Friday, July 04, 2008

Don't toss the donation requests--take a page from Tesla

After a nearly two year hiatus, I've begun receiving regular donation solicitations again. Three came yesterday: A "census" questionnaire from the RNC, a form letter from the McCain campaign, the third from President Bush. The temptation is to just drop them into the trash with most everything else. But recalling the 'mass' phone bank firing* that took place just last year, I decided to resume scribbling slogans in the credit card information box like I did back in '06.

It's nothing profound or painstaking. To the RNC: When we build a wall, heavily fine employers taking advantage of subsidized labor, cut H2B visa issuances, drop the DVL altogether, and shift our legal residency grants toward EB-5s, my gifts will resume. Until then, not a dime.

To McCain: I'll be voting for Baldwin. Save the postage expense for illegal immigration tuition subsidization and ER treatments.

To Bush: Open borders and furtive attempts at amnesty are wrecking the Republican party. I won't throw good money after bad.

Eternal vigilance doesn't have to make you sweat!

* From the Washington Times article:

"Last year, my solicitations totaled $164,000, and this year the way they were running for the first four months, they would total $100,000 by the end of 2007," said one fired phone bank solicitor who asked not to be identified.

There has been a sharp decline in contributions from RNC phone solicitations, another fired staffer said, reporting that many former donors flatly refuse to give more money to the national party if Mr. Bush and the Senate Republicans insist on supporting what these angry contributors call "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
What do these phone bank staffers make? Is it a full-time, perennial job? With benefit costs, we're probably talking at least $40,000 a year annually, in addition to equipment operation, maintenance, and housing, database building and maintaining, etc. Close to fifty cents on the dollar probably goes just to sustain this type of fundraising.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wish one would call me so I could patiently explain to them that until we get a wall, and stop allowing any more illegal immigration, and that we line up against increasing immigration which we don't need, they will never get another dime from me.


Im planning on voting for Barr at this point, but intend to vote third party again this time. I voted from some guy named Peroutka in 04'. Maybe the RNC needs to get its ass handed to it to wake up. They will not get my vote by being the party of neocon immigration policy and coroprate h-1b visas, I'll tell you that. a

Anonymous said...

Constitution Party National Platform


Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.



If the Constitutional Party wasn't a refuge for the religious nuts who thought the Republican Party wasn't nutty enough, they might of been a worthwhile party. That and their lack of an environmental program is what is stopping me from supporting them.

Unfortunate how they are the only party that seems to consistently stand for an immigration reductionist policy.

B.B.

Sleep said...

It's possible that they get paid that well, but if they're anything like phone-survey takers and telemarketers they make minimum wage plus commission, which usually works out to be about $10 an hour in the end.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Likewise. But why not let them hear it even without solicitation, and even if it's just a staffer opening up envelopes. Word gets around.

BB,

I'm not religious, but I don't find that preamble necessarily bothersome. Evangelical Christians are the most restrictionist on immigration (relative to mainline Protestants, Catholics, and secularists, according to a Pew survey), by far the most important issue we face going forward, so far as I can tell.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone said...

I'm not religious, but I don't find that preamble necessarily bothersome. Evangelical Christians are the most restrictionist on immigration (relative to mainline Protestants, Catholics, and secularists, according to a Pew survey), by far the most important issue we face going forward, so far as I can tell.

Appeals to divine command don't stop at the preamble. Considering the complexities of modern policy decisions, I don't think a government that looks almost exclusively to ancient moral teachings for political guidance can be trusted to consistently make decisions that are in the best interests of U.S citizens. Indeed, their normative philosophy doesn't adhere to a moral system that upholds the collective good of the people to be the highest ideal, but submission to God.

It is unfortunate that due to political circumstances evangelicals constitute one of the only sources of opposition to mass migration.

I am hoping that the Green Party will eventually come to their senses and realize the primacy of population size in relation to environmental preservation and sustainability. Opposition to immigration on ecological grounds has been marginalized over the last couple of years, because the environmental movement has been taken of by "social justice" type people who have prioritized social justice over the environment and right-wing immigration restrictionists who deny the existence of various environmental problems due to other political sympathies when it comes to issues of private enterprise and the free-market. There are still a handful of voices of reason in the environmental movement, such as FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) founder John Tanton. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the environmental and immigration restrictionist movement, but until then I will abstain from party-support.

Anonymous said...

I was home at my parent's place not too long ago and a RNC solicitor happened to call. My mom, who used to contribute and work for the Republicans, gave the caller a 20 minute talk as to why the RNC would not be getting a red cent and why. She was polite, but firm. I can imagine she wasn't the only person who spoke her mind.
My parents, who have always been pretty conservative, have become even more right wing as they have gotten older. Don't know if this is true for anyone else, but they are really pissed off at the RNC, who they see as a bunch of sell-outs, not to mention the liberal/left in this country who they see as nothing but traitors. They see themselves as being under attack for their success, skin color and (non-religious)beliefs(and so do I for that matter). I have to admit it is fucked up to think that your parents would be manning the barricades in their late 60s.
PS save the money you would spend on donations for the RNC for guns and ammo. I think we're going to need them, unfortuantely.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mexicans in the US have more children than Mexicans in Mexico do. Our immigration policies are not only causing our population to burgeon, they are helping global population accelerate faster as well, without adding many people who are going to find ways to better the environment. Other leading 'green' organizations also have little credibility. The Sierra Club washed its hands of immigration to placate a major donor and several months ago I read a 5,000 word article in NG that lamented growing water usage in the Southwest (Arizona specifically, if memory serves) due to settlement patterns over the last several decades. Yeah, settlement patterns. From North Dakota, I guess, because there was not a single mention of Hispanic immigration in the entire article!

Justin Halter said...

"Indeed, their normative philosophy doesn't adhere to a moral system that upholds the collective good of the people to be the highest ideal, but submission to God."

Unfortunately, this comment by Anonymous is highly ignorant, and mainly reflects liberal elite propaganda.

Submission to God, in a Christian context, is an act of personal faith. It does not conflict with the "collective good of the people" as the highest ideal.

The religious right strongly believes in separation of church and state, but, like our Founders, believes that morality and religion are the bedrocks of a free civil society.

Quite frankly, I think they have a good point there.

Anonymous said...

Justin Halter said...
"Indeed, their normative philosophy doesn't adhere to a moral system that upholds the collective good of the people to be the highest ideal, but submission to God."

Unfortunately, this comment by Anonymous is highly ignorant, and mainly reflects liberal elite propaganda.

Submission to God, in a Christian context, is an act of personal faith. It does not conflict with the "collective good of the people" as the highest ideal.


One cannot adhere to a consequentalist utilitarian ethic and divine command theory at the same time. They are mutually exclusive ethical philosophies that set completely different standards in determining the rightness/wrongness of an action.

Indeed many do consider submission to God as an issue of personal faith, especially the more liberal and libertarian minded Christians, but Christians of a neo-conservative and paleo-conservative political bend overwhelmingly adhere to an ethical philosophy whose sole criteria for determining the morality of an action is whether it is consistent with biblical edict. Taking this belief to its logical conclusion, they see no other justification for government policies other than what they believe their God commands of them.

Justin Halter said...
The religious right strongly believes in separation of church and state, but, like our Founders, believes that morality and religion are the bedrocks of a free civil society.

I strongly disagree that there is any real support for Church/State separation amongst todays religious right. The founders were uniformly consistent in their opposition to religion mingling with government, however their personal views about what religion contributed to society in general varied. Thomas Jefferson for example didn't see religion as a bedrock of civil society, but as an obstruction to it.

Thomas Jefferson on Christianity and Religion

Anonymous said...

I really should make a habit out of signing my posts.

Comments #2, #5 and #9 are mine btw

B.B.

Audacious Epigone said...

Interesting discussion. I've heard multiple interpretations of Jesus' "render unto Caesar's..." line in Matthew. It is of enormous theological importance. Some literalists take from this that separation Justin is talking about. I have a 7th Day Adventist friend who does. Too bad Pew didn't hone in on the church/state relationship in its latest report on religion in America.

Justin Halter said...

Curious what makes you say this: "I strongly disagree that there is any real support for Church/State separation amongst todays religious right."

And this gem: "One cannot adhere to a consequentalist utilitarian ethic and divine command theory at the same time..."

You obviously don't know any actual conservative Christians.

I no longer argue with atheist philosophers. They are always talking about philosophy. I am more interested in reality. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Justin Halter said...
Curious what makes you say this: "I strongly disagree that there is any real support for Church/State separation amongst todays religious right."

The religious right isn't really shy about this. I say that there is no real support for Church/State separation amongst todays religious right because todays religious right say that Church/State separation is a myth. David Barton, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and many others have all made their position very clear that they believe that Church and state were never intended to be separate.

Justin Halter said...
And this gem: "One cannot adhere to a consequentalist utilitarian ethic and divine command theory at the same time..."

You obviously don't know any actual conservative Christians.


Feel free to name me some modern Christian conservatives that adhere to a utilitarian ethical philosophy.

Justin Halter said...
I no longer argue with atheist philosophers. They are always talking about philosophy. I am more interested in reality. Oh well.

I wasn't aware that philosophy and reality were mutually exclusive subjects.

B.B.