Friday, October 28, 2011
CSPAN Video 21: Presidents, Presidential Candidates, and the Media
This C-SPAN video clip features Stephen Farnsworth, Assistant Professor of Political Communications at George Mason University and author of Spinner in Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves, discussing how presidents use the media to sell image over substance. Prof. Farnsworth talks about then President-elect Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan and how they both used the media. Interesting insight and analysis. The clip includes a portion of Reagan's speech at Normandy Beach in 1984.
CSPAN Video 20: Conservatives and the Media
This C-SPAN video segment features Eric Telford, Executive Director of RightOnline, opining about right wing groups and the use of media. Mr. Telford's analysis is worthy of some consideration. He discusses how the mainstream media can select which stories to cover and which opinions to present. The new media--specifically social networking--allow for the presentation of views (and opinion) not held by the so-called political mainstream. It is interesting analysis that applies, not only to the conservative movement, but to movements typically condemned as extreme or fringy.
CSPAN Video 19: Values Voter Summit Panel, the Media's Coverage of Conservatives
This C-SPAN video segment, from the Values Voter Summit 2011, features a panel discussing the question, "Does the media get the values voter?" The two panelists in this segment offer interesting responses to the question. Ed Morrison, writer at Hot Air Blog, notes that the mainstream media--and, often, the new media--miss the value voters. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writer at National Review Online, offers an interesting response, incorporating some modern television shows. Part of the analysis involves discussing the dichotomy of the mainstream-new media.
Santorum to the Sanitarium ...
... mental sanitarium, that is. I have not devoted much attention to Rick Santorum, the almost forgettable GOP candidate and former GOP Senator from Pennsylvania. I write "almost" because just as Santorum is about to exit collective memory and consciousness, he manages to utter a pronouncement that places him on the short-list of politicians worthy of complete marginalization. All one has to do is recall his pronouncements on Iran or any one of many issues of social concern (e.g., abortion).
Santorum had some interesting comments--and pointed attacks--during last week's GOP debate in Nevada, but he has been largely quiet during the campaign. His poll numbers and campaign fundraising garner little attention because his campaign is barely a blip on the presidential primary radar. Focus is given--some say rightly--to Romney, Perry, and now Cain; Santorum is referenced but usually when being presented as an after-thought. I certainly support the media's treatment of Santorum.
This week, however, Santorum decided to utilize the power of campaign ads to strike at one (of many) of Godfather Cain's weaknesses: the issue of abortion. The three minute long campaign ad is below:
Cain has certainly revealed his inability to adopt consistent positions on a host of issues of primary concern to the Christian Conservatives. Santorum, in stark contrast, maintains consistent positions against abortion and gay marriage and has decided to exploit Cain's pronounced vulnerability on these issues. The above campaign ad is long and tiring to watch but it does have a clear focus: to put a dent into Cain's ascendancy. OK. But, really, Cain will do more damage to his own ascendancy than can any political opponent or campaign strategist. This ad is an obvious effort by Santorum to continue courting the conservatives for whom abortion is a major concern.
The Iowa caucus is in the near future and conservative Republicans are likely to take issue with Cain's "flip flopping" on abortion, but I doubt that this ad will serve to propel Santorum to the top of the list. Even if the ad succeeds in denting Cain's ascendancy, Santorum will still have to neutralize both Perry and Romney and possibly even the Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. You remember Ron Paul, do you not?
On Thursday, CBS News reported that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum criticized Perry for entertaining the possibility of skipping several of the upcoming GOP debates. Their criticisms were solid and expected. Perry has not been performing well in the recent debates, so his decision to possibly duck out is politically calculated but, also, politically foolish. Perry's political handlers should dedicate more time to pre-debate preparation. Perry should memorize sound-bite responses to his opponents' vulnerabilities and to construct retorts (both witty and substantive) to his opponents' allegations. A strong Texas cowboy would never cowardly miss a debate. Truly, at this rate, the candidates are granting Santorum easy, and abundant, access to exploitable political error.
All great primaries are, at the very least, part political sideshow; but it seems that this GOP presidential primary is all dramatic show--not even dramatic show masquerading as detailed political discussion. I do not know what this says about the state of American democracy, but as a blogger, I can say: do not let the curtain come down. And let Santorum continue to sidestep the sanitarium.
Santorum had some interesting comments--and pointed attacks--during last week's GOP debate in Nevada, but he has been largely quiet during the campaign. His poll numbers and campaign fundraising garner little attention because his campaign is barely a blip on the presidential primary radar. Focus is given--some say rightly--to Romney, Perry, and now Cain; Santorum is referenced but usually when being presented as an after-thought. I certainly support the media's treatment of Santorum.
This week, however, Santorum decided to utilize the power of campaign ads to strike at one (of many) of Godfather Cain's weaknesses: the issue of abortion. The three minute long campaign ad is below:
Cain has certainly revealed his inability to adopt consistent positions on a host of issues of primary concern to the Christian Conservatives. Santorum, in stark contrast, maintains consistent positions against abortion and gay marriage and has decided to exploit Cain's pronounced vulnerability on these issues. The above campaign ad is long and tiring to watch but it does have a clear focus: to put a dent into Cain's ascendancy. OK. But, really, Cain will do more damage to his own ascendancy than can any political opponent or campaign strategist. This ad is an obvious effort by Santorum to continue courting the conservatives for whom abortion is a major concern.
The Iowa caucus is in the near future and conservative Republicans are likely to take issue with Cain's "flip flopping" on abortion, but I doubt that this ad will serve to propel Santorum to the top of the list. Even if the ad succeeds in denting Cain's ascendancy, Santorum will still have to neutralize both Perry and Romney and possibly even the Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. You remember Ron Paul, do you not?
On Thursday, CBS News reported that both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum criticized Perry for entertaining the possibility of skipping several of the upcoming GOP debates. Their criticisms were solid and expected. Perry has not been performing well in the recent debates, so his decision to possibly duck out is politically calculated but, also, politically foolish. Perry's political handlers should dedicate more time to pre-debate preparation. Perry should memorize sound-bite responses to his opponents' vulnerabilities and to construct retorts (both witty and substantive) to his opponents' allegations. A strong Texas cowboy would never cowardly miss a debate. Truly, at this rate, the candidates are granting Santorum easy, and abundant, access to exploitable political error.
All great primaries are, at the very least, part political sideshow; but it seems that this GOP presidential primary is all dramatic show--not even dramatic show masquerading as detailed political discussion. I do not know what this says about the state of American democracy, but as a blogger, I can say: do not let the curtain come down. And let Santorum continue to sidestep the sanitarium.
Running or Rallying to Romney ...
Mitt Romney is a rather fascinating GOP candidate. He ran for the party nomination in '07 and lost to the Vietnam vet. Now he's trying desperately to secure enough support, establishment backing, and money to obtain the party's nomination and then to mount a defense against Obama. To be sure, he has been dealt some blows: Perry's entrance and initial ascendancy, Christie's contemplation, and Herr Herman's recent bizarre and unsettling surge. After a stellar performance (read: attack) at last week's GOP debate in Nevada, the former governor seems to be settling into some comfortable territory.
The WSJ on Friday reported that Gov. Romney had secured the backing of several prominent George W. Bush campaign contributors. The article noted that Romney has managed to obtain "twice as many" backers as Perry. The article is telling for two reasons: 1. It indicates that major donors have become of the opinion that Romney is the man most qualified to launch a significant challenge to President Obama in a general election; doubtless, these donors (while ideologically committed to a certain extent) are concerned about broad-spectrum appeal. Romney, as it happens, has a record--especially as the Governor of Massachusetts--that is comprised of certain liberal (or non-conservative) "elements." 2. A certain line of agreement has been reached between major donors and various segments within the so-called party faithful. The latter has, at best, offered mild endorsement or exhibited subdued enthusiasm for Romney; but perhaps these same segments are realizing that Romney is, in fact, the best bet for the GOP. To be sure, many Evangelical Christians are unlikely to agree.
This coalescing of support has irritated Romney's opponents, especially Texas Governor Rick Perry. Last week's GOP debate revealed the intense dislike that Romney and Perry hold for each other. The hostile commentary and snarky retorts functioned to display that drama to the American people. This week, Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Perry's camp, decided to take aim at Romney: "Mitt Romney's positions change, often dramatically, depending on the audience or location" (WSJ.com). The politically calculated soundbite was in response to Romney's apparent flip-flopping on the issue of global warming.
Romney's speeches, referencing global warming, and Sullivan's press statement are all part of the political show; no new information is revealed and maximum political return is the aim. It is clear that the Perry camp desires to discredit Romney's candidacy by presenting him as not merely insufficiently conservative but, worse, too liberally oriented. It is a standard strategy but one that the Perry camp cannot seem to master. Perry is desperately attempting to regain lost territory but, in the process, manages to cede further ground. It is something to behold. In a way, Romney is a (or, rather, the) beneficiary of Perry's crumbling campaign.
On Thursday, RealClearPolitics.com reported that a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that, in the race for the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary, Romney was leading with 41%; Cain had 27%, Paul 11%, and Perry at ... 4%. Romney's lead is major and Perry's ranking is, well, pathetic. Too sound to turn Perry to the count, but one thing is for certain: Romney is not going anywhere, especially if the major GOP donors continue to view him as their "chosen one." Perhaps Perry will be returned to the Texan ranch, cowboy boots and all.
The WSJ on Friday reported that Gov. Romney had secured the backing of several prominent George W. Bush campaign contributors. The article noted that Romney has managed to obtain "twice as many" backers as Perry. The article is telling for two reasons: 1. It indicates that major donors have become of the opinion that Romney is the man most qualified to launch a significant challenge to President Obama in a general election; doubtless, these donors (while ideologically committed to a certain extent) are concerned about broad-spectrum appeal. Romney, as it happens, has a record--especially as the Governor of Massachusetts--that is comprised of certain liberal (or non-conservative) "elements." 2. A certain line of agreement has been reached between major donors and various segments within the so-called party faithful. The latter has, at best, offered mild endorsement or exhibited subdued enthusiasm for Romney; but perhaps these same segments are realizing that Romney is, in fact, the best bet for the GOP. To be sure, many Evangelical Christians are unlikely to agree.
This coalescing of support has irritated Romney's opponents, especially Texas Governor Rick Perry. Last week's GOP debate revealed the intense dislike that Romney and Perry hold for each other. The hostile commentary and snarky retorts functioned to display that drama to the American people. This week, Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Perry's camp, decided to take aim at Romney: "Mitt Romney's positions change, often dramatically, depending on the audience or location" (WSJ.com). The politically calculated soundbite was in response to Romney's apparent flip-flopping on the issue of global warming.
Romney's speeches, referencing global warming, and Sullivan's press statement are all part of the political show; no new information is revealed and maximum political return is the aim. It is clear that the Perry camp desires to discredit Romney's candidacy by presenting him as not merely insufficiently conservative but, worse, too liberally oriented. It is a standard strategy but one that the Perry camp cannot seem to master. Perry is desperately attempting to regain lost territory but, in the process, manages to cede further ground. It is something to behold. In a way, Romney is a (or, rather, the) beneficiary of Perry's crumbling campaign.
On Thursday, RealClearPolitics.com reported that a recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that, in the race for the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary, Romney was leading with 41%; Cain had 27%, Paul 11%, and Perry at ... 4%. Romney's lead is major and Perry's ranking is, well, pathetic. Too sound to turn Perry to the count, but one thing is for certain: Romney is not going anywhere, especially if the major GOP donors continue to view him as their "chosen one." Perhaps Perry will be returned to the Texan ranch, cowboy boots and all.
Friday, October 21, 2011
CSPAN Video 18: Ms. Nossel at Dem. Party Platform Drafting Hearing
This CSPAN video clip features Ms. Suzanne Nossel, Chief Operating Officer of Human Rights Watch, the vaunted international human rights organization. Ms. Nossel is giving testimony before a hearing of the Platform Committee of the Democratic National Committee, 2008. In her testimony, Ms. Nossel is trying to persuade the Committee to include within their platform a section on the importance of human rights. She also encourages the Committee to adopt strong language repudiating much of the Bush administration's human rights policies (e.g., water boarding). Some interesting testimony.
CSPAN Video 17: Democratic Party Platform, 2008, Discussed
This CSPAN video clip features Patricia Madrid, the Co-Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform Committee. Ms. Madrid discusses the process by which the platform is created. She notes that the committee is a standing committee, consisting of 186 members. Ms. Madrid states that the 2008 platform was put together quickly. Senator Obama was involved in the process, too. This video clip provides some insight into the platform creation process: who is involved, how are issues selected and emphasized, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)