Laura Schwartz White House Strategies's Comments
Page 1 of 11  first | prev | next 
Sep 28, 2007 | comments: 35
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 30, 2007, 10:47am EDT
David K. - I love your idea about debates.

I do believe there have been so many with so little accomplished and like you said – limiting them to one topic for an hour would certainly get more accomplished than the run of the mill hodge podge of questions that doesn't allow candidates to either distinguish themselves from one another or answer questions….But I also believe that this debate would have been a great way to focus in on the issues facing the African American community today. After the devastating let down of eth Bush Administration's reaction to Hurricane Katrina and the video footage we saw coming from not another ravaged country but our own – this is a community that the Republican Party needs to reach out to and not retreat from. The goal doesn't have to be to get this communities vote – the goal should be addressing this community – just like every other community in the country. Hispanic, middle class, seniors, working poor, women – there are issues that are particularly important to them and that our next president will be responsible for. It's the everyday reality I talk about. Don't give me political rhetoric – just tell me how your plans will affect my everyday reality!

Thanks so much!
Sep 28, 2007 | comments: 35
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 30, 2007, 10:41am EDT
Thanks David and you're right on!

There have been many debates and early in this season – but then again the whole season has been early for the 2008 Presidential Cycle. MSNBC held a democratic debate last week and it was the 2nd lowest rated Presidential democratic debate of the season! In one way I find that incredibly surprising – all last spring and all this summer we have been told –oh, it's too early to be talking so much politics – that no one will pay attention until after Labor Day. Well, here we are after Labor Day and according to those debate numbers from MSNBC last week…no one is overwhelmingly paying attention! The other way to look at it is that last week was premiere week on the networks premiering exciting new shows and airing part two to the last season's cliffhangers.

Perhaps if the debates become more like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars we'll watch. I mean the concept is already there – we all get a chance to vote them off next year!

Thanks so much David – I appreciate you coming back with your thoughtful comments!
Sep 28, 2007 | comments: 35
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 30, 2007, 10:34am EDT
Ron,

Thanks, as always, for coming back and commenting – your insight is always appreciated!

You're remark on the validation that republicans are willing to cede the African American vote is very interesting. At first look you cannot help but wonder why they would be willing to cede such a thing. As I mentioned – overall the majority of African American votes do traditionally go to Democrats and the African American vote like that of the Hispanic vote are growing in each election as in eligibility and turn out. But our elections are less about "major majorities" as they are micro-strategies to get enough to win that states electoral votes. I mean just by looking at those Ohio statistics we see that you just need enough to put you over the top versus needing it all. Some would say that argues the point that the debate did not heed necessary attendance. But I'm of the school where you listen to all because of the issues – not just to those you think you need strategically to win.

Thanks Ron!
Sep 25, 2007 | comments: 52
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 27, 2007, 12:21am EDT
This just in - looks like the Rudy campaign will not accept the $9.11 money - I say better late than never - i believe it is the right move but saying it earlier would have been best.
Sep 25, 2007 | comments: 52
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 27, 2007, 12:08am EDT
ames,

You bring up a solid discussion. There is a distance between fundraisers and candidates – sometimes it's to close and you get a feeling of "pay to play" and sometimes not close enough to see these things happening or coming down the pike as a campaign with a fundraising as well as a political strategy in mind. In the end – I believe the more vetting you can do on these donors the better – the more you know about the house parties that YOU are advocating in which the check are made out to YOU the better. You can get a hold of the situation – more control is always better control in a campaign. One slip up like not being told about this $9.11 fundraiser can cost you days of newscycles in which this is discussed rather than your policies to make the world a better place – this happens on both sides of the aisle but the responsibility ultimately comes down to the candidate to be the watchdog – and if they miss something on that watch – make it right as fast as possible to get it out of the media and get it off the table for those next to you to use against you….

Thanks so much for coming back and being a part of the conversation!
Sep 25, 2007 | comments: 52
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 27, 2007, 12:02am EDT
Joseph, You raise a very valid point on hypocrisy - thank you so much for joining in this conversation, Laura
Sep 25, 2007 | comments: 52
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 26, 2007, 11:58pm EDT
Gary,
Yes, I did run an article recently about money in campaigns - but on the premise of whether or not we should we move to public financing of campaigns. A tough task but one that could take out the shady and special interest card that donors could and as we have seen in the past play in campaigns and elections…that's something that came out of the Norman Hsu (Hillary large money bundler/donor) history being revealed as a criminal – a wanted felon that eluded the California Police for over 15 years. This case of the $9.11 fundraiser not about criminality but rather about morality – is it moral for a fundraiser to fundraise (using the infamous date as the contribution amount) off of one of the worst and most tragic days in American history.

In other words are there any limits to morality in fundraising? And when there seems to be lack of judgment – who needs to take charge. In the case of Norman Hsu – when the warrant came to light Hillary's campaign returned the money and then some and reinvented their vetting system for "Bundlers" in their fundraising machine. The question here on morality – is: Did Rudy's statement go far enough or should he return the money on the basis that it was raised in vain?

Morals are just as much a part of politics as well – I guess you could say criminals…
Sep 25, 2007 | comments: 52
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 26, 2007, 11:48pm EDT
It is Amy – and thanks for coming back to comment!

The strategy works because of its simplicity and low overhead because when it comes to fundraising – you want to spend as little money as possible to do it!. Basically the campaign sends mass emails and initiates calls to supporters all around the country to ask folks to host their own house party, invite as many supporters and could be supporters as they can, ask for a donation and have donation materials available as well as a few bumper stickers and yard signs (courtesy of the campaign), supply some food and much drink and wait for the conference call to begin. On the conference call (listen-only) you are able to hear the candidate thank you for your party and support – the idea is to have either a loud phone with speaker or speakers you hook your phone into for all the folks in your house to get motivated and mobilized for the candidate. Then you hang up, collect the money and clean up your house after the last guest has left.

It's easy and it has a mass appeal in short time before a fundraising dealine…like there is this Sunday!

Timing is everything…

Thanks so much!
Sep 21, 2007 | comments: 48
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 21, 2007, 3:08pm EDT
Kate,

Funny – have to comment on your humor first – it does become quite a media circus around O.J. Simpson – that's for sure but people do go to the circus even if they don't like clowns. Guess what I'm trying to convey is that people want to watch even if they are not fans or are disgusted all together. It's like rubbernecking on the highway – you don't want to look but you slow down anyway. And when you walk past a TV set with a story on OJ even though you're totally sick of him – you stop and look and get the latest. Doesn't mean you have to like it – but everyone else is talking about t so you might as well be informed as well!

In this case I would say OJ is definitely the clown and even if you tune in for the cotton candy or real news that you do like – you're bound to run into a clown.

Hopefully he'll end up behind bars and it will be the last time for this clown to be walking around free in his big clown shoes.

Thanks for your humor and for chiming in!
Sep 21, 2007 | comments: 48
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 21, 2007, 3:00pm EDT
Tim I appreciate you always coming back to comment!

There is this great pop culture cross over in our country and on so many levels. Take the political race right now. You've got Presidential candidates vying for the celebrity vote (and money) but more importantly -- votes. You see the courting of African American celebrities at Oprah's fundraiser for Senator Barrack Obama and the fundraiser held a week later by Magic Johnson and Quincy Jones (close friend of Oprah) for Senator Hillary Clinton. And why is this an important are to court many voters? Because of the coverage in unique areas and the reach celebrity has and the attention it gets. People are interested in these lives for different reasons – some are interested because it's purely entertainment others are interested because they want to get to know what they stand for in outside of the studio set. We look to it and cover it in politics and just for celebrity in general. O.J. is the classic example of the pop culture dominance in our country (and of course, Brittany is too!).

Thanks!
Sep 21, 2007 | comments: 48
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 21, 2007, 2:51pm EDT
I like your balance idea Ann. I think that works in television especially local television where you do not have as much time for one big story as you do for a few minutes here and there. Local news is definitely the place to go to get away from the larger OJ story but that's pretty much just out of scheduling not interest. Locals don't have the luxury to go 24/7 and they can't spend 20mintes on OJ alone. So even if by default you'll hear more than just OJ but you sure will hear it for at least a few minutes.

Local news is always an option (just not always on) to get balance – but hey if you watch the cable nets long enough you'll find options there too. I think the news and programming directors as well as individual show producers are faced with many questions on whether to cover and for how long.

Thanks for commenting!
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 20, 2007, 3:40pm EDT
Mario,

Thank you so much for commenting - you offer great insight and i appreciate your participation!
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 9:06pm EDT
Daniel - you are so right on the double standard between bad nutrition and bad portion sizes - as you can imagine I would vote no too....Thanks
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 5:12pm EDT
Gary, please re-read my entries and my reassertion to you - this is not about raising taxes - this is not about extra new taxes - this is not about taxing fast food - this is about an idea to pay for education to curb obesity in the area with tax revenues collected from any new fast food merchants instead of a moratorium on new - allow whatever new one's but use the tax revenue (already levied in the district - nothing new) from those to pay for programming for health education in the district.

Please re-read the past entries, thank you.
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 2:29pm EDT
Teresa, thank you so much for participating!
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 2:28pm EDT
Carol, thank you for commenting - you raise probably the best answer - educating children and form the best habits before they are bad ones. Thank you coming by!
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 2:27pm EDT
AC, I agree - starting with education is the key. Thank you for joining the conversation.
Sep 18, 2007 | comments: 81
Laura Schwartz White House Strategies Sep 19, 2007, 12:26pm EDT
Gary,
This is not to tax any company MORE! I want to reassert - We do not need to add taxes here - just use those from the additional fast food places that come into the district which would go to a normal tax revenue base anyway and currently so - and set them aside to combat obesity through city programming instead of the general coffers as a weigh to pay for health and education. Thanks
Page 1 of 11  first | prev | next 
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.