nation....was the war in Europe. We hadn't entered the war, and virtually everything that Wilson talked about....was to avoid entry. If you measured the public response to that position....the majority were in favor of just watching and not participating.
Third, to sell the public on this Wilson anti-war position....the campaign decided early on in the summer to go and activate something that they would call the 'Four-Minute Men'.
At it's peak in 1917....there were around 80,000 'volunteers' across the US who were deemed Four-Minute Men.
Their job? They would be sent pamphlets and notes to give them material....bullet-statements, and from that they were given the task to engage in conversation in train stations, colleges, churches, and public settings. They were to talk (in four minutes) over Wilson's theme, and the direction of the Democratic Party.
So leading up to the election in 1916.....they convinced the public that ONLY Wilson could keep the nation out of the war. Hughes would lead the nation into the war. Roughly four weeks after the Wilson win....pamphlets flow out to the Four-Minute Men....that Wilson has the right plan to enter the war.
Propagandists? Yes. In the true sense of the word.
Did they limit it to just English? No....that's another amusing fact....they went into various ethnic neighborhoods, and spoke to the languages required.
You can figure that out of 103-million in 1916-1917.....virtually everyone got a dose of the Four-Minute Men a minimum of three occasions, and some might have gotten even a hundred doses. The national head of the group even bragged at one point....figuring a minimum of 7.5 speeches given by his propagandists.
Most historians leave the group at that point, and just kinda suggest that by 1920 (as a weak Wilson leaves office)....that the group is disbanded.
There is evidence that in the California governor's election of 1930....a Four-Minute Men mechanism went back into action. There's also a suggestion or two that in the 1932 national election period (1930 to 1932)....that FDR used the same type of resources.
The Bonus Army that marched on DC in 1932? Were they led by Four-Minute Men propaganda? Well....it's best not to bring that topic up, but Hoover's loss is dependent on the Bonus Army and the massive news coverage around it.
The Four-Minute Men at work today? This is an interesting discussion point.
Once you lay out the former Fox News guy Bill O'Reilly's method of news delivery....it's built into a bullet-like statement, and is the perfect vehicle to go and make you or your associates into Four-Minute Men.
Others from NPR, CNN, and the NY Times? Well....same story.
So do we have a modern-day Four-Minute Men problem....with propagandists on every corner? Absolutely. And are there counter-Four-Minute Men at work? Absolutely.
Just something to think about, and how we've been spoon fed for over a hundred years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)