Friday, November 18, 2011
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)