How to talk to a kinkaroo. (kinky supporter)

[johncoby2]

THIS WAS POSTED BY ANOTHER DUer TEXAPOO. I THOUGHT IT DESERVED MORE ATTENTION. I LIKE THIS:


Uninformed Registered Moderate/Left Voter: "I'm voting for the Kinkster - Yahoo!"

DUer: "Kinky is a funny guy, but aren't you tired of getting sodomized by right-wingers who have sold out to real estate developers and big business?"

UV: "Kinkaroony will show them where it's at - yahoo (burp)!"

DUer: "Do you have any idea where Kinky stands on the issues?"

UV: "Uh - he said SOMETHING about sticking somebody in a room listening to a Negro talking to himself..."

DUer: "Yeah. See - that's the problem I have. Some of us just think this election is too serious to give back to Rick Perry. We need real leadership. Do you realize that Chris Bell is the one guy who dared to stand up to Tom DeLay in Congress? That he has a history as an investigative reporter and a reformer who fights governmental corruption. Kinky is pulling a lot of press right now, but it would be sad if you overlooked such a great guy, especially if Rick Perry is the punchline to your joke. Chris Bell has strong support among the Democratic base, and his views make a lot of sense."

UV: (sheepishly) "I guess I'll check him out. Why haven't I seen him on the news?"

DUer: "Well, he's not clowning around in a black cowboy hat with a cigar, he's not a troll with a grudge, and he's not financed by oligarchs. It's hard to compete for press time when you are up against a three ring circus...."

[Czolgosz]

1. I have spoken with many Kinky addicts. I find that when you try to dissuad

them, they tend to get defensive and shut down (because their preference for Kinky is not an intellectual preference). It can be like trying to use a logical argument to persuade an Aggie that they ought to reconsider rooting for Texas A&M - there are few logical arguments that would be persuasive because their devotion is not based on logic.

With a progressive Kinky addict, I usually say something like this:

"I'm really glad that Kink's candidacy will open up the public debate on bio-diesel. I like Kinky's views on alternative energy, and I'd like to be on-board with his candidacy, but there are some issues where either I don't understand his position or I don't agree with it. I'd really like to talk to someone about his candidacy because I'd like to know if my disagreement is real or just a misunderstanding. Is there someone who you talked to who got you interested in the campaign? I'd be very interested in talking with someone like that so I could get a better understanding of Kinky's views on immigration, criminal punishment, prayer in public schools, Kinky's past voting record, and a few other issues."

Over the course of the conversation, I usually try to ask some of the following questions:

1. Does Kinky really want to build a wall on the Texas-Mexico border?
2. Does Kinky really want to pay Mexican generals to control our border?
3. Did Kinky really testify under oath in the Soffar case that he's against the death penalty?
4. If so, why does his website say "Kinky is not anti-death-penalty"?
5. Did Kinky really advocate punishing criminals by throwing them in prison to "make 'em listen to a Negro talking to himself"?
6. Is Kinky strongly committed to reproductive choice for women?
7. If so, why did he dodge the issue until more than a year after he announced his candidacy (he always used to say "I'm not pro-life, and I'm not pro choice. I'm pro football!")?
8. Did the National Organization of Women really name Kinky "Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year"?
9. Does Kinky really support gay marriage?
10. If so, did he bother to vote when it was on the ballot?
11. Does Kinky really want time set aside every day in public school classrooms for prayers?
12. Does Kinky really want the Ten Commandments posted in all public school classrooms?
13. If so, does Kinky want the Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish version posted (and isn't he aware that they aren't the same)?
14. Did Kinky really vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004?
15. Is it true that Kinky's vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004 was his only vote in the past 12 years?
16. Did Kinky really say "I agree with most of Bush's political positions overseas, his foreign policy" and "What he’s been doing in the Near East and in the Middle East, he’s handling that well, I think"?
17. Did Kinky run for office in the past, but as a Republican and not an Independent?
18. Did Kinky really say in an interview that he voted for Gore in 2000?
19. Do Kinky's official Kerr County voting records confirm that Kinky did not vote for Gore in 2000?
20. Did Kinky really say that he'd like to give his biggest campaign donor (who has no political experience) the highest appointed political office in Texas?

I'm not sure if this exercise converts the Kinky addicts (because their devotion is not based on logic), but it definitely stops them from trying to spread the Kinky fever to other potential voters.


With a reactionary Kinky addict, I usually say something like this:

"Yee-haw! That Kinky feller's a damn sight better that sissy-haired Perry feller, ain't he!"


P.S. In case anyone needs the answer key to the 20 questions above, the answers are:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Because he's a craven political opportunist.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. See answer to #4.
8. Yes.
9. By lip service only.
10. No.
11. Yes.
12. Yes.
13. He hasn't said.
14. Yes.
15. Yes.
16. Yes.
17. Yes.
18. Yes.
19. Yes.
20. Yes.

[Texaroo]

3. Ahhhh, but there's the rub, grasshopper...

...It shouldn't be geared towards dissuading, but rather toward redirecting. We need to work Chris Bell into the conversation, as a reasonable choice and a viable candidate. I don't think many people really believe that Kinky has a legitimate shot - I mean, who REALLY supports his "platform?" No one I know - they just dismiss what he says as a part of the joke. Convince the disenfranchised that they can elect a winner - that's the trick, IMHO.

I think even bringing the 2000 Nader vote in Florida as a discussion point would be useful - people who voted for Nader thought the was a great candidate, too, and that their votes really wouldn't matter. So they voted 'on principle.' And they helped get us into war - funny thing, but I don't think Naderites are traditional imperialists.

The road to hell is paved with votes for independents....

[Czolgosz]

5. There's a good argument that Bell is the ONLY viable alternative to Perry.

Remember back to 1998. George Bush was a very popular governor (not with me, of course, but with many Texans), and the Democrats nominated a good guy (a great guy, actually) with little name identification and less money. His name was Garry Mauro, and it was generally understood that Garry had no chance whatsoever of winning. Garry worked hard but his campaign was grossly underfunded and his opponent had all the money in the world and, in the end, that election netted Garry 31% of the vote versus Bush's 68% of the vote. 31% of Texans vote for Mauro despite the fact that his name identification was very low, the details of his goals for the governorship were largely unknown by most Texans, and he really couldn't afford to run a statewide campaign because no one would fund this candidacy which was doomed to lose.

Mauro's vote was the yellow dog Democrat vote -- the vote who would have voted for the Democrat even if they knew he was going to lose and even if they didn't know anything about him or his candidacy other than he was the Democratic nominee. That vote is about 31% of Texas voters.

Next, remember back to 2002. Tony Sanchez was our candidate. We learned the lesson from 1998 that -- without money -- we can't run a statewide campaign so we picked a candidate who could fund his own campaign (never mind that this guy was a Bush supporter and had some questionable dealings in the past). Tony, who ran a statewide campaign but who ran it about as poorly as it could have been run, netted 40% of the vote against Perry's 57%.

As I interpret these results, some number very close to 31% of the Texas voters will vote for the Democrat even when he's not run much of a statewide campaign and even when he is going to lose. 40% of Texas voters will vote for a weak-as-dishwater Democratic candidate with a bit of money to run a half-assed statewide campaign.

The 9% difference from 1998 to 2002 is at jeopardy to sniping from c4n3p and Kinky, but neither of these two Republicans can cut too deeply into the 31% yellow dog Democrat vote.

Perry's numbers have slumped as low as 36% in some polls. If c4n3p is unusually effective against his base, or if Texans wake up as see how badly Texas children have been screwed by Perry's bullshit education under-financing fiasco, he should dip lower than 36% but not too much lower.

If you put the Democratic base at 31% (expandable up to 40% with a half-assed campaign) and Perry's hard-core Christofascist Enronpublican base at 36% -- then you subtract the traditional 2% for Greens, Libertarians, and other minor third parties -- Kinky and c4n3p have 31% soft-core moderate voters to split between themselves before they have to cut into the hard-core Democrat or Enronpublican bases -- but remember that Bell is also in a good position to claim a fair portion of this 31& soft-core mushy moderate vote.

So Perry has his "life-long Republican" voters as a base from which to build support and Bell has his "life-long Democrat" voters as a base from which to build support, but c4n3p and Kinky have to individually win every vote they take.

Can c4n3p achieve that?

She's a Republican, who identifies herself as a Republican even in the ads for her campaign as an Independent. C4n3p has voted in every single Republican primary since 1990 (as far back as Travis County Elections Administration records go). In 2000 and 2004 she campaigned for Bush, and in 2002, she endorsed Perry and campaigned with him. She'll take some of the "9% Democrats" (the type who voted for Sanchez but didn't vote for Mauro), but I haven't met any hard-core Democrats who are supporting her (none of the "31% Mauro Democrats").

If c4n3p is going to challenge Perry, she will need to (a) clean up among the 31% soft-core moderates, (b) take a huge bite out of Bell's 31% yellow-dog Democrat base, and (c) take another huge bite out of Perry's 36% crazy-as-a-fruit-bat Enronpublican base. Essentially, c4n3p must simultaneously position herself to the left to steal as many votes as possible from Bell while she positions herself to the right to get as large a portion as possible of Perry's vote -- while not annoying the 31% of the moderate vote. That can't be done. C4n3p cannot get a majority of the 64% of the vote which is not Perry's because too much of that vote is Democrats. Whether you think Bell gets 31% of the vote simply for being the Democratic nominee or 20% or 15%, it's still too large of an advantage for c4n3p to make up.

Kinky can't do it either.

He is running on progressive support according to all the polling, but he is not progressive on any issues other than alternative fuels. Once the medial covers Kinky's campaign as a real campaign and not a "here's a look at the lighter side of the news" story, the honeymoon will end where he currently enjoys the support of voters who neither know what Kinky stands for nor support his outrageous shit. Kinky also cannot get a majority of the 64% of the not-Perry vote because too much of that vote is sane.

Now, how about Bell?

He has his built in yellow dog Democrat base (whether you consider it 31%, 20%, or 15%) just for being on the ballot as the Democratic nominee so he starts out with a huge chunk (half to a quarter) of the 64% of the not-Perry vote. Also, Bell has BY FAR the worst name recognition. Having the lowest name recognition in the race means Bell has the most room to grow.



Can Bell win?

I don't know.

But I know c4n3p and Kinky can't win.

So it's Bell or Perry.

As people realize the fact that only Bell can beat Perry, there is every reason to expect that the anti-Perry vote will consolidate around Bell (because the 31% soft-core support is most fluid and should trend toward the candidate with the best chance of upsetting Perry).

[Zen Democrat]

6. In response to the list of questions.......

1. Does Kinky really want to build a wall on the Texas-Mexico border? - Whatever, the Gov. of Texas isn't the President of the United States.

2. Does Kinky really want to pay Mexican generals to control our border? - Whatever, the Gov. of Texas isn't the President of the United States.

3. Did Kinky really testify under oath in the Soffar case that he's against the death penalty? Yes.

4. If so, why does his website say "Kinky is not anti-death-penalty"? - Because he changed his mind. It's been reported in the Houston Chronicle and he's saying it in his campaign speeches. He changed his mind. Whoever manages his website -- and it's not Kinky -- should change that.

5. Did Kinky really advocate punishing criminals by throwing them in prison to "make 'em listen to a Negro talking to himself"? -- He's built a career on being politically incorrect. That's his schtick. You can like it, you can dislike it. Nobody's that's ever known Kinky has ever accused him of being intolerant or racist. He's just he opposite.

6. Is Kinky strongly committed to reproductive choice for women? -- Yes.

7. If so, why did he dodge the issue until more than a year after he announced his candidacy (he always used to say "I'm not pro-life, and I'm not pro choice. I'm pro football!")? -- Again, Kink likes to make people laugh. It's a joke.

8. Did the National Organization of Women really name Kinky "Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year"? - Yeah. In one of their bizarre moves, not realizing that the song was a complete parody on ... what? ... male chauvinist pigs! What we have here is failure to comprehend humor.

9. Does Kinky really support gay marriage? -- Yep.

10. If so, did he bother to vote when it was on the ballot? -- Well, I dont' know. I support it, but I missed that election too.

11. Does Kinky really want time set aside every day in public school classrooms for prayers? -- Not to my knowledge. He says he's for gay marriage and prayer in school, but he's not for forcing anyone into same sex marriage or mandatory prayer.

12. Does Kinky really want the Ten Commandments posted in all public school classrooms? -- Haven't heard that one. Personally, I don't think the Supreme Court (at least as we've known in in the past 60 years) would go for that one, regardless of what any governor said.

13. If so, does Kinky want the Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish version posted (and isn't he aware that they aren't the same)? -- Kinky's not exactly a religious guy. I wouldn't worry too much about any zealotry on his part.

14. Did Kinky really vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004? -- Apparently so. I was about 10 feet from Kinky when I overhead him say, "George Bush is a nice enough fella, even if he is a damned Republican."

15. Is it true that Kinky's vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004 was his only vote in the past 12 years? -- Not according to Kinky.

16. Did Kinky really say "I agree with most of Bush's political positions overseas, his foreign policy" and "What he’s been doing in the Near East and in the Middle East, he’s handling that well, I think"? -- Kinky acknowledged publicly that he agreed with the Iraq War in 2003, but now agrees with his friend Willie Nelson that it was a horrible mistake. Kinky has no problem admitting when he's made a mistake, or when he changes his mind.

17. Did Kinky run for office in the past, but as a Republican and not an Independent? -- Again, he ran as a joke. He ran for JP in Kerrville and NOT A SERIOUS CAMPAIGN. He said he ran as a Republican because there weren't "nothing but Republicans" in Kerrville and that he wanted to "declare peace on Fredericksburg." Remember, Kinky Friedman has always been a Prankster a la Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters of the '60's. That's why Kinky is close to Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson, among other counter-culture heroes of our youth. He has met Gee-Dub a couple of times and stayed at the White House. He has met Big Dog a few times and stayed at the White House then, too. Bill Clinton visits Kinky when he's in the Austin area. But if there ever was a true independent, it's the Kinkster.

18. Did Kinky really say in an interview that he voted for Gore in 2000? Yes.

19. Do Kinky's official Kerr County voting records confirm that Kinky did not vote for Gore in 2000? -- Just because he didn't vote in Kerr County doesn't mean he didn't vote. Kinky lived primarily in New York during much of the 80' and '90's. He's had "dual citizenship" so to say. Who knows where he voted in 2000?

20. Did Kinky really say that he'd like to give his biggest campaign donor (who has no political experience) the highest appointed political office in Texas? -- You mean the Secretary of State job? Who do you think gets that position in Texas? It's always been a patronage job. It will be if Chris Bell or Grandma gets in, too. The Secretary of State of Texas does basically NOTHING. It's ceremonial. The staff carries on the business of the Secretary of State's office regardless of who sits in the office.

I've been through this over and over on this board. I'm a Democrat. I will vote for Chris Bell. I didn't sign Kinky's petition, although I've heard him speak twice this past year, and personally I like him immensely. But politics is way more serious that who is the most entertaining.

Bottom line, don't waste time arguing with people who like Kinky Friedman. All my East Texas Republican kin that have voted straight Republican tickets since Ronald Reagan are all supporting Kinky this year. And they would rather lose a kidney before voting for a Democrat. That's just the way it is. We can start the change, we can move people back from the edge little by little, but it's going to take time.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

[Texaroo]

7. Great post

Dovetails with what I have been saying - Kink's not the enemy, but part of the opposition. And outrageousness is part of the package...

[Czolgosz]

8. Where do you get this? You randomly chose to believe and disbelieve Kinky.

You say: "why does his website say "Kinky is not anti-death-penalty"? - Because he changed his mind. It's been reported in the Houston Chronicle and he's saying it in his campaign speeches. He changed his mind. Whoever manages his website -- and it's not Kinky -- should change that."

What makes you believe that Kinky's testimony in the Soffar case was genuine but his website is incorrect? As a matter of fact, Kinky has reiterated his line about not being against the death penalty, just being against executing the wrong guy AFTER he gave the testimony in the Soffar case. Please show me where Kinky has disavowed the statement on his own website.


You say: "Nobody's that's ever known Kinky has ever accused him of being intolerant or racist. He's just he opposite."

You don't have the personal knowledge to support such a statement.


You say: "Is Kinky strongly committed to reproductive choice for women? -- Yes."

Where do you get this? He LITERALLY refused to take a position on a constitutionally recognized right of reproductive freedom for more than a year of his campaign despite the fact that he was asked about the issue many, many times. What basis do you have for concluding that Kinky is strongly committed to a right that he refused to even discuss until recently?


You say "why did he dodge the issue until more than a year after he announced his candidacy (he always used to say "I'm not pro-life, and I'm not pro choice. I'm pro football!")? -- Again, Kink likes to make people laugh. It's a joke.

Guess what? It's not a joke to everyone. We're not all laughing.


You say "Does Kinky really want time set aside every day in public school classrooms for prayers? -- Not to my knowledge. He says he's for gay marriage and prayer in school, but he's not for forcing anyone into same sex marriage or mandatory prayer.

If you bothered to read up on Kinky you would see that he does, in fact, support setting time aside every day in public school classrooms for prayers.


You say "Does Kinky really want the Ten Commandments posted in all public school classrooms? -- Haven't heard that one. Personally, I don't think the Supreme Court (at least as we've known in in the past 60 years) would go for that one, regardless of what any governor said."

If you read up on Kinky's views on the issue, you would know that Kinky does, in fact, support posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms (and you are right that the Supreme Court would likely find this a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause).


You say: "Kinky's not exactly a religious guy. I wouldn't worry too much about any zealotry on his part."

As far as I can tell, Kinky's the only candidate who's advocating prayer and posting the Ten Commandments in public schools so I have to question your views on whether or not he's religious or whether we should worry about his zealotry.


You say: "Is it true that Kinky's vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004 was his only vote in the past 12 years? -- Not according to Kinky."

Should we believe Kinky or the paper voting records maintained by Kerr County?


You say: "Kinky acknowledged publicly that he agreed with the Iraq War in 2003, but now agrees with his friend Willie Nelson that it was a horrible mistake."

Where?


You say: "Do Kinky's official Kerr County voting records confirm that Kinky did not vote for Gore in 2000? -- Just because he didn't vote in Kerr County doesn't mean he didn't vote. Kinky lived primarily in New York during much of the 80' and '90's. He's had "dual citizenship" so to say. Who knows where he voted in 2000?"

No one has dual citizenship for voting purposes.


You say: "the Secretary of State {has} always been a patronage job. It will be if Chris Bell or Grandma gets in, too. The Secretary of State of Texas does basically NOTHING. It's ceremonial. The staff carries on the business of the Secretary of State's office regardless of who sits in the office."

That's simply a misunderstanding of the Secretary of State position, which is generally not a patronage job and which does, in fact, entail significant responsibilities.



Where do you get the information you are passing along? It's wildly inaccurate.

[cosmik debris]

11. Thank You Very Much!!!

For pointing out that Kinky is a joke, not a joker. Some of what he says might be funny in a bar after six or eight beers (if you are a misogynist, racist, or other form of dingbat), but in a political context, it is just embarrassing. Regardless, we don't need a tasteless comic, we need a governor--a DEMOCRATIC governor!

I support John's call to BAN pro-Kinky post in this DEMOCRATIC forum. If kinkaroos want a forum they can establish the Tasteless Comic Underground. Democratic Underground is not the place for anti-Democrats.

[johncoby2]

9. This is a great response!

Just goes to show you that the only people more stupid than Kinko are those who believe his crap.

He truly is a maverick. An idiot maverick. Just what Texas needs right now.

[Texaroo]

2. Why, thank you, John..

I appreciate the attention. My only point is that we need to aggressively go after the Kinky supporters and intelligently redirect them, not insult them....

[johncoby2]

4. Here is my discussion:

Kinkaroo: I'm votin fer Kinky.
Me: Why?
Kinkaroo: Why the hell not?
Me: You are a dumb fuck.


See? I didn't waste too much time.

[ashling]

10. Its hard to convince these people

with facts and logic.

[crispini]

12. It's hard to convince ANYONE with facts and logic.

Which is why we need a good "frame" for the gov. race. Right now we don't have it.

[NoPasaran]

13. So true

You'll get a lot further with facts and logic and a couple of pitchers of beer than you ever will with just facts and logic.