I suppose 1994 is really history rather than a recent reference point but, regardless, we are talking about Newt Gingrich and who is Newt if divorced from 1994?
For those of you unfamiliar with Newt's political biography, he led the 1994 Republican Revolution in Congress and, in the process, became the Speaker of the House--a much coveted and influential position. From his gavel, he guided the Republicans' efforts to combat liberal advancements in policy and became the icon of anti-Democratic, anti-Liberal, and anti-Bill Clinton sentiment. Oh and he led the Congressional call against Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky incident--despite his own marital indiscretions and questionable morals on a host of private matters.
Despite being a prominent politician in Washington for two decades, today Gingrich's name is rarely associated with entrenched Washington politics. For the last decade, Gingrich has attempted to give himself a much needed make-over or face-lift; he has succeeded, despite it being a palpable effort at distortion.
There is an entire generation of young Americans--of voting age--who are largely unfamiliar with this rotund figure. Gingrich ceased to be a prominent politician around 1998 and, in the intervening thirteen years, has been enabled to present himself as an elder-statesman of sorts, commenting on the day's events from an intellectual and detached manner. These young Americans are probably blissfully unaware of Gingrich's "former life" as a career politician, dedicated to protecting special interests. Let us not forget his biography.
Newt is a trained academic, holding a Ph.D. in history, and he is unquestionably smart. He is articulate, clear, concise, and methodical in his policy proposals and analyses of troublesome areas in American political culture. He, too, has become increasingly more disciplined in his utterances. Gingrich had a habit of playing a little too loose with rhetoric; at times, his commentary bordered on bellicose. His performance during the last few debates has revealed a more disciplined technique. I wonder who should be credited for this?
As a WaPo article notes, the former Speaker of the House has enjoyed a surge in popularity, mounting a notable challenge to seemingly immovable Mitt Romney. Romney and his camp have conceded--initially implicitly and now explicitly--that Gingrich cannot be summarily dismissed or categorically ignored. One particular Romney adviser opined that "it's going to be a process" to dismantle Gingrich's mounting campaign.
I am surely curious to know what this "process" will involve. How does the Romney camp expect to stem the tide of "Gingrichmania"? I use "mania" because support for him is manic.
The same article notes that Romney, in a recent interview, "hinted that he now sees Gingrich as a threat." Well, of course. Interesting, too, that just a month ago Gingrich was being seen as largely a "non-issue."
Or, will Newt Gingrich eventually deal a blow to his own campaign, much like Perry has done to his? To my thinking, Newt continues to be his own worst enemy and his past is not easily dismissible.
If Newt continues to enjoy success ahead of the Iowa caucus on January 3, then maybe the nuggets from his past will be reexamined. In the meantime, we have our hands full, examining the Godfather.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The Godfather's Order: One with Everything
The former lobbyist, FED official, and Godfather of a pizza chain may be forced out of the Republican presidential primary race because of mounting allegations of sexual misconduct. His peculiar campaign and exotic policy proposals may not be sufficient to stem the tide of defeat.
This week, Hermann Cain told Fox News that he was examining his campaign prospects and will decide by next week if he should exit the race or continue to resist calls to fold his campaign and abandon his efforts. For the past several months, Cain has enjoyed a comfortable position among the media's anointed Republican "top-tier." After enjoying success in Florida and early support (and interest) in his "9-9-9 Tax Plan," Cain secured a temporary place within the Republican leading contenders category. Despite odd pronouncements on immigration and inconsistent positions on social issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, Cain persisted in performing well in polling results.
The last month or so has not been such an enjoyable time for the Godfather, though.
Just recently, reports broke that Cain had been accused of sexual harassing several women throughout the 1990s; one allegation turned into two, then three, and then four. Which each additional allegation, Cain became more defiant and, at times, vitriolic. Cain's continued insistence on his innocence has morphed into a somewhat comedic event.
At a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio this week, Cain again emphatically proclaimed his innocence, adding: "They're attacking my character, my reputation, and my name in order to try to bring me down. But, you see, I don't believe that America is going to let that happen." Cain provided just the amount of necessary succor to the bees in the hive: his zealot-like, defiant attitude shined through. "They"--those evil people, from the Dems to the accusers--are trying to dismantle his ascending campaign. It is a conspiracy, dear blog readers of mind, to remove the Godfather. This is the implicit message that Cain and his campaign staff are providing at these rallies. And the message is, of course, smart.
A rally tends to bring out the party faithful--the loyalists who are committed to the party and the party's platform. Cain's rhetoric should surely be parallel to the sensibilities of these audiences. In two simple sentences, Cain articulates two notions that GOP party followers love: the idea of the evil "they" and the goodness of America. Cain advances the idea that he has faith in an America that will not allow the evil accusers to take-down his campaign.
It is too soon to assess the true damage of these allegations. In the beginning, Cain almost seemed to have enjoyed a dump in the polls, courtesy of the first allegation ... or, at the very least, did not cede any coveted ground to his opponents. As the allegations mount, however, Cain may come to see "the writing on the wall." The GOP candidates' polling performance is something interesting on its own: both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have enjoyed recent bumps in the polls, ahead of the Iowa caucus on January 3. Romney seems to be secure in his "go nowhere" position on or near the top. Cain's vaunted status, on the other hand, may be dismantled by party machinations rather than sexual allegations. If this be true, then American politics will manage to reveal another aspect of its character--that sexual allegations are not, on their own, enough to discredit a politician's campaign. But, perhaps, this is not new: after all, sexual misconduct did not bring down Bill Clinton!
My recommendation for Herman Cain is to wait to make a decision until after the Iowa caucus on January 3. He should seriously assess his campaign after the Iowa results are revealed--not before. My hunch is that Cain's support system is slowly eroding and, absent a steady stream of campaign funds and grassroots support, will fail to mount a credible challenge to Romney, et. al.
I must say, though, that getting out before Iowa is weak, and the Godfather cannot be weak.
This week, Hermann Cain told Fox News that he was examining his campaign prospects and will decide by next week if he should exit the race or continue to resist calls to fold his campaign and abandon his efforts. For the past several months, Cain has enjoyed a comfortable position among the media's anointed Republican "top-tier." After enjoying success in Florida and early support (and interest) in his "9-9-9 Tax Plan," Cain secured a temporary place within the Republican leading contenders category. Despite odd pronouncements on immigration and inconsistent positions on social issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, Cain persisted in performing well in polling results.
The last month or so has not been such an enjoyable time for the Godfather, though.
Just recently, reports broke that Cain had been accused of sexual harassing several women throughout the 1990s; one allegation turned into two, then three, and then four. Which each additional allegation, Cain became more defiant and, at times, vitriolic. Cain's continued insistence on his innocence has morphed into a somewhat comedic event.
At a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio this week, Cain again emphatically proclaimed his innocence, adding: "They're attacking my character, my reputation, and my name in order to try to bring me down. But, you see, I don't believe that America is going to let that happen." Cain provided just the amount of necessary succor to the bees in the hive: his zealot-like, defiant attitude shined through. "They"--those evil people, from the Dems to the accusers--are trying to dismantle his ascending campaign. It is a conspiracy, dear blog readers of mind, to remove the Godfather. This is the implicit message that Cain and his campaign staff are providing at these rallies. And the message is, of course, smart.
A rally tends to bring out the party faithful--the loyalists who are committed to the party and the party's platform. Cain's rhetoric should surely be parallel to the sensibilities of these audiences. In two simple sentences, Cain articulates two notions that GOP party followers love: the idea of the evil "they" and the goodness of America. Cain advances the idea that he has faith in an America that will not allow the evil accusers to take-down his campaign.
It is too soon to assess the true damage of these allegations. In the beginning, Cain almost seemed to have enjoyed a dump in the polls, courtesy of the first allegation ... or, at the very least, did not cede any coveted ground to his opponents. As the allegations mount, however, Cain may come to see "the writing on the wall." The GOP candidates' polling performance is something interesting on its own: both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have enjoyed recent bumps in the polls, ahead of the Iowa caucus on January 3. Romney seems to be secure in his "go nowhere" position on or near the top. Cain's vaunted status, on the other hand, may be dismantled by party machinations rather than sexual allegations. If this be true, then American politics will manage to reveal another aspect of its character--that sexual allegations are not, on their own, enough to discredit a politician's campaign. But, perhaps, this is not new: after all, sexual misconduct did not bring down Bill Clinton!
My recommendation for Herman Cain is to wait to make a decision until after the Iowa caucus on January 3. He should seriously assess his campaign after the Iowa results are revealed--not before. My hunch is that Cain's support system is slowly eroding and, absent a steady stream of campaign funds and grassroots support, will fail to mount a credible challenge to Romney, et. al.
I must say, though, that getting out before Iowa is weak, and the Godfather cannot be weak.
Friday, November 18, 2011
CSPAN Video 30: Parry-Giles and Farnsworth Return to Discuss Presidential Campaign Ads
In this C-SPAN video clip, Professor Parry-Giles and Professor Farnsworth return to discuss presidential campaign advertisements. This time around, both discuss Senator McCain's "attack ads" and whether or not they are efficient. One of Senator Obama's advertisements is also shown, and Professor Farnsworth discusses the nature, substance, and impact of that ad; the professor is particularly critical. Some interesting analysis. Enjoy!
CSPAN Video 29: Bill Adair Talks "Truth in Political Campaigning"
In this C-SPAN video clip, Bill Adair, Editor of Politifact.com, fact checks two prominent political campaign advertisements from the 2008 presidential race. The first advertisement is Mitt Romney's "Choice: Judgment" which focuses on Mike Huckabee. The second advertisement is John Edwards' "Born For" which mentions "corporate greed" and the middle class. Mr. Adair's analysis is interesting. Enjoy!
CSPAN Video 28: Discussion of Obama's Campaign Ad, 2008
In this C-SPAN video clip, Trevor Parry-Giles, Professor of Communications at the University of Maryland, and Stephen Farnsworth, Professor at George Mason University, discuss one of Senator Obama's presidential campaign advertisements. Professor Parry-Giles mentions the "disjointed nature" of the advertisement, while Professor Farnsworth notes that America tends to be "a short attention span country." Some interesting analysis. Enjoy!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Paul, Paul ... Politician on the Ball
Ron Paul is really the Grand Old Man of the Grand Old Party, even if the GOP establishment endeavors to marginalize if not ostracize him. And the reason is clear.
He is the only--ONLY--candidate who is decidedly and consistently anti-establishment. Paul's criticisms of government are not motivated by political opportunism or periodic, fashionable zeal. He is motivated by a singular notion that has guided his life: that liberty is best. Government, in nearly all of its tenable forms, should be constrained to the point of limited functioning.
He ran in 1988 and lost--then ran in 2007 and, well, lost. Both times, the establishment sought to dismantle his nascent support system by ignoring him. If the political establishment and the media are united in opposition, then it is hard to become known. The political-media net sufficiently controls what is permitted as acceptable opinion and condemns--through a variety of ways--dissent. Amazingly, Paul has escaped this net. His campaign is really "the little engine that could" and, in a way, continues to defy all expectations.
On January 3, Iowa is set to have their caucus. All eyes in the political world will be fixated on this mid-Western state, anticipating the results. On Thursday, the WaPo published an article noting that Ron Paul is quickly becoming a major force in the Iowa Caucus. In short, Paul cannot be summarily dismissed on the grounds that he lacks the capacity to have a strong finish. Rep. Paul has done a phenomenal job of getting his message distributed, despite the concerted efforts of obstruction by external forces. The message resonates and has enabled him to increase his appeal. The article reports on a Bloomberg News Survey from this week that found Paul, Cain, Romney, and Gingrich "in a four-way statistical tie." The breakdowns are as follows: Cain at 20%, Paul at 19%, Romney at 18%, and Gingrich at 17%.
Ok. Yes, it is only one poll, but it is a poll of significance. Three of the four candidates have had consistent media coverage. For the past six weeks, Cain and Romney have been considered among the "top tier" of Republican candidates; both have been a focus of many a blog post. And, of course, Gingrich is no stranger to media attention. Paul is the only one of the four who has been outside of the media' orbit. Through a grassroots effort, Paul has been able to distribute his message of "liberty" to the masses.
Let us go to another poll. A recent Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey showed the Godfather (Cain) at 25% and PAUL AT 20%. Again, Cain has the media attention and the name recognition. Paul has his uncompromising message and zeal.
I love that Perry's name is not listed among the "top tier" of either poll. Despite all the initial media attention and all the donations generated, Perry has possessed a dying campaign. Wait. Paul is ahead of Perry in preliminary polls? It is truly a wonderful thing. That is, a wonderful thing for liberty.
The media can continue to ignore Paul--or to afford Paul little attention--and the GOP establishment can foolishly continue to marginalize him but the American people may have a different opinion. Regardless, Rep. Paul continues to demonstrate that he is a politician on the ball. And American is better for it.
He is the only--ONLY--candidate who is decidedly and consistently anti-establishment. Paul's criticisms of government are not motivated by political opportunism or periodic, fashionable zeal. He is motivated by a singular notion that has guided his life: that liberty is best. Government, in nearly all of its tenable forms, should be constrained to the point of limited functioning.
He ran in 1988 and lost--then ran in 2007 and, well, lost. Both times, the establishment sought to dismantle his nascent support system by ignoring him. If the political establishment and the media are united in opposition, then it is hard to become known. The political-media net sufficiently controls what is permitted as acceptable opinion and condemns--through a variety of ways--dissent. Amazingly, Paul has escaped this net. His campaign is really "the little engine that could" and, in a way, continues to defy all expectations.
On January 3, Iowa is set to have their caucus. All eyes in the political world will be fixated on this mid-Western state, anticipating the results. On Thursday, the WaPo published an article noting that Ron Paul is quickly becoming a major force in the Iowa Caucus. In short, Paul cannot be summarily dismissed on the grounds that he lacks the capacity to have a strong finish. Rep. Paul has done a phenomenal job of getting his message distributed, despite the concerted efforts of obstruction by external forces. The message resonates and has enabled him to increase his appeal. The article reports on a Bloomberg News Survey from this week that found Paul, Cain, Romney, and Gingrich "in a four-way statistical tie." The breakdowns are as follows: Cain at 20%, Paul at 19%, Romney at 18%, and Gingrich at 17%.
Ok. Yes, it is only one poll, but it is a poll of significance. Three of the four candidates have had consistent media coverage. For the past six weeks, Cain and Romney have been considered among the "top tier" of Republican candidates; both have been a focus of many a blog post. And, of course, Gingrich is no stranger to media attention. Paul is the only one of the four who has been outside of the media' orbit. Through a grassroots effort, Paul has been able to distribute his message of "liberty" to the masses.
Let us go to another poll. A recent Iowa State/Gazette/KCRG survey showed the Godfather (Cain) at 25% and PAUL AT 20%. Again, Cain has the media attention and the name recognition. Paul has his uncompromising message and zeal.
I love that Perry's name is not listed among the "top tier" of either poll. Despite all the initial media attention and all the donations generated, Perry has possessed a dying campaign. Wait. Paul is ahead of Perry in preliminary polls? It is truly a wonderful thing. That is, a wonderful thing for liberty.
The media can continue to ignore Paul--or to afford Paul little attention--and the GOP establishment can foolishly continue to marginalize him but the American people may have a different opinion. Regardless, Rep. Paul continues to demonstrate that he is a politician on the ball. And American is better for it.
Perry's Ad Hurls Some Old Fashioned Kryptonite
Socialism is an undeniable part of American history. The socialism-capitalism dichotomy was the predicate of the rhetoric of the Cold War. The McCarthyite movement of the 1950s sought to dismantle the socialist "enterprise" in America by persecuting Soviet sympathizers. Since the time of the Palmer Raids and the First Red Scare, the term "socialist" has been an epithet hurled at politicians and citizens alike. It was caustic. The term was effective in neutralizing political opponents and then ostracizing them from mainstream America. To be labeled a socialist was, after all, a crime of the first order; a commitment to socialist principles was seen as a secular sin, a fall from Washington's grace.
Of course, the ad starts by providing a brief clip of President Obama, during which he says, "We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the past couple of decades." First, what is so controversial about that line? More to the point, why is a Republican candidate taking issue with it? The Conservative Republicans have historically criticized wasteful government spending and praised individual responsibility. Americans have possessed an insatiable need to "charge, charge, charge." They have lived far beyond their means by adopting the "Gospel of Plastic." The work ethic, for many, has been nonexistent. President Obama provided a tepid rendering of the last thirty years of American domestic consumer spending. The maxim could easily be rendered as: All consumption and little work. The message seems decidedly conservative--reflecting a conservative view of the world. The Perry Campaign's decision to fixate on that one line seems oddly counter-productive.
The ad ends with Gov. Perry accusing President Obama of advancing "socialist policies" which "are bankrupting America." And there you go: Perry dispenses with that decades' old, somewhat shelf stable "kryptonite." To be sure, Perry is not original in this; most GOP politicians have criticized Obama's domestic policies, specifically his spending initiatives. A few pundits have even labeled Obama a "socialist" or "fascist" or that mutant hybrid of "socialist-fascist." Perry's ad, however, seeks to summarily dismiss Obama and his administration by noting that they are defined by "socialist policies." So--America is not lazy but Obama is socialist. If you, dearest blog reader of mine, manage to take away one thing from that thirty-two second ad of torture it should be that "America is not lazy but Obama is a socialist."
Perry's advocacy of a balanced budget amendment is surely supported by this blogger, but the president serves no role in amending the U.S. Constitution. He can advocate for an amendment but he has no vote in the process. And, the idea of a balanced budget amendment is not new. Critics of Federal spending have been advocating for a balanced budget amendment for decades. Of course Perry would advocate for something he cannot implement! BTW: what were the three departments Perry would cut??? Spending is most certainly a serious issue but where was Perry when President Bush was recklessly spending? Oh, right, Perry was silent. And "THAT'S PATHETIC."
One of the ad's wonderful gems was Perry's line of "that's pathetic"--in response to Obama calling Americans lazy. Hmm. Is that really a tactful way to dissent?
This ad is really just a distraction. Perry's campaign boat has been letting in water for nearly a month, and his team seems incapable of plugging up the hole. Each debate reveals Perry's lack of discipline and competence, and these ads fail to court additional grassroots supporters or major donors. The craziness of his personality and the absurdity of his campaign are enough to mention him in discussion.
"Socialist" was once the "kryptonite" of a politician or a political campaign and, while it is still not the best label to possess, it is largely devoid of its previous substance.
Just this week, that rugged, manly Texan, Rick Perry--who, as it happens, is also a GOP candidate for president--decided to focus his media advertisements at the current President, Barack Obama. Gov. Perry's criticisms of his fellow GOP candidates have largely fallen on deaf ears, so his campaign decided to take aim at the one man distrusted by the GOP establishment and its supporters: President Obama. The advertisement is below:
Of course, the ad starts by providing a brief clip of President Obama, during which he says, "We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the past couple of decades." First, what is so controversial about that line? More to the point, why is a Republican candidate taking issue with it? The Conservative Republicans have historically criticized wasteful government spending and praised individual responsibility. Americans have possessed an insatiable need to "charge, charge, charge." They have lived far beyond their means by adopting the "Gospel of Plastic." The work ethic, for many, has been nonexistent. President Obama provided a tepid rendering of the last thirty years of American domestic consumer spending. The maxim could easily be rendered as: All consumption and little work. The message seems decidedly conservative--reflecting a conservative view of the world. The Perry Campaign's decision to fixate on that one line seems oddly counter-productive.
The ad ends with Gov. Perry accusing President Obama of advancing "socialist policies" which "are bankrupting America." And there you go: Perry dispenses with that decades' old, somewhat shelf stable "kryptonite." To be sure, Perry is not original in this; most GOP politicians have criticized Obama's domestic policies, specifically his spending initiatives. A few pundits have even labeled Obama a "socialist" or "fascist" or that mutant hybrid of "socialist-fascist." Perry's ad, however, seeks to summarily dismiss Obama and his administration by noting that they are defined by "socialist policies." So--America is not lazy but Obama is socialist. If you, dearest blog reader of mine, manage to take away one thing from that thirty-two second ad of torture it should be that "America is not lazy but Obama is a socialist."
Perry's advocacy of a balanced budget amendment is surely supported by this blogger, but the president serves no role in amending the U.S. Constitution. He can advocate for an amendment but he has no vote in the process. And, the idea of a balanced budget amendment is not new. Critics of Federal spending have been advocating for a balanced budget amendment for decades. Of course Perry would advocate for something he cannot implement! BTW: what were the three departments Perry would cut??? Spending is most certainly a serious issue but where was Perry when President Bush was recklessly spending? Oh, right, Perry was silent. And "THAT'S PATHETIC."
One of the ad's wonderful gems was Perry's line of "that's pathetic"--in response to Obama calling Americans lazy. Hmm. Is that really a tactful way to dissent?
This ad is really just a distraction. Perry's campaign boat has been letting in water for nearly a month, and his team seems incapable of plugging up the hole. Each debate reveals Perry's lack of discipline and competence, and these ads fail to court additional grassroots supporters or major donors. The craziness of his personality and the absurdity of his campaign are enough to mention him in discussion.
"Socialist" was once the "kryptonite" of a politician or a political campaign and, while it is still not the best label to possess, it is largely devoid of its previous substance.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
CSPAN Video 27: Kennedy School of Government, Discussion of Presidential Debates
This C-SPAN video, taped at Harvard's famed Kennedy School of Government, features a discussion on presidential debates. The video starts with a clip of the famous 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon and then leads into 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis talking about his recollection of that first televised presidential debate. Dukakis notes that everyone who watched it never forgot it. He provides some interesting commentary. Enjoy!
CSPAN Video 26: McCain and Obama Debate, October 2008
This C-SPAN video, taped at Belmont, University, features presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama debating in their second 2008 presidential debate. This segment features Barack Obama answering the question, "How will the fiscal recovery package help people?" Sen. Obama first mentions that the credit markets are frozen and then offers a little criticism of his opponent and a little praise of his own (Obama) record. He also criticizes deregulation and special interests. A typical debate but an interesting one, nonetheless. Enjoy.
CSPAN Video 25: Shogan Discusses the 1992 Presidential Debates
In this C-SPAN video, Robert Shogan discusses the 1992 presidential debates. The author of The Riddle of Power starts by challenging the idea that a 90 minute debate can summarily change a viewer's perception of a candidate, especially if the viewer has spent months formulating the perception. Shogan also discusses whether or not these debates have, in a sense, frozen the campaigns of the candidates. It is an interesting clip that takes you back to 1992. Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Perry's Moment of Peril and Paul's Moments of Praise: Wednesday's GOP Debate
Wednesday night showcased another GOP debate, this time from Michigan. While the night did not feature the fireworks of the previous debate, there were a few noteworthy moments, mostly featuring the John Wayne wannabe, aka Rick Perry, and Dr. No, that courageous Congressman from Texas.
Rick Perry made a notable faux pas, when discussing which departments of the Federal government he would summarily cut. Repubs, especially many members comprising the party's base, love talk of government shrinkage and budget cuts. Gov. Perry could not recall the third department (of three) that he would cut. While it was a humorous reprieve for the Texan, it turned out to be a general indication of Perry's inability to get a handle on the concept of a "debate" (or, really, how to successfully perform at one). In all seriousness, his handlers need to prep him better: he needs to have a firm handle on his policy proposals (ridiculous as they may be) and needs to be given instruction on how to debate, which involves controlling facial expressions and his unyielding penchant to verbally pounce on opponents. Simple, really.
With each debate performance, Perry seems to cede more ground to his Repub opponents. His campaign is rapidly approaching the ash-heap of history. Each debate is an opportunity for each one of the candidates to shine: their answers could be soundbites that could be replayed on news programs and talk shows. I am sure that Perry's answers will be replayed but for the sole purpose of highlighting his incompetence. His poor debate performance is made worse by the fact that he does not appear jovial. To Bush's credit (or benefit), he had a jovial, likable personality. His poor "Yale style" debating ability was somewhat marginalized by his personality--his marketable persona. Perry's persona is one of a John Wayne wannabe--"a tough, rugged individualist." These moments of peril are rapidly accumulating and may sink his already unstable campaign boat.
On the other side is Ron Paul, whose debate performance demands some attention and, well, praise. Paul consistently appears to be the outcast at these debates. Even when he was running for the nomination in 2007, his presence on the Repub. debate stage seemed strange. His Congressional votes match his rhetoric, which has remained consistent for ... DECADES. He is a fascinating politician to study: the Washington political, old-boy network has not corrupted him. Paul is as pure and unadulterated as they come. During tonight's debate, Paul was given the opportunity to make his case for the necessity of liquidating the mal-investment and bad debt that U.S. corporations and banking firms have accumulated over the last forty years. The incorrigible, obnoxious, and overrated Jim Cramer, with his ideologically -laced questions, could not derail Paul. Each one of Paul's responses is really quite wonderful: each clearly articulates the problems with the current system and then proposes a solution that is both constitutional and dedicated to that seemingly antiquated notion of liberty. Just look at Ron Paul's criticisms of the bailouts and the current health system (including but not limited to Obamacare).
Paul's support does not appear to start or end with your humble blogger. According to the Detroit Free Press, the debate audience ranked Romney and Paul as among their favorites of the night. Unsurprising. Romney still manages to court GOP support and still maintains his solid standing in the polls; and, significant too, he performs well in the debates. The audience enthusiastically endorsed Paul's responses this evening, which follows the trend in debate audiences of the past. Paul does well. And continues the trend. Interestingly, Gingrich did well, too ... as did Cain. The audience loved Cain's response to the sexual harassment allegations.
The debate had its moments of worth but it was not a game changer: Perry is still in peril and Paul is still worthy of praise. Business as usual.
Rick Perry made a notable faux pas, when discussing which departments of the Federal government he would summarily cut. Repubs, especially many members comprising the party's base, love talk of government shrinkage and budget cuts. Gov. Perry could not recall the third department (of three) that he would cut. While it was a humorous reprieve for the Texan, it turned out to be a general indication of Perry's inability to get a handle on the concept of a "debate" (or, really, how to successfully perform at one). In all seriousness, his handlers need to prep him better: he needs to have a firm handle on his policy proposals (ridiculous as they may be) and needs to be given instruction on how to debate, which involves controlling facial expressions and his unyielding penchant to verbally pounce on opponents. Simple, really.
With each debate performance, Perry seems to cede more ground to his Repub opponents. His campaign is rapidly approaching the ash-heap of history. Each debate is an opportunity for each one of the candidates to shine: their answers could be soundbites that could be replayed on news programs and talk shows. I am sure that Perry's answers will be replayed but for the sole purpose of highlighting his incompetence. His poor debate performance is made worse by the fact that he does not appear jovial. To Bush's credit (or benefit), he had a jovial, likable personality. His poor "Yale style" debating ability was somewhat marginalized by his personality--his marketable persona. Perry's persona is one of a John Wayne wannabe--"a tough, rugged individualist." These moments of peril are rapidly accumulating and may sink his already unstable campaign boat.
On the other side is Ron Paul, whose debate performance demands some attention and, well, praise. Paul consistently appears to be the outcast at these debates. Even when he was running for the nomination in 2007, his presence on the Repub. debate stage seemed strange. His Congressional votes match his rhetoric, which has remained consistent for ... DECADES. He is a fascinating politician to study: the Washington political, old-boy network has not corrupted him. Paul is as pure and unadulterated as they come. During tonight's debate, Paul was given the opportunity to make his case for the necessity of liquidating the mal-investment and bad debt that U.S. corporations and banking firms have accumulated over the last forty years. The incorrigible, obnoxious, and overrated Jim Cramer, with his ideologically -laced questions, could not derail Paul. Each one of Paul's responses is really quite wonderful: each clearly articulates the problems with the current system and then proposes a solution that is both constitutional and dedicated to that seemingly antiquated notion of liberty. Just look at Ron Paul's criticisms of the bailouts and the current health system (including but not limited to Obamacare).
Paul's support does not appear to start or end with your humble blogger. According to the Detroit Free Press, the debate audience ranked Romney and Paul as among their favorites of the night. Unsurprising. Romney still manages to court GOP support and still maintains his solid standing in the polls; and, significant too, he performs well in the debates. The audience enthusiastically endorsed Paul's responses this evening, which follows the trend in debate audiences of the past. Paul does well. And continues the trend. Interestingly, Gingrich did well, too ... as did Cain. The audience loved Cain's response to the sexual harassment allegations.
The debate had its moments of worth but it was not a game changer: Perry is still in peril and Paul is still worthy of praise. Business as usual.
The Lecherous(?) Godfather's Saga Continues ...
The fallout from accusations of sexual harassment is like jello: there is always room for more. Shorten that line and you have an aphorism. GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain cannot seem to avoid the accusation of sexual harassment. Just this week, another woman accused the Godfather, lobbyist, and FED minion of sexual harassment. What started as one accuser, then two, and then three has now resulted in four--yes, four--accusations.
On Tuesday, one of those accusers revealed her identity and claimed that she had concealed her identity because of fear of retaliation from Cain's supporters. She finally revealed herself as Karen Kraushaar and then proceeded to, in an interview with ABC News, call Cain "a monster." At a press conference on the same day, Cain attempted to distance himself (and his campaign) from the accusations by calling the accusers "liars" and blaming the accusations and accompanying media interest on the Democratic Party. Cain's commentary paints the Dems as an "evil" party that is conspiring to keep the pizza man from victory. To be sure, Cain needed to hold a press conference to categorically respond to the allegations but his press conference was Cain-esque in both substance and rhetoric. And, of course, Cain-esque is not exactly tactful policy.
Kraushaar's allegations raise significant questions, though. For one, she received a $45,000 settlement with the National Restaurant Association (Cain's old stomping grounds); in other words, she reasoned that $45,000 was enough to get over what the "monster" did to her. For another, she did not make public her decade old allegations until well into Cain's campaign (i.e., after his "9-9-9 plan" bump in the polls). Politically calculated allegations are never new, of course. These sexual harassment allegations have, at the very least, a political element that cannot be ignored. Everyone knows this. In a sense, it is a truism. Cain's press conference was aimed to combat the allegations and contain the negligible amount of fallout .
And, as the ABC News article noted, Kraushaar is now a spokeswoman for the IRS' Inspector General. For what it is worth, a member of the Federal government's tax harassment office is accusing a member of the political establishment of sexual harassment. I guess this should be newsworthy.
But, back to Cain's press conference. Cain denied even knowing Sharon Bialek, another one of his accusers who, also, worked at the NRA. His line was quite precious: "My first response in my mind and reaction was, 'I don't even know who this woman is.'" Correct me if I am wrong but you can certainly commit sexual harassment against a woman without knowing her name.
Also this week, a fifth woman came forward to say that Cain had made "a very odd request" after giving a speech in Egypt in 2001. Cain apparently asked Donna Donella (a name lacking in so many respects), the woman who helped to organize the speech, to help him contact "the lovely young woman in the audience who asked me the question so I can give her a more detailed answer over dinner." Both Donella and another woman found the request odd. I would, too. Expectedly, Donella refused to contact the woman. Then, she claims, Cain asked her to dinner!
You, dear reader, may have no idea what is happening to Cain, but the photo below may help to clarify:
On Tuesday, one of those accusers revealed her identity and claimed that she had concealed her identity because of fear of retaliation from Cain's supporters. She finally revealed herself as Karen Kraushaar and then proceeded to, in an interview with ABC News, call Cain "a monster." At a press conference on the same day, Cain attempted to distance himself (and his campaign) from the accusations by calling the accusers "liars" and blaming the accusations and accompanying media interest on the Democratic Party. Cain's commentary paints the Dems as an "evil" party that is conspiring to keep the pizza man from victory. To be sure, Cain needed to hold a press conference to categorically respond to the allegations but his press conference was Cain-esque in both substance and rhetoric. And, of course, Cain-esque is not exactly tactful policy.
Kraushaar's allegations raise significant questions, though. For one, she received a $45,000 settlement with the National Restaurant Association (Cain's old stomping grounds); in other words, she reasoned that $45,000 was enough to get over what the "monster" did to her. For another, she did not make public her decade old allegations until well into Cain's campaign (i.e., after his "9-9-9 plan" bump in the polls). Politically calculated allegations are never new, of course. These sexual harassment allegations have, at the very least, a political element that cannot be ignored. Everyone knows this. In a sense, it is a truism. Cain's press conference was aimed to combat the allegations and contain the negligible amount of fallout .
And, as the ABC News article noted, Kraushaar is now a spokeswoman for the IRS' Inspector General. For what it is worth, a member of the Federal government's tax harassment office is accusing a member of the political establishment of sexual harassment. I guess this should be newsworthy.
But, back to Cain's press conference. Cain denied even knowing Sharon Bialek, another one of his accusers who, also, worked at the NRA. His line was quite precious: "My first response in my mind and reaction was, 'I don't even know who this woman is.'" Correct me if I am wrong but you can certainly commit sexual harassment against a woman without knowing her name.
Also this week, a fifth woman came forward to say that Cain had made "a very odd request" after giving a speech in Egypt in 2001. Cain apparently asked Donna Donella (a name lacking in so many respects), the woman who helped to organize the speech, to help him contact "the lovely young woman in the audience who asked me the question so I can give her a more detailed answer over dinner." Both Donella and another woman found the request odd. I would, too. Expectedly, Donella refused to contact the woman. Then, she claims, Cain asked her to dinner!
You, dear reader, may have no idea what is happening to Cain, but the photo below may help to clarify:
Maybe the aphorism should be: the fallout from accusations of sexual harassment is like ice cream: there is always room for more. What would Bill Clinton say?!
Friday, November 4, 2011
CSPAN Video 24: New Media Changing Viewing Habits, Politics, and Fact Checking
This C-SPAN video clip features Susan Drucker, Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Hofstra University, discussing the rise of the new media, specifically YouTube, and how it has changed the viewing habits of many voters. Specifically, she notes that younger voters can quickly "fact check" as they view an interview with a politician or a presidential debate. Professor Drucker observes that the new media has created "a very different media environment." The internet has radically changed things. She is being interviewed right before the last 2008 Presidential debate. Interesting material.
CSPAN Video 23: New Media and the Youth Vote
This C-SPAN video clip is from 2008 and features David Burstein in conversation with Brian Lamb. Burstein discusses his documentary 18 in '08, which explores the youth vote's significance in the 2008 election. The clip features an important segment from the documentary that explores the significance of the internet (specifically sites like YouTube and Facebook). The guests interviewed noted that the internet has quickly become a major influence on the youth vote, because it serves as an information source and a community environment. Youth voters have come to rely on it. The video is highly recommended.
CSPAN Video 22: Clay Shirky on the New Media's Role in Politics and the Public Sphere
In this C-SPAN video, Clay Shirky, Assistant Teacher at New York University, talks about the new media--specifically, social networking websites--and its role in political affairs. Shirky contends that social media is a "net gain for democracy" as it is a tool that helps to "strengthen the public sphere" by keeping people informed and connected. Shirky discusses how social media can function as a revolutionary force. His analysis is interesting and has implications for the political establishment in America. It is a video clip worthy of a view.
Is the Texas Heat Getting to Perry?
It is fairly common: idiotic commentary prompting a politically calculated apology devoid of substance. Fairly simple and equally undesirable. Ok. So, Perry attempts to execute this common tactic this week by continuing to apologize for a comment that he made during the Repub. presidential debate of September 22. As a refresher, he rashly claimed that "opponents of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants do not 'have a heart'" (HuffPost). Heartless? Interesting. To be sure, the idea was to present himself as the one "mainstream" Repub. candidate who does not seek to completely marginalize the hispanic vote. It is an interesting politic tactic that could be rewarding, if only Perry avoided the foolish rhetoric that has come to define his declining campaign.
Immigration is just one of many topics on which Perry has a mixed "conservative" record. During the most recent Repub. debate, we saw Perry on the defensive, attempting to defend himself against his record as Texas governor, by attempting to point out alleged weaknesses in Romney's "immigration stances." The Nevada audience responded with disgust, helping to cement Romney's claim to debate victory on that night. As expected, Perry is showing commentary schizophrenia. First, he utters these bizarre, ill-advised proclamations; and then he and his camp spend expensive time and energy attempting to both apologize and distance Governor Perry from his own delusions and commentary. I am sure that the American public is getting tired of this standard boilerplate.
But this is merely one element of a campaign that seems to be without definitive focus.
Perry's own campaign road proposals seem bizarre, even for a party historically willing to accept unconventional policy alternatives. As Cain ascended in the polls (thanks, in part, to his "9-9-9 Plan"), Perry attempted to capitalize on Repub. anti-tax sentiment by proposing his own tax reform measure: an optional 20% flat tax. The tax plan is replete with confusion and uncertainty. The plan will not derail Cain's campaign or transfer some of Cain's support to Perry. Each one of Perry's efforts at "one-upmanship" has ended in more bizarre rhetoric and predictable apology.
On the topic of Perry's tax plan: Bloomberg reported this week that Perry's optional 20% flat tax would increase taxes for approximately "41 percent of U.S. households." Comforting. So--again, an increase. I would like to hear from Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul. I am confident that he would not be warm to this inane plan. Interestingly, that same Bloomberg article notes that, "46 percent of households aren't paying Federal income tax this year." Most--not all--tax reform measures currently being debated seek to increase the number of taxable Americans. The short end of it is: more taxable Americans, means more revenue, translating to more spending programs. While this may not be explicitly stated, the reality remains: a serious tax reform policy of liberating Americans from the tyranny of the tax collectors is only being proposed by one candidate: that renegade Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. I am above the influence. Unlike the media, I am unapologetically mentioning him by name.
As the campaign season progresses, and more GOP debates are televised, Perry will be sure to open himself up to more criticism, resulting in a further decline in the polls. The result? More apologies and more incoherent policy proposals. I think that Texas heat has, indeed, been a culprit.
Immigration is just one of many topics on which Perry has a mixed "conservative" record. During the most recent Repub. debate, we saw Perry on the defensive, attempting to defend himself against his record as Texas governor, by attempting to point out alleged weaknesses in Romney's "immigration stances." The Nevada audience responded with disgust, helping to cement Romney's claim to debate victory on that night. As expected, Perry is showing commentary schizophrenia. First, he utters these bizarre, ill-advised proclamations; and then he and his camp spend expensive time and energy attempting to both apologize and distance Governor Perry from his own delusions and commentary. I am sure that the American public is getting tired of this standard boilerplate.
But this is merely one element of a campaign that seems to be without definitive focus.
Perry's own campaign road proposals seem bizarre, even for a party historically willing to accept unconventional policy alternatives. As Cain ascended in the polls (thanks, in part, to his "9-9-9 Plan"), Perry attempted to capitalize on Repub. anti-tax sentiment by proposing his own tax reform measure: an optional 20% flat tax. The tax plan is replete with confusion and uncertainty. The plan will not derail Cain's campaign or transfer some of Cain's support to Perry. Each one of Perry's efforts at "one-upmanship" has ended in more bizarre rhetoric and predictable apology.
On the topic of Perry's tax plan: Bloomberg reported this week that Perry's optional 20% flat tax would increase taxes for approximately "41 percent of U.S. households." Comforting. So--again, an increase. I would like to hear from Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul. I am confident that he would not be warm to this inane plan. Interestingly, that same Bloomberg article notes that, "46 percent of households aren't paying Federal income tax this year." Most--not all--tax reform measures currently being debated seek to increase the number of taxable Americans. The short end of it is: more taxable Americans, means more revenue, translating to more spending programs. While this may not be explicitly stated, the reality remains: a serious tax reform policy of liberating Americans from the tyranny of the tax collectors is only being proposed by one candidate: that renegade Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. I am above the influence. Unlike the media, I am unapologetically mentioning him by name.
As the campaign season progresses, and more GOP debates are televised, Perry will be sure to open himself up to more criticism, resulting in a further decline in the polls. The result? More apologies and more incoherent policy proposals. I think that Texas heat has, indeed, been a culprit.
Herr Herman the Harasser?
Doubtful, I say. News broke last week that a Repub. presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, was alleged to have committed sexual harassment multiple times throughout the 1990s. One of the times was in 1999, while he served as head of the National Restaurant Association. According to WSJ.com, one accuser had reported to her attorney that she was subjected to several "inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from" the Association's CEO. Of course, the first two accusers agreed to a substantial monetary settlement (five figures), thereby resolving their complaints. The third accuser stated that, despite the sexual harassment, she had decided against filing a formal complaint, according to HuffPost. A variety of prominent GOP-associated ideologues came to Cain's defense: Donald Trump and Fred Thompson, among others, registered their concerns about the allegations and media's treatment of Cain.
A natural question reveals itself: why now? That is to say, why are these eleven year old complaints presenting themselves at this stage of the campaign? I think both Trump and Thompson are correct when they assert that Cain's month long surge in the polls, with its accompanying media interest, has prompted an effort to derail his campaign. I am sadly reminded of Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when Anita Hill accused the then-nominated Supreme Court justice of sexual harassment, while both were employed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those hearings are now infamous and for good reason. Members of Congress subjected Thomas to an undignified (read: hostile) attack; Hill's allegations contributed to the environment of Congressional ire. Of course, little came of the allegations, and Thomas was eventually confirmed.
I should note that I am not a fan of Herman Cain. His "9-9-9 Plan" leaves much to be desired, and I am not warm to his service at (or, really, to) the Kansas City FED. He is mostly a distraction, but his treatment by the political establishment, following these allegations, deserves wide-spread condemnation. A monetary settlement, short of a full investigation, is not an admission of guilt. If Cain did commit sexual harassment, he should be rightly investigated and appropriately disciplined. The evidence is lacking, but the fallout could be great.
In our politically correct society, the charge of "sexual harassment" is particularly acidic. The accuser is often given the benefit of the doubt, as great scrutiny is dispatched onto the accused. Thomas was able to avoid the stain and it appears that Cain, too, may be able to withstand the charges, given that his current standing in the polls has not diminished.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted this week has Romney in the lead at 24% and Cain closely behind at 23%. A Rasmussen poll, also conducted this week, found that, among likely Republican voters, 26% would vote for Cain, while 23% would vote for Romney. Of course, these polls are focused on GOP voters, so it is difficult to determine if Cain has broad-spectrum appeal.
To be sure, Cain and his camp have to marginalize these resurgent allegations before they morph into a national campaign that derails his candidacy. Cain, with calm determination, has to strike at the heart of the claims.
Herman's political opponents are going for maximum political return on these charges, and the Godfather must, for the wellbeing of his own campaign, stop the momentum. If not, Hermann may be forced to add another title to his collection: that of harasser.
A natural question reveals itself: why now? That is to say, why are these eleven year old complaints presenting themselves at this stage of the campaign? I think both Trump and Thompson are correct when they assert that Cain's month long surge in the polls, with its accompanying media interest, has prompted an effort to derail his campaign. I am sadly reminded of Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when Anita Hill accused the then-nominated Supreme Court justice of sexual harassment, while both were employed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those hearings are now infamous and for good reason. Members of Congress subjected Thomas to an undignified (read: hostile) attack; Hill's allegations contributed to the environment of Congressional ire. Of course, little came of the allegations, and Thomas was eventually confirmed.
I should note that I am not a fan of Herman Cain. His "9-9-9 Plan" leaves much to be desired, and I am not warm to his service at (or, really, to) the Kansas City FED. He is mostly a distraction, but his treatment by the political establishment, following these allegations, deserves wide-spread condemnation. A monetary settlement, short of a full investigation, is not an admission of guilt. If Cain did commit sexual harassment, he should be rightly investigated and appropriately disciplined. The evidence is lacking, but the fallout could be great.
In our politically correct society, the charge of "sexual harassment" is particularly acidic. The accuser is often given the benefit of the doubt, as great scrutiny is dispatched onto the accused. Thomas was able to avoid the stain and it appears that Cain, too, may be able to withstand the charges, given that his current standing in the polls has not diminished.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted this week has Romney in the lead at 24% and Cain closely behind at 23%. A Rasmussen poll, also conducted this week, found that, among likely Republican voters, 26% would vote for Cain, while 23% would vote for Romney. Of course, these polls are focused on GOP voters, so it is difficult to determine if Cain has broad-spectrum appeal.
To be sure, Cain and his camp have to marginalize these resurgent allegations before they morph into a national campaign that derails his candidacy. Cain, with calm determination, has to strike at the heart of the claims.
Herman's political opponents are going for maximum political return on these charges, and the Godfather must, for the wellbeing of his own campaign, stop the momentum. If not, Hermann may be forced to add another title to his collection: that of harasser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)