One year out from the next election, the President’s 2012 reelection coffers are failing to fill up at a fast enough rate to meet the quarterly bilking quota. Thus the situation demands a new tactic to prod, embarrass and shame former contributors into making the same mistake they made last time by sending money to reelect a man who, if truth be told, most people wish would retire.
One thing Obama has never had a problem doing was finding a way to guilt people out of money. In fact, money grubbing appears to be the President’s singular forte.
With that in mind, the Obama reelection campaign has come up with a way to mortify people into contributing – sending emails that threaten to expose traitorous former patrons to neighborhood drones who remain faithful.
Initially, the Obama 2012 fundraising effort commenced with a $5 Dinner with Barack raffle. After that idea failed to sell, the concept morphed into a “fired-up” first lady cheerleading supporters into coughing up cash by hawking raffle tickets for the discounted price of $3.
Apparently, that creative tactic hasn’t worked either, because America’s socialist-leaning anti-capitalist president is now hoping to finance his reelection by injecting a perverse form of — dare I say, competition — into the fundraising effort by “ever-so-gently sham[ing] supporters into donating.”
Even if the effort ends up failing, the concept is a good one, because the method could have an effect on baby boomers who grew up way before being first in a competition was considered mean-spirited and guilt and humiliation still held sway over the insecure.
With that in mind, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina came up with an “Everyone else has done it, so what’s your problem?” approach to fundraising. On Obama’s behalf, Mr. Messina is encouraging potential supporters “to chip in, by pointing out how many of their neighbors had already done so.” Let’s just say it’s a community-minded “Keeping up with the Joneses” fundraising endeavor.
According to a New York recipient who hadn’t yet contributed, an email of shame was dispatched which pointed out the following: “Here’s something you don’t have in common with 15,049 other supporters of this movement who tell us they live in New York, NY.”
Maybe the next email can say “Hey Charlie, since you’re the only cheapskate on the block, when we send out the Non-Contributor Hall of Shame flyer next week we’ve decided to feature your picture on the cover.”
Messina’s email informed delinquent donors that those who have already been successfully conned “had their own personal reason for giving.” Yeah, like avoiding public degradation; being spurned by Democrat neighbors; or risking being visited personally by a troupe of convincing donation collectors hand-picked by Rahm Emanuel.
Those trying to keep a low profile by refusing to pick up the phone and waving off the door-to-door solicitors can run but they can’t hide, because the Obama reelection campaign is actually keeping score. The “Cheapskate” email informed non-donors that the campaign is aware of who is giving and who is not, saying, “Our records show that you aren’t one of the 15,049 people where you’re from who have stepped up for 2012. Now’s your chance to change that.”
One email sent to Grayslake, IL noted that 160 people had “stepped up for the president.” In other words, step up the giving, or prepare to be publicly stepped on.
Former Bush campaign worker Brad Blakeman, who worked on the 2000 campaign and served in the Bush White House, commented that he’s “never seen a fundraising pitch quite like it — and there’s a reason for that.” Blakeman feels that this style of fundraising borders on coercion because it intimates that if a person doesn’t contribute to Obama, somehow their neighbors are going to be alerted to private donation information. In other words, it’s a pioneering effort in strong-arming via email.
Let’s face it, what disgruntled Obama 2008 voter living in Ithaca – New York’s most liberal town – while dragging the recycling bin to the curb or adjusting their solar panels, would want to chance hearing their name broadcast over a mobile loudspeaker identifying them as the sole Obama campaign non-contributor in town?
Nonetheless, as with everything the Obama administration does, according to Blakeman, “the approach will probably work on some people but is ‘more detrimental than it is beneficial.'” Especially since Jim Messina isn’t even taking into consideration the fact that, according to the polls, not everyone, even on the most liberal block in America, is planning to vote for Obama again, let alone contribute to his 2012 reelection bid.
In the current political climate, even people in Ithaca may find themselves in greater danger of humiliation if they contribute to Obama in 2012 than if they joined the rest of the nation and chose not to.