Today was a good day. I have been fundraising on Wall Street, which is always a satisfactory experience. Tomorrow I will be giving a speech to the Chamber of Commerce. Being among my peer units is much more relaxing than the usual required campaign banter. There is no complimenting of local foodstuffs involved, or requirement that I feign interest in sporting events frequented by commoners. No, here we simply discuss money. How to get more of it; how to pay less taxes on it; how to circumvent irritating regulations on taking it from others; how much of it should be given to me, personally. Normal, upstanding things.
Attacks on my Bain Capital record continue. We were frankly unprepared for our opponent units to bring it up during this election, but apparently purchasing American companies, extracting all available profits from them and then shutting them down can, to some people, be turned into a negative thing. My insistence that opponents not bring any of this up continues to be ignored, necessitating alternative approaches. After discussing the matter, my advisers have settled on a proposed plan of action, which is to ignore the whole thing. (We may see if the Super PAC can mount a new campaign to call the president anti-American for some reason, just to change the subject.)
While I believe my attempts at bonding with the common folk are progressing reasonably well of late, there continues to be discussion among my advisers of how to institute policies that would better target my attentions on only those units that would most benefit from my campaign wisdom. The success of these Wall Street efforts suggest that perhaps instituting a minimum yearly income requirement for questioners could be beneficial; for example, allowing contact only with humans who have achieved $500,000 in profits per year for the last three years? Eric F. is not impressed, saying the commoner vote continues to be needed, and thus speaking to them continues to be necessary. He seems to be under the impression that during the actual general election, each individual will be granted only one vote regardless of their income level. This seems absurd.
Has this nation gone that far down the path of communism already? There are no laws saying that both wealthy Americans and common Americans are entitled to exactly one automobile per person, and yet the wealthy are limited to only one vote per person, regardless of income level? I have directed Eric F. to give a presentation on his findings to the rest of the staff, but I can only hope he is mistaken.
I am currently working on ideas for my Chamber of Commerce speech tomorrow. I note that the Chamber has recently engaged in a new effort to rescind laws against bribery of foreign officials, as the constant investigations and fines have been causing no small amount of irritation to many Chamber members. No doubt this can be worked into my standard anti-Obama stump materials. The people at Wal-Mart (it appears to be some sort of family company devoted to the Chinese import business) seem especially put out about it, which is fortuitous for me, as I understand family members there literally swim in large pools filled with their own money. With luck, a suitably pro-bribery stance on my part could pry forth quite a bit of cash.