Super Tuesday - About Last Night... (notes)

by Rick Hill

Tonight is a huge night for the Republican Presidential candidates.  The results could mean a potential pulling-away for Mitt Romney, a key closing of the gap for Rick Santorum, or a last-ditch effort for Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich to remain relevant in the race.  As most of Super Tuesday comes to a close, I took the liberty to comment on a few pieces of Fox News’ coverage of the ten primaries at stake:

·         Like two weeks ago, I started putting comments together way too late.  It’s currently 10:30, and it appears that most of the states are wrapped up.  A majority of the cases are no-brainers (Romney in Massachusetts, Vermont and Virginia, Santorum in Oklahoma and Tennessee, Gingrich in Georgia), but what’s striking are some of the margins of victory:  Santorum took Tennessee by far more than I expected, and Gingrich wasn’t even close in that key Southern state.  Gingrich needs to hang it up.  Paul should have hung it up a while ago.

·         They should never allow two Fox News talking heads to use whiteboards at the same time.  The numbers and makeshift charts are way too confusing between Rove and the Gingrich advisor.  It’s like a really bad episode of Around the Horn.

·         As of 10:40, they still can’t call Ohio.  Santorum appears to be up by 1%, and with only 80% reporting, it’s still too close to call.  In all seriousness, that race was the real toss-up for the night:  older reports gave the state to Santorum, but Romney has been surging as of late.  I wish I could look more closely at the precincts with extra sets of eyes, but I sadly do not have a working knowledge of voting behavior in Ohio.  All I know about the state politically is its knack for predicting Presidents:

·         Ohio’s counties are messy like Pennsylvania’s, like a fun jigsaw puzzle for those 8 and up… a great deal uglier than the neat make-up of Iowa counties, for sure.

·         Exit polling:  So you’re going to ask Ohio Republicans whether they think we should choose a background in business or in government?    Gee whiz… anyways, Santorum’s appeal to voters under 30 is interesting.  Romney’s low polling numbers among the same group is a far cry from our chapter’s feelings on the race thus far.  In other numbers, Santorum also wins the populist battle once again, winning the question of who understands the problems of average Americans better.  Even this guy, however, finds that a question bizarrely framed:  what exactly is an “average” American (let alone an Ohio Republican’s perception of that)?  In addition, how do you properly encapsulate the problems they face?

·         85% reporting - RAZOR THIN!  Santorum by roughly 2,000.  Seeing as some of the bigger counties (Franklin, for example) are under 75% reporting, there’s a very good chance Romney could leapfrog here in the next ten minutes.

·         One of the big things that the talking heads continue to juggle is Romney’s inability to lock up specific kinds of voters with whom Santorum does very well. These groups include blue-collar workers and evangelicals.  As the front-runner in 2012, Romney has got to figure these groups out, and I must admit these groups’ stubbornness against the former governor concerns me.  I think he’s the best choice to beat the President, but he has to find a way to make other voters feel that way.  It’s his best case against candidates who align more to the right of him.

·         Santorum chose Steubenville for his Ohio campaign HQ.  Shocker.

·         And Romney just took the lead as of 11:06pm.  Most of the punditry suggested since polls closed that Romney would close the large early gap Santorum created, with rural counties calculating their results more quickly.   I suggest Romney probably has Ohio, and he’ll claim five out of the ten contests.  Though he will claim three or four, the situation for Santorum is dire:  if he wants to win anything in the near future, he’s got to kick Gingrich out of the race as the primaries move to Mississippi and Alabama.  Even though the South and the Midwest are not the entire country, they make up an important psychological base for an anti-Romney effort.  Santorum’s biggest draw is that he presents himself as a true right-of-right alternative to the more moderate, more businesslike Romney.

·         Romney’s opened up a 5,000+ voter lead as of 11:15.  Shouldn’t be long until this one gets called…

·         John Bolton is one of my favorites in contemporary politics.  As a foreign policy nut myself, I couldn’t agree more that views and approaches to foreign policy often serve as important surrogates to quality of leadership.  I’m not entirely sold on his denunciation of the President’s comments today related to Obama’s reaction to what GOP candidates have been saying about Iran, Israel and the like:  in all honesty, only the President has the advantage of sitting behind the Commander-in-Chief’s desk and truly understanding our strategic place in the world.  I may not agree with the President, but I respect his perspective.  Nevertheless, I think Bolton is spot-on with his evaluation of the implications of Iran’s potentiality of gaining a nuclear weapon.

·         It’s 11:40, and this thing still isn’t over.  Even if Romney took just five of the states, another positive point for the campaign is that he finished second in all of the others (except North Dakota, in which Ron Paul is still technically in second).  That confidence is important for Romney:  as long as the final numbers stay close, it means that he still has strong appeal in the states he didn’t win.  Those results are the key to a good base for the general election.

·         Right before midnight, and I’m really confused as to why Fox just cut to a brief excerpt from a Kucinich speech (apparently he’s losing something in the first week of March?).  Then again, this is certainly not the first time I find myself bewildered by Dennis Kucinich’s attempts to string together a complete thought…

·         I find it mind-numbing that Fox anchors have to introduce Sarah Palin as the former Governor of Alaska and former Vice Presidential candidate.  Her time on Fox News since the 2008 election suggests to me that most people who religiously follow Fox have a rough idea of who she is.  I still close my eyes and imagine Kitty from That 70’s Show is speaking... wow, she struggles with complex sentences.

And so I went to bed last night not posting any more.  But in the end, as we all know, Romney pulled it out. Before I turned off the television, I told myself I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, and now it seems that each side is claiming victory for various pieces of the race.  As the story develops more, the Pitt CR's will be sure to offer commentary, especially as the race advances and heads south.  Hope you enjoyed the notes!

      (By the way, if the memes are not as appealing as I perceive them to be, please just let me know.  I'll curb my behavior.)

Andrew Breitbart: In Memoriam

Andrew Breitbart was a hero both philosophically and functionally to young conservatives across the country.  We may not have agreed with him on every issue, and it serves us well as a free society to have differences of opinion.  However, his spirit lives on in each one of us as we battle every day in the modern political scene.  This post is dedicated to him.

CPAC 2011 - Breitbart with Pitt CR's - Rest in peace, good sir...

Four of our esteemed members took the opportunity to reflect on fond memories meeting Mr. Breitbart:

Josh Guckert

         Andrew Breitbart never held public office. He never ran for president. He never made himself the center of attention. He always reserved that right for the issues at hand which he cared about so deeply. Born into a liberal family in Los Angeles, Breitbart had to decide for himself what his values and principles were at an early age. At some point during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings, he claimed to have had an ‘epiphany’ in which he realized he was a Reagan conservative. Little did the country know at that time just how big of an impact that revelation would have. He would go on to expose voter fraud by ACORN in 2009, force Shirley Sherrod to resign from the Department of Agriculture in 2010, and embarrass Anthony Weiner into resignation in 2011.


         At the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., I was part of a group who was approached by this very average-looking man. His hair was long and uncombed, and it looked like he hadn’t shaved in a few days. However, when I got to shake his hand and talk to him briefly, I realized that this was the epitome of what he stood for. He wasn’t there to put on a show and try to be something he was not, like so many politicians. He was there to work with his fellow conservatives in achieving the goals that he felt so passionately about. He didn’t have the luxury of lip service. His efficacy was judged purely on results. And on that front, not many can or ever will compare to Andrew Breitbart.

Elizabeth Matenkoski

            I, like a few other of my fellow Pitt CRs, met Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2011. After having heard him speak, we randomly ran into him and who must have been his assistant.  Andrew was kind enough to stop and take a few photos with us including a formal one, and another one where he jumped in front of the group, got down on one knee and his arms spread out, true to his witty personality.

Breitbart was a strong personality in the conservative world and will be remembered for shedding light on the Anthony Weiner scandal, and for almost singlehandedly bringing down ACORN.  He was an incredible asset for all conservatives and will be strongly missed.

Steve Bosela

          Breitbart was the first person who I heard speak at CPAC. While I wasn't able to follow along with some of what he was talking about, I knew that I had witnessed some serious fire power in the conservative movement's arsenal. It was clear to me Breitbart enjoyed what he did and was not in it for himself. My favorite part of his speech was when he talked about taunting ACORN members on roller blades outside of a meeting in Southern California, doing nothing more than asking them questions about why they were there. The lack of response by the protestors, instead deferring questions to an official spokesperson, showed to me that he had really gotten to them and exposed their phoniness. What he was doing seemed so simple to outsiders, but required a lot of planning and assumed a lot of personal risk.

          After the speech, I had the opportunity to meet Andrew. He told a small group of us why he switched from a liberal viewpoint to a conservative viewpoint. Growing up in Los Angeles, he was certainly well versed in liberal thinking. He became fully vested in the conservative cause, not thinking about himself in doing so, as it cost him many close friends, although he was still friends with some on the left (keeping your enemies closer?). Andrew also made himself available for photographs with both individuals and groups in the lobby area of the hotel where the convention was at. The man who was seemingly always awake, either traveling, giving a speech, producing a video, or keeping up on current events on his Blackberry took the time to meet with individuals and talk to them, even if just for a few minutes. He was genuinely excited about the number of young people attending the convention.

          People have talked about an appropriate way to remember Andrew. To me, nothing would make him more proud than to continue to expose and defeat the institutional left despite the fact that he is no longer with us. One of his favorite things to do was retweet hate messages he got on Twitter, constantly reminding us of the hate filled message of the left. Like him or hate him, he changed the political world. May he rest in peace.

Brian Witt

          Like most of his fans, I was shocked and saddened by the news that Andrew Breitbart had died last night while walking near his home in Brentwood, CA. Only 43 years old, Breitbart had gone from an entertainment insider working for the E! Network to probably the biggest force in conservative "gonzo" news reporting. Equal parts provocateur and serious journalist, he was responsible for breaking or publicizing some of the biggest and most controversial stories of the last few years, from the Anthony Weiner's penchant for sending out pictures of his groin to ACORN's enthusiastic involvement with child prostitution. He was also willing to defy social conservatives by welcoming the gay center-right group GOPROUD to events and promoting tolerance within the conservative movement. He will be sorely missed by all those of whatever political persuasion who value honest reporting un-beholden to political correctness and the conventional wisdom.


          I had the pleasure of meeting Breitbart at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. For any readers who are not familiar with this event, it is probably the biggest annual gathering of conservative students, activists, policy makers, and politicians in the United States. Speakers from Sarah Palin to Herman Cain come to excite the crowd with barn-burning speeches and sell books, while journalists from around the world come to pick up the right-of-center zeitgeist for the coming year. Most of these conservative celebrities move around the conference like minor royalty, flanked by flunkies and bodyguards to keep any of the regular attendees from asking for autographs and photos.

          Except for Breitbart.

          Despite being one of the most lionized figures in conservative media for his recent take-down of ACORN and NPR, Breitbart was more than happy to talk with the Pitt CRs and pose for multiple pictures with them. He truly was a happy warrior, eager to share his beliefs and talents with the world.

RIP Andrew Breitbart

1969-2012

Notes on the Michigan/Arizona Primaries

by the Editors


So the group met up around 9:30 (after everyone finished their meetings and night classes) to comment a bit on the Michigan and Arizona primaries.  Sorry for not getting the Arizona info... it was already decided by the time this group met!

9:38 pm:  Santorum's underperforming so far in the counties of western Michigan where he was expected to win big.  Take Ottawa County, for example:  this particular county, historical home to scores of arch-conservative Dutch Calvinists in the late-19th century, gave Mike Huckabee the most support of any Michigan county in 2008.  With less than 50% reporting, Santorum has not crossed the 50% threshold necessary for us to say he has the county under control.

9:48 pm:  We've hit 50% of precincts reporting.  Romney has a comfortable four-point lead.  If he keeps this margin, and more precincts report consistently in the future, Romney will begin to pull away from Santorum.

9:54 pm:  It's been reported that Romney is doing better among Michigan Catholics than Santorum.  In conjunction, Santorum is performing better among self-professed "liberal Democrats" than Catholics.  Here are some links to help drive the point home:
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Michigan-Catholics-prefer-Mormon-Mitt-Romney-to-Catholic-Rick-Santorum-140545573.html
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2012/02/yes_michigan_democrats_are_vot.html

10:00 pm:  Props to the Michigan Department of State for reporting 61% of ballots by 10:00.  In comparison, Maine took a week to count 5,000 votes.  The Iowa caucuses took all week to formally count the ballots and still got it wrong, originally.  Whoever's running State over in Lansing, we tip our hats.

10:03 pm:  Fox News interviewing Jan Brewer, talking about her Romney endorsement.  Fun fact... Santorum has no endorsement from any former or current state governor yet.

10:09 pm:  Santorum giving a speech already?  Wow, giving a concession speech this early is a bad sign, especially when the race is still "too close to call."  He's still got that spirit that he's come from absolutely nothing... perhaps it might be a little late in the race, at this point.  The punditry certainly proves otherwise, over the past month.

10:17 pm:  Fox News calls the primary.  Romney wins.  CNN calls the primary 90 seconds later.  Romney wins.  These editors conclude that the night is over.  Concluding remarks going around the room... "a dominant showing by Republican frontrunner (and Pitt CR-endorsed candidate), Mitt Romney, for sure."  "Well, I guess the Dems didn't get their way..."  Have a good night, everyone.

Rick Santorum and the Republican Primary Voter

by Brian Witt


On Saturday, Rick Santorum said that President Barack Obama is a "snob," who is encouraging young people to go to college in in order to "indoctrinate" them and that decent, hardworking people didn't need "leftist" college professors to be successful.


This struck most observers as profoundly odd, as the U.S. has long differentiated itself from its Western European counterparts by succesfully encouraging a much larger percentage of its students to go on to attain a post-secondary degree. Thus Santorum's statement that more people should be content to "work with their hands" instead of obtaining an "elitist" degree sounds much more like the typical European welfare state than America.

Republicans have won college educated voters in every election since the 1960s, although Democrats do somewhat better with voters who display post-graduate degrees, most of whom tend to be concentrated in academia and the government.  Republican presidential candidates have also consistently won voters who earn more than $100,000 a year, the lion's share of those being college educated.

Hm...

In other words, if Republicans are the party pf college educated, higher income Americans, why would a candidate for the GOP nomination set out to dismiss higher education and align so closely with the traditionally Democratic working class?   Because Santorum knows his voter base and indeed the growing base of the Republican Party in general.


Despite the trouble caused by his poor debate performance and recent verbal gaffes, there is a real chance that Santorum can win Michigan today and will be very competitive in several of the Super Tuesday states.  He has remained competitive against Romney by appealing to the growing number of Republican primary voters motivated by cultural instead of economic arguments. These voters care far more about sex education than marginal tax rates, and they see Romney's business experience as suspect not inspiring.

Some just aren't getting the joke...

They see the boogeyman of "elite snobs" everywhere, encouraged by a conservative media echo-chamber which devotes far more time to conspiracy theories about the New Black Panther Party and sharia law than actually trying to impact public policy. Where once the local Republican Party would be dominated by CEOs and doctors, the local business community motivated by civic spirit and sound economics, it has been taken over by marginally employed and education Tea Party activists, spouting what they think is Austrian economics while relying on an interpretation of the Constitution derived from a tearful radio host.

Rick Santorum, like Newt Gingrich before him, has attacked Romney by appealing to the basest instincts of the Republican Party's new working class voter base. He may well end up costing Romney the nomination, but the damage he and his fellow demagogues have done to the GOP will last far longer than this election cycle.

How about another four years from now?

Constructivism and the Global Economy

by Elizabeth Matenkoski

       When examining global economy, the two main views that Republicans will more than likely take are economic liberalism and realism.  Most people do not realize that economic liberalism is the typical conservative view regarding economics, first formulated by Adam Smith.  Famous economic liberals include Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.  Realism, on the other hand, is the belief that all actions must be done in whatever keeps the nation safest, which tends to put the military first.  This point-of-view is essential since we are living in a post 9/11 world.  Realism is also the main course that the United States generally takes when regarding foreign interests.

       One perspective when looking into global economy that many people fail to look at is the constructivist perspective.  Constructivism is very important because it takes the classic economic liberal position, but gives it more of a spine by attempting to explain why states react in the way that they do.  This mainly includes taking into account the culture of a specific state and recognizing that there is more to a nation than just politics and economics.  Realism and economic liberalism also fail to recognize the effect that non-state actors have on the global economy, including groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

       Constructivism is a noble approach in which to examine Middle Eastern affairs.  Economically, it is especially important when analyzing the oil economy.  Of course, this does not mean that the United States should ever let its guard down when dealing with a nation like Iran.  Rather, if we can understand where and why the Iranians have such great antipathy towards the United States, it would help to construct a more comprehensive approach.  Obviously Iran feels the United States stands or represents the opposite of everything that is Islam and Sharia Law (to be fair, a very strict fundamentalist interpretation), and working and making progress that ultimately lead to peace rests on these institutions.  The Iranian government’s philosophy underlies any decisions that are made, and our attitudes could benefit from greater cultural sensitivity to ensure the Iranian people’s confidence that we do not want to destroy their culture.  This approach would be much better than the economic liberal approach because Iranians would see that we are not just out to maintain that oil will continue flowing into the United States for a reasonable price.

       In the world today, it is important to understand where the decisions that states make come from.  When we know the source of a decision, we are better prepared to handle that particular state and the best course of action.  On the other hand, the United States should not abandon a realist view on the world anytime soon.  Rather, it should structure constructivism into its general realist worldview and allow a better understanding of culture play a strong influence in its quest to ensure (and augment) its own existence and global impact.

Competence over Corruption: The Case for Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich

by Casey Rankin

On Saturday, January 21, the political world came to a shocking revelation:   Republican voters from South Carolina had lost their minds.  Bypassing any pretense of common sense, good judgment, or basic humanity, forty percent of South Carolinians came to the buffoonish conclusion that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the best possible choice to take on President Barack Obama in November.  When one stops to consider that Speaker Gingrich’s career has been characterized by traits such as lack of personal and professional discipline, his abysmal moral character, and perhaps most importantly his record of corruption, it seems his nomination represents a form of political malpractice on the part of the Republican Party. On every front, Speaker Gingrich is an embarrassment to himself and his party, and he would be the worst general election candidate in modern history.

The central rationale Speaker Gingrich offers for his nomination is his assertion that he is the best choice to stand toe-to-toe in the three televised debates with President Obama in the fall. While Gingrich has consistently performed well in the never ending train of Republican Primary debates, this is an inappropriate metric for forecasting proficiency in general election debates. Much of Gingrich’s “success” is simply due to his willingness to pander to audiences that are to the right of 90% of the electorate, as well as the joy he takes in verbally assaulting the moderators and his opponents.  Neither of these tactics seem likely to work in the more subdued general election debates, which far more moderate voters watch, who are likely to find these tactics offensive and immature.  With his most tantalizing asset largely neutralized, we are left to ponder the rest of Gingrich’s political profile.  Here is where it really starts to get ugly.

Over the course of this campaign, Gingrich has grown fond of bloviating on the “success” of his time in Congress, particularly his four-year reign as Speaker.  While his attempts to claim credit for the success of Ronald Reagan’s policies during the 1980’s as a backbench junior congressman are too narcissistic and asinine to warrant serious comment, he does bring serious accomplishments as Speaker, such as balanced budgets and welfare reform throughout the 1990’s. However, this era also highlights some of his most serious character flaws, namely his lack of discipline and character.  In 1995, Gingrich single-highhandedly lost the battle over the government shutdown with President Clinton when he remarked in an interview that he shut down the government as revenge for Clinton making Gingrich exit from the back of Air Force One at a state funeral. These kinds of wayward comments, as well as his hypocrisy in impeaching Clinton for an affair while carrying on one of his own, caused Republicans to lose House seats in both ’96 and ’98. Amidst these failures and ethics violations that lead to him being fined $300,000 by the House (the only Speaker to ever be sanctioned this severely), his fellow Republicans successfully forced him from the Speakership, leading him to resign in disgrace.  Gingrich’s erratic and failed record of leadership is further buttressed by the fact that virtually none of his former colleagues who elected him as Speaker are endorsing him for President.

Following his failed tenure as Speaker, Gingrich decided to cash in on his influence, beginning a lucrative career as a lobbyist. Most prominently, Gingrich collected $1.6 million from mortgage giant Freddie Mac. Unwilling to own up to his participation in this profession, Gingrich has cynically claimed that he was hired as a “historian” at the “modest “ price of $25,000 a month for six years. His contract clearly contradicts his claims, as he was hired by Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, and the words “history” and “historian” are absent from the document.  In addition to his appalling lack of honesty, Gingrich’s status as a lobbyist is a severe general election liability, as it is among the public's least trusted professions. However, when it comes to Gingrich’s dishonesty, his record on lobbying is among the least of his problems.

Gingrich’s personal life is an unmitigated disaster of his own creation.  From serving his cancer stricken first wife with divorce papers in 1981, to asking his second wife, newly diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, for an open marriage in 1998, Gingrich has distinguished himself as a repulsive and shameful excuse for a human being. While he can blame these problems on the “lamestream media” in the primary, general election voters will look past his weak excuses and judge him for the shameful personal life he has led, especially considering the disingenuous attack he lead on President Clinton in the late 90's for his extramarital adventures.  Character matters in politics, and Gingrich has less than any person who has ever served in the Oval Office.

With all of this evidence taken together its summation is a simple one:  Gingrich is incapable of winning the presidency. This is confirmed by decades worth of polling: in no survey taken throughout his political career has Gingrich ever surpassed a 43% approval rate, while consistently possessing unfavorable ratings of 55-60%. Even more troubling, Gingrich possesses nearly 100% name recognition, meaning that these numbers will be almost impossible to reverse. These ratings carry over to polls pitting him head to head with President Obama, as he loses to the president by an average of 11 points according to Real Clear Politics, despite the president's mediocre approval rating of 46%.  Gingrich’s toxic candidacy would be catastrophic for Republican candidates running for any office in 2012, and would likely result in our losing the House and failing to recapture the Senate. With our country facing historic economic and international challenges, the Republican Party cannot afford to nominate an erratic, corrupt, degenerate lobbyist to oppose this failed president. We must nominate someone who understands the economy, who has worked in the private sector, who has a record of successful leadership (particularly as an executive), and who has unblemished character who can appeal to the middle of the road voters who will decide this election.

Fortunately for Republicans, such a candidate exists. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney checks all of these boxes, having started one of the most successful private equity firms in the country, Bain Capital, who under Romney's leadership invested in companies such as Staples, Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, and Domino's Pizza, which employ hundreds of thousands of people. In 2002, Romney successfully turned around the failing 2002 Olympics, making it the most profitable Olympics in history. As Massachusetts governor, Romney balanced four consecutive budgets without increasing taxes on individuals or businesses, cut taxes 19 times, created a rainy day fund, and left the state with a 4.7% unemployment rate. Romney's first rate character is evidenced by his marriage of over forty years to his wife, and the absence of any scandal either public or private in his career. All of these attributes have been born out in polling, as Governor Romney is in a statistical tie with President Obama. It is clear to all but the most ignorant that Romney is the only credible challenger to the president, making it our patriotic duty to nominate him.

Now is the time for Republicans to choose competence over corruption, decency over degeneracy, record over rhetoric, and success over scandal. It is time for Republicans to choose Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich.

The Occupy Movement: What Are They Doing Wrong?

by Colin Jones

                 Last Wednesday I was enjoying my weekly Taco Bell burrito below Towers when I heard somebody scream, “Sound off!”  A handful of others in the area echoed the voice.  I assumed at that point that I was in the middle of some sort of improv-everywhere type of thing.  About thirty seconds later I realized that the screaming was that of the Occupy Pittsburgh movement simply announcing a meeting later in the week, after, of course, telling us to occupy our education.  Immediately afterwards, I can only describe my emotions as that of shock and confusion.  Mostly I was shocked because after rattling off the list of things we should occupy, neither Taco Bell nor my burrito had made the list.  I was confused as well by the largely ineffective strategy of screaming at people until they join a given cause. 

                This strategy proved to be ineffective in two ways.  First, in the middle of their verbal barrage, a kid next to me stood up and screamed “Shut the hell up!” (well, he used a stronger third word, but you get the point).  The second reason why it was ineffective was that I honestly couldn’t remember a damned thing they said.  Maybe try handing out flyers? Like they say, “Take a picture. It lasts longer.”

                But let’s go back to the first point.  Screaming your message is not a great way to convince others to join you.  Frankly it makes you look crazy.  I would be much more interested in hearing what they have to say at a table up in Tower’s lobby.  Most radical movements make the same basic mistakes: they are overly aggressive and often inconsistent in their preaching.

                Now, the fact that I was at Taco Bell is important not just to show you that I have terrible taste in Mexican cuisine.  Half of the students advertising the Occupy Pittsburgh group were eating Taco Bell! In all seriousness, it’s not all that shocking because, well, it’s pretty damn delicious.  What is shocking about it is that one of the main tenets of the Occupy movement is the opposition of corporations.  Allegations levied against “corporations” by the movement include: “poisoning the food supply…sought to strip workers of the right to negotiate for better pay…etc.”  I love Taco Bell as much as the next guy; however, the chain is in fact operated by the Fortune 500 Corporation Yum! Brands Inc.  So let’s get this straight. “Down with the corporations… so long as they don’t sell warm, yummy, delicious comfort foods.”  Sounds about right.  Furthermore this Taco Bell is in the very university you’ve just asked me to occupy?!  Please.

                The problem with the movement is that it lacks a true identity.  It covers such a broad spectrum of complaints (without offering solutions) that the movement as a whole appeals to only a small group of people.  To most of us, myself included, the Occupy movement, taken on the whole, comes off as an angry mob of people screaming a message they are not quite sure how to convey…or how to define.