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.
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.
CSPAN Video 16: Republican Party Platform, 2008, Discussed
This CSPAN video clip is from September 1, 2008. Representative Kevin McCarthy, R-California, 22nd District, and Senator Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, discuss the 2008 Republican Party platform. Rep. McCarthy calls it the most "open and transparent" platform yet; Sen. Burr discusses consensus building. The ratification of the platform is also discussed. This video gives interesting insight into the platform creation process. Noteworthy: Immigration was a key issue in the '08 Republican Party platform.
Mes-'o-potamia No More: Obama Decides, Romney Replies
On Friday, President Barack Obama shocked the U.S.--and the world--by announcing that at year's end, U.S. combat forces will depart Iraq, caping an eight year long war. His decision was heralded by some and attacked by others.
The Iraq War, launched in March 2003, has been one of the most divisive policy decisions in recent memory. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Some say wasted; well, I say wasted--and others, surely, agree. No need to recount the Iraqi episodes of political contention; all of the events are in the historical record and easily searchable, either in your individual memory or Google. If you are bored, do a Google search for "Iraq War."
WSJ.com, in their reporting of Obama's announcement, noted that the war "divided the country, transformed the military and left an enduring mark on American history." All of this is true. And many books will be published discussing the Iraq War's placement in American history. Fine. But where does this decision leave the political landscape--the presidential political landscape, that is?
President Obama, perhaps preemptively responding to the charge that his decision was "politically motivated,"stated in his press conference that a goal of his 2008 presidential campaign had been to remove U.S. troops stationed in Iraq by the end of 2011 and that he was able to report that the goal can, and will, be kept. It is important to remember, too, that President Bush had desired troop removal by the end of 2011. Bush's "Status of Forces Agreement" is worthy of some reference. The contentious war, started by a Repub, that cost some $700 billion and took the lives of 4,400 troops, is being completed by a Dem. History will judge the war and its participants. But will it be exacting in its judgment?
For all of those hawkish Americans, concerned about foreign policy, President Obama has been a Titan: he initiated drone attacks in Pakistan, beefed up our presence in Afghanistan, assassinated bin-Laden (and seized his body), supported the protestors in Egypt, supported the rebels in Libya, assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen, btw), and "presided" over the slow and arduous process of troop withdrawal in Iraq. It is an impressive listing for those war, violence, and bloodshed loving Americans.
Obama's decision helps to secure, for his campaign, additional support from those hardline Dems for whom the Iraq War was a chief concern; this group has been largely critical of Obama's foreign policy and its military interludes. I am sure that some moderates, also, will be attracted to Obama's decision; no doubt they will view it as Obama possessing the ability to conclude a bloody and divisive military endeavor. A sort of badge of honor, I'm guessing. But, for others, Obama's decision reveals weakness and a fundamental inability to govern.
One particular GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, was a shark that sensed blood in the water and went for maximum political return. Shortly after Obama's press conference, Romney issued an indignant press release stating, "President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women." Wow. The gloves come off and caustic political rhetoric rears its head. Nice! It is a wonderful response because it aims at political capitalization. Romney is positioning himself to inherit the mantle of "National Security Conservative." Gov. Romney is utilizing this opportunity to not only beef up his "conservative credentials" against the other candidates but, also, to set himself apart from Obama and the latter's "astonishing failure."
Romney can go in several directions. He could claim that Iraq is not ready for the withdrawal (i.e., it is a premature withdrawal); he could also claim that Obama's inability to negotiate a U.S. military presence there beyond January 1 (as some DOD officials wanted) reveals his weakness and inability to negotiate. And, of course, Romney--or any other GOP candidate, for that matter--could say that a withdrawal by the end of 2011 is politically motivated, pure and simple--regardless of what Obama says. The truth can be lost amidst the political rhetoric and critical campaign ads.
Let the excitement continue, and let the lies fly!
The Iraq War, launched in March 2003, has been one of the most divisive policy decisions in recent memory. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Some say wasted; well, I say wasted--and others, surely, agree. No need to recount the Iraqi episodes of political contention; all of the events are in the historical record and easily searchable, either in your individual memory or Google. If you are bored, do a Google search for "Iraq War."
WSJ.com, in their reporting of Obama's announcement, noted that the war "divided the country, transformed the military and left an enduring mark on American history." All of this is true. And many books will be published discussing the Iraq War's placement in American history. Fine. But where does this decision leave the political landscape--the presidential political landscape, that is?
President Obama, perhaps preemptively responding to the charge that his decision was "politically motivated,"stated in his press conference that a goal of his 2008 presidential campaign had been to remove U.S. troops stationed in Iraq by the end of 2011 and that he was able to report that the goal can, and will, be kept. It is important to remember, too, that President Bush had desired troop removal by the end of 2011. Bush's "Status of Forces Agreement" is worthy of some reference. The contentious war, started by a Repub, that cost some $700 billion and took the lives of 4,400 troops, is being completed by a Dem. History will judge the war and its participants. But will it be exacting in its judgment?
For all of those hawkish Americans, concerned about foreign policy, President Obama has been a Titan: he initiated drone attacks in Pakistan, beefed up our presence in Afghanistan, assassinated bin-Laden (and seized his body), supported the protestors in Egypt, supported the rebels in Libya, assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen, btw), and "presided" over the slow and arduous process of troop withdrawal in Iraq. It is an impressive listing for those war, violence, and bloodshed loving Americans.
Obama's decision helps to secure, for his campaign, additional support from those hardline Dems for whom the Iraq War was a chief concern; this group has been largely critical of Obama's foreign policy and its military interludes. I am sure that some moderates, also, will be attracted to Obama's decision; no doubt they will view it as Obama possessing the ability to conclude a bloody and divisive military endeavor. A sort of badge of honor, I'm guessing. But, for others, Obama's decision reveals weakness and a fundamental inability to govern.
One particular GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, was a shark that sensed blood in the water and went for maximum political return. Shortly after Obama's press conference, Romney issued an indignant press release stating, "President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women." Wow. The gloves come off and caustic political rhetoric rears its head. Nice! It is a wonderful response because it aims at political capitalization. Romney is positioning himself to inherit the mantle of "National Security Conservative." Gov. Romney is utilizing this opportunity to not only beef up his "conservative credentials" against the other candidates but, also, to set himself apart from Obama and the latter's "astonishing failure."
Romney can go in several directions. He could claim that Iraq is not ready for the withdrawal (i.e., it is a premature withdrawal); he could also claim that Obama's inability to negotiate a U.S. military presence there beyond January 1 (as some DOD officials wanted) reveals his weakness and inability to negotiate. And, of course, Romney--or any other GOP candidate, for that matter--could say that a withdrawal by the end of 2011 is politically motivated, pure and simple--regardless of what Obama says. The truth can be lost amidst the political rhetoric and critical campaign ads.
Let the excitement continue, and let the lies fly!
Turn the Other Cheek Takes the Backseat: the GOP Debate
The Repub primary season this week received a much needed jolt of energy, with the Nevada GOP debate from Tuesday night. The remaining Repub presidential contenders became more combative, as talk of tax reform policy took center stage.
The recent surge in popularity of Herman Cain has focused attention on the sine qua non of his campaign platform: the "9-9-9 Plan," which I discussed in a blog post from last week. Cain's plan, while certainly imperfect and highly contentious, has placed discussions of Federal taxation at the front of this campaign season. Each of the remaining candidates has been compelled to respond to Cain's plan and, in some cases, offer solutions of their own.
Candidate Michelle Bachmann, joined Santorum, Perry, Paul, and Romney, in directly criticizing Cain's proposal; the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offered a rather tepid criticism that really focused on his desire to reduce, or extirpate, specific taxes: a zero percent capital gains tax, for example. Cain was afforded the opportunity to respond to each one of the criticisms (which he did), largely referencing a study of "9-9-9", completed by Fiscal Associates, that's on his site. Gingrich made the rather sobering point that "9-9-9" is not as simple as it sounds--there are myriad complexities worthy of prolonged assessment. Among Cain's interesting responses was "apples and oranges," an attempt to dismiss Perry's criticisms of "9-9-9." Surely the God Father of Godfather's Pizza could've devised a more creative, and politically beneficial, retort. Or ... maybe not.
BTW: How about focusing on Paul's proposal? His criticism of "9-9-9" is sound: it's a regressive tax. Dangerous and sinister. Enough said.
On a related note: I love how both Cain and Romney utilized the intro time allotted to emphasize how they spent long (and distinguished) careers in the business sector. Smart and politically useful.
Considerable attention was also given to Mitt Romney, who has been cruising in a comfortable spot on the media's designated "top tier." Specifically, Santorum--whose campaign is trying desperately to avoid the abyss--hurled a specific, albeit common, charge at Romney, challenging the latter's purported willingness to dismantle Obamacare: "your plan was the basis for Obamacare." This led to a memorable, and quite humorous (well, humorous for political pundits), exchange. Moderator Anderson Cooper tried intervening without much success. Romney's response did manage to elicit positive (and powerful) feedback from the audience.
Gingrich, to his credit, honed in on a fundamental distinction: top-down solutions vs. bottom-up solutions. Romney's health care reform in Massachusetts (call it what you will) was, rhetoric aside, a top-down, government imposed measure. We should not be quick to say that societal/economic problems are only solvable through the heavy hand of government. Top-down solutions impose unnecessary costs and have odious unintended consequences. Let us avoid them. And, to be expected, Romney responded to Gingrich's commentary on Romney's health care reform, which resulted in another memorable exchange.
Hostility abounded.
Ron Paul opportunity: There are seven candidates in the GOP field and only one of them is a doctor; on health care reform, let us hear from Dr. Paul. Now there is a novel idea.
The debate was memorable, as the Biblical maxim of "turn the other cheek" yielded to "an eye for an eye."
The recent surge in popularity of Herman Cain has focused attention on the sine qua non of his campaign platform: the "9-9-9 Plan," which I discussed in a blog post from last week. Cain's plan, while certainly imperfect and highly contentious, has placed discussions of Federal taxation at the front of this campaign season. Each of the remaining candidates has been compelled to respond to Cain's plan and, in some cases, offer solutions of their own.
Candidate Michelle Bachmann, joined Santorum, Perry, Paul, and Romney, in directly criticizing Cain's proposal; the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offered a rather tepid criticism that really focused on his desire to reduce, or extirpate, specific taxes: a zero percent capital gains tax, for example. Cain was afforded the opportunity to respond to each one of the criticisms (which he did), largely referencing a study of "9-9-9", completed by Fiscal Associates, that's on his site. Gingrich made the rather sobering point that "9-9-9" is not as simple as it sounds--there are myriad complexities worthy of prolonged assessment. Among Cain's interesting responses was "apples and oranges," an attempt to dismiss Perry's criticisms of "9-9-9." Surely the God Father of Godfather's Pizza could've devised a more creative, and politically beneficial, retort. Or ... maybe not.
BTW: How about focusing on Paul's proposal? His criticism of "9-9-9" is sound: it's a regressive tax. Dangerous and sinister. Enough said.
On a related note: I love how both Cain and Romney utilized the intro time allotted to emphasize how they spent long (and distinguished) careers in the business sector. Smart and politically useful.
Considerable attention was also given to Mitt Romney, who has been cruising in a comfortable spot on the media's designated "top tier." Specifically, Santorum--whose campaign is trying desperately to avoid the abyss--hurled a specific, albeit common, charge at Romney, challenging the latter's purported willingness to dismantle Obamacare: "your plan was the basis for Obamacare." This led to a memorable, and quite humorous (well, humorous for political pundits), exchange. Moderator Anderson Cooper tried intervening without much success. Romney's response did manage to elicit positive (and powerful) feedback from the audience.
Gingrich, to his credit, honed in on a fundamental distinction: top-down solutions vs. bottom-up solutions. Romney's health care reform in Massachusetts (call it what you will) was, rhetoric aside, a top-down, government imposed measure. We should not be quick to say that societal/economic problems are only solvable through the heavy hand of government. Top-down solutions impose unnecessary costs and have odious unintended consequences. Let us avoid them. And, to be expected, Romney responded to Gingrich's commentary on Romney's health care reform, which resulted in another memorable exchange.
Hostility abounded.
Ron Paul opportunity: There are seven candidates in the GOP field and only one of them is a doctor; on health care reform, let us hear from Dr. Paul. Now there is a novel idea.
The debate was memorable, as the Biblical maxim of "turn the other cheek" yielded to "an eye for an eye."
Saturday, October 15, 2011
CSPAN Video 15: Barack Obama's Famed 2004 Democratic Convention Speech
This video features a portion of then Senator Barack Obama's famed 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, emanating from Boston, Massachusetts. Obama speaks about how most Americans would admit that government alone cannot solve our problems. An intriguing speech from a man who would, a mere four years later, be elected President of the United States. A rhetorical gem. Worthy of a view.
CSPAN Video 14: Barack Obama, 2008 Democratic Convention
This video features most of the DNC Video of Barack Obama that was shown before Obama's speech, accepting his party's nomination for President, from the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, CO. The video helped to energize an already enthusiastic crowd. The interplay of pictures, video imagery, music, and narration is truly superb. The video surely serves as both biographical introduction (of Obama) and political advertising. Great creative work. Definitely worth a view ... or two.
CSPAN Video 13: John McCain, 2008 Republican National Convention
This video features John McCain, as he accepts the Republican nomination for President, at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. This segment of his acceptance speech shows McCain giving almost obligatory thanks to President Bush and his eight year service to America. Senator McCain also praises his wife, Cindy, and his mother, Roberta. Note the crowd enthusiastically chanting "USA. USA!" at the start of this clip. This clip does a nice job of capturing the spirit that permeates most conventions.
Obama, Romney, Occupy Wall Street, and Election 2012
I will resist the temptation to provide commentary and analysis that equates "Occupy Wall Street" with the "Tea Part Movement"; such analysis has been provided by other pundits, so further analysis would be overkill. But the movement that started September 17--not too far from my apartment, btw--could morph into a key component of Obama's reelection strategy and, therefore, become a key element of the "Race for the White House, 2012."
On Friday, the WaPo carried an article discussing how Obama is poised to use the anger of those "99%"--a ridiculous and grotesquely inaccurate "Occupy Wall Street" slogan--to court critics of Romney and Repub policies. It should be noted, though, that protestors have an interesting way of selecting history to suit their ideological agenda; the policies that the protestors are criticizing were supported not just by the business interests and the Repubs but also by the Democrats and Obama, particularly the team of economic advisors that Obama assembled shortly after taking office. So, these protestors should be quick to acknowledge the undeniable facts of history and resist being co-opted by Obama.
Back to the article. Obama has intensified his rhetoric in recent weeks, targeting Bank of America, by name, for imposing a new $5 monthly fee on their debit cards. Obama is walking a thin line: he is targeting a company, the largest US bank by assets, that continues to be destabilized by mounting losses from collateralized debt obligations--and other so-called "exotic financial instruments." By targeting BofA, Obama is both dealing a public relations blow to the financial firm and also trying to court ideologically committed leftists. While the critical line was fairly mild ("exactly the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by") it is still the type of shallow political rhetoric that does more economic harm than good.
An Obama senior advisor, David Plouffe, was quoted in the article as saying that "One of the main elements of contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it." It is a wise contrast and one that, depending on the level of anti-bank hysteria, could be profound enough to challenge the Repub nominee.
It is a fairly old dichotomy that has worked well, at least rhetorically speaking: Wall Street is represented by the Repubs and Main Street and labor are supported by the Dems. Obama is pulling on the coalescing anti-Wall Street hysteria by presenting himself, even before the Repubs have their nominee, as the candidate best suited to challenge the excesses of the financial firms, as embodied by Wall Street. The Obama campaign will be layered with floury rhetoric about the Repub nominee and the policies he (or she) supports.
Romney brilliantly responded to the anti-Wall Street movement by honing in on the anger of middle-income Americans. If Obama will present himself as labor's savior, then no doubt Romney will position himself as the savior of middle-income America. Romney's point--politically motivated, of course--is a somber truth: for most Americans, wages have either declined or stagnated since the early 70s and the collapse of Bretton Woods. Middle-income America is slowly eroding under the heavy burden of rising prices (slowly rising, to be sure) and mounting debt. It is a near universal message that holds particularly true for America.
Conservative Repubs, at least in rhetoric and message, have supported reducing the size of government and its regulatory reach. Romney--or any other candidate--could make "streamlining the regulatory state" a flank of their campaign.
Romney's focus should remain on middle -income America and their frustrations.
BTW: what about Ron Paul's proposal? Increase focus on the FED and end corporate welfare ... seems profound to me.
On Friday, the WaPo carried an article discussing how Obama is poised to use the anger of those "99%"--a ridiculous and grotesquely inaccurate "Occupy Wall Street" slogan--to court critics of Romney and Repub policies. It should be noted, though, that protestors have an interesting way of selecting history to suit their ideological agenda; the policies that the protestors are criticizing were supported not just by the business interests and the Repubs but also by the Democrats and Obama, particularly the team of economic advisors that Obama assembled shortly after taking office. So, these protestors should be quick to acknowledge the undeniable facts of history and resist being co-opted by Obama.
Back to the article. Obama has intensified his rhetoric in recent weeks, targeting Bank of America, by name, for imposing a new $5 monthly fee on their debit cards. Obama is walking a thin line: he is targeting a company, the largest US bank by assets, that continues to be destabilized by mounting losses from collateralized debt obligations--and other so-called "exotic financial instruments." By targeting BofA, Obama is both dealing a public relations blow to the financial firm and also trying to court ideologically committed leftists. While the critical line was fairly mild ("exactly the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by") it is still the type of shallow political rhetoric that does more economic harm than good.
An Obama senior advisor, David Plouffe, was quoted in the article as saying that "One of the main elements of contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it." It is a wise contrast and one that, depending on the level of anti-bank hysteria, could be profound enough to challenge the Repub nominee.
It is a fairly old dichotomy that has worked well, at least rhetorically speaking: Wall Street is represented by the Repubs and Main Street and labor are supported by the Dems. Obama is pulling on the coalescing anti-Wall Street hysteria by presenting himself, even before the Repubs have their nominee, as the candidate best suited to challenge the excesses of the financial firms, as embodied by Wall Street. The Obama campaign will be layered with floury rhetoric about the Repub nominee and the policies he (or she) supports.
Romney brilliantly responded to the anti-Wall Street movement by honing in on the anger of middle-income Americans. If Obama will present himself as labor's savior, then no doubt Romney will position himself as the savior of middle-income America. Romney's point--politically motivated, of course--is a somber truth: for most Americans, wages have either declined or stagnated since the early 70s and the collapse of Bretton Woods. Middle-income America is slowly eroding under the heavy burden of rising prices (slowly rising, to be sure) and mounting debt. It is a near universal message that holds particularly true for America.
Conservative Repubs, at least in rhetoric and message, have supported reducing the size of government and its regulatory reach. Romney--or any other candidate--could make "streamlining the regulatory state" a flank of their campaign.
Romney's focus should remain on middle -income America and their frustrations.
BTW: what about Ron Paul's proposal? Increase focus on the FED and end corporate welfare ... seems profound to me.
Cain Enjoys A 9-9-9 Surge and Perry Endeavors to Jumpstart His Campaign
Among the news items making the headlines this week was the story that Herman Cain, the former pizza guru and Kansas City FED head, had once again surged in the polls, mounting a significant challenge (at least by polling indicators) to the media's anointed frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week found that 27% of likely Republican voters would vote for Cain, compared to 23% for Romney and 16% for Governor Perry.
The Christian Science Monitor, the always intriguing source of news and opinion, reported on Oct. 15 that, according to a recent regulatory filing, Cain raised a meager $2.8 million last quarter, as compared to Perry's staggering $17 million and Romney's impressive $14 million. Despite this noticeable (and profound) discrepancy in money raised, Cain still managed to experience a jolt in the polls. But why?
The CSMonitor credits Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" for the jolt. His plan received some attention during one of the recent Republican debates and, as of late, Cain has focused an increasing amount of attention to his plan and his desire to reform the U.S. tax system. The American people, at least since 1913 and the ratification of the 16th amendment, have maintained an interesting relationship to the tax system. During every major presidential election since, tax and, more to the point, tax reform has been among the debated topics. Cain joins the ranks of Steve Forbes and Ron Paul, Repub candidates--either current or past--who have desired to overhaul our unjust tax system.
As I noted in a previous blog post, I am compelled to affix some responsibility for his surge on his plan, but I am reluctant to affix complete responsibility. With that said, the CSMonitor does have a point: there is an appeal to the relative simplicity of Cain's "9-9-9 plan": 9% tax on business income, 9% tax on personal income, and 9% federal sales tax. Out goes the nearly incomprehensible IRS tax code and in comes Cain's plan. I welcome reform efforts aimed at dismantling our current tax system, but I do not feel Cain's plan goes far enough.
BTW: Paul's proposal for addressing the income tax and IRS should be receiving more attention. But, to afford it more attention would mean to acknowledge Paul and, golly gee, the media cannot do that.
On Friday, the CSMonitor also published an article on Perry's proposal for drastically improving the U.S. economy: three words, "domestic energy production." It is an interesting approach on two-fronts. One, if successful, it may just revitalize his campaign (just as he hopes it will improve the economy); and two, reintroduce the idea of utilizing our domestic resources for energy purposes.
The article framed his approach as "Drill, baby, drill"--a three word slogan that brings a smile to my face. The approach--whether employing the slogan or not--deals a one-two punch: it challenges the Obama administration and their EPA regulatory measures; and helps Perry court both business and fiscal conservatives and many Americans who are worried about the state of the economy.
Perry's proposal would enable firms to drill for oil in ANWR in Alaska, as well as "open the eastern Gulf of Mexico and US Atlantic to both exploration and drilling. The plan, Perry contended, would create some 1.2 million new US jobs. At a time when the national unemployment rate hovers around 9%, 1.2 million new US jobs would be a welcomed addition. Perry noted that the "best part" is that most of this could be accomplished through executive order, free of traditional congressional gridlock.
Will Perry's plan jumpstart his floundering campaign and curb Cain's surge? The answer is unclear but one this is for sure: the economy remains front and center in public consciousness.
The Christian Science Monitor, the always intriguing source of news and opinion, reported on Oct. 15 that, according to a recent regulatory filing, Cain raised a meager $2.8 million last quarter, as compared to Perry's staggering $17 million and Romney's impressive $14 million. Despite this noticeable (and profound) discrepancy in money raised, Cain still managed to experience a jolt in the polls. But why?
The CSMonitor credits Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" for the jolt. His plan received some attention during one of the recent Republican debates and, as of late, Cain has focused an increasing amount of attention to his plan and his desire to reform the U.S. tax system. The American people, at least since 1913 and the ratification of the 16th amendment, have maintained an interesting relationship to the tax system. During every major presidential election since, tax and, more to the point, tax reform has been among the debated topics. Cain joins the ranks of Steve Forbes and Ron Paul, Repub candidates--either current or past--who have desired to overhaul our unjust tax system.
As I noted in a previous blog post, I am compelled to affix some responsibility for his surge on his plan, but I am reluctant to affix complete responsibility. With that said, the CSMonitor does have a point: there is an appeal to the relative simplicity of Cain's "9-9-9 plan": 9% tax on business income, 9% tax on personal income, and 9% federal sales tax. Out goes the nearly incomprehensible IRS tax code and in comes Cain's plan. I welcome reform efforts aimed at dismantling our current tax system, but I do not feel Cain's plan goes far enough.
BTW: Paul's proposal for addressing the income tax and IRS should be receiving more attention. But, to afford it more attention would mean to acknowledge Paul and, golly gee, the media cannot do that.
On Friday, the CSMonitor also published an article on Perry's proposal for drastically improving the U.S. economy: three words, "domestic energy production." It is an interesting approach on two-fronts. One, if successful, it may just revitalize his campaign (just as he hopes it will improve the economy); and two, reintroduce the idea of utilizing our domestic resources for energy purposes.
The article framed his approach as "Drill, baby, drill"--a three word slogan that brings a smile to my face. The approach--whether employing the slogan or not--deals a one-two punch: it challenges the Obama administration and their EPA regulatory measures; and helps Perry court both business and fiscal conservatives and many Americans who are worried about the state of the economy.
Perry's proposal would enable firms to drill for oil in ANWR in Alaska, as well as "open the eastern Gulf of Mexico and US Atlantic to both exploration and drilling. The plan, Perry contended, would create some 1.2 million new US jobs. At a time when the national unemployment rate hovers around 9%, 1.2 million new US jobs would be a welcomed addition. Perry noted that the "best part" is that most of this could be accomplished through executive order, free of traditional congressional gridlock.
Will Perry's plan jumpstart his floundering campaign and curb Cain's surge? The answer is unclear but one this is for sure: the economy remains front and center in public consciousness.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
CSPAN Video 12: Nick Gillespie on Politicians from the Two Parties and "Tribal Loyalties"
Nick Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief of reason.tv and reason.com and author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, takes aim at several prominent politicians and the two party system. He notes that most American have "tribal loyalties" to the Dems and Repubs and that this system grants a narrow range of politicians and candidates. An entertaining segment, to be sure. Enjoy!
CSPAN Video 11: Nader and Running for President, Outside of the Two-Parties
The always articulate and entertaining Ralph Nader speaks here from a dinner in 2004. The then Independent candidate for U.S. President criticizes Bush by emphasizing the severity of Bush's unilateral decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Interesting to see how an honest man--one non-aligned to the two party state--"can speak truth to power."
CSPAN Video 10: FRC, "Value" Voters, and the Two Party System
Tom McClusky, Government Affairs VP at the Family Research Council (FRC), talks about the role of "value" voters in the presidential campaign and their "importance" to the Republican Party, specifically during the campaign season. He also mentions the FRC and some of their work. As expected, he criticizes Obama's policies and the attention they're getting.
Friday, October 7, 2011
A No from Christie, Cain Surges, Romney in the Lead?
Last week, your wonderful (not to mention humble) blogger, while ruminating on the prospects of a Christie entrance into the Repub primary season, made the NJ governor the focus of a blog post. Earlier this week, as we inched closer and closer to the filing deadline, we received an answer: a definitive "no." The rotund governor had decided against entering the race.
I will not rehash some of the obstacles that Christie would have faced if he had decided to enter the race; but feel free to read my blog post on the subject!
The media's attention had been fixed on Christie and his impending announcement. Certain outlets mentioned how both Perry and Romney (the so-called "front runners") had disappointed the Repub base and that the base was looking for a redeemer--I selected that word for an obvious and sarcastic reason. Christie had the credentials to mount a significant challenge but decided against launching a campaigning crusade.
With Christie as a non-issue, where does that leave the Repub field? The Christian Science Monitor, earlier this week, asked this question in a different way: "Who Wins Chris Christie's Campaign Donors: Mitt Romney or Rick Perry?" It's a fascinating question and one that is, perhaps, the most worthy of investigation.
Rick Perry reported $17 million in donations during quarter three, as compared to Romney's $13 million. In quarter two, however, Romney registered an impressive $18 million. Translated, Perry and Romney have war chests roughly equal. The major Repub donors uncommitted remain prime audiences for the two media recognized "front runners."
This week, Romney secured a not-so-small victory; Ken Langone, co-founder of Home Depot, has announced that he is now backing Mitt Romney. To be sure, Langone brings deep pockets and some friends who have significant net worth themselves.
Meanwhile, FT.com ran an article on Friday discussing Cain's apparent surge in popularity. The former pizza guy and head of the Kansas City FED has proposed overhauling the entire tax system and replacing it with his so-called "9-9-9 plan." According to the authors of this FT article, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and James Politi, it is Cain's "9-9-9 plan" that is "attracting voters' attention." I am confident that his plan has sparked an interest, but I am reluctant to affix complete credit to the plan. But, then again, who cannot find interest in the statement "Our tax code is the 21st century version of slavery."? This gem was included in a Cain campaign ad from last month.
While we are on the topic of tax and tax reform, why not talk about Ron Paul's proposal? Abolish the IRS and repeal the tax code! While we are at it, we might also want to repeal the 16th amendment! A little revolutionary sentiment is good from time to time.
The FT article observes that Romney remains in the lead and that the Cain surge may be temporary. After all, Cain does lack "a serious fundraising base" (to quote the article's authors). And how much money has Romney raised? And Perry?
Cain is a maverick of sorts and what is a maverick to do?
I will not rehash some of the obstacles that Christie would have faced if he had decided to enter the race; but feel free to read my blog post on the subject!
The media's attention had been fixed on Christie and his impending announcement. Certain outlets mentioned how both Perry and Romney (the so-called "front runners") had disappointed the Repub base and that the base was looking for a redeemer--I selected that word for an obvious and sarcastic reason. Christie had the credentials to mount a significant challenge but decided against launching a campaigning crusade.
With Christie as a non-issue, where does that leave the Repub field? The Christian Science Monitor, earlier this week, asked this question in a different way: "Who Wins Chris Christie's Campaign Donors: Mitt Romney or Rick Perry?" It's a fascinating question and one that is, perhaps, the most worthy of investigation.
Rick Perry reported $17 million in donations during quarter three, as compared to Romney's $13 million. In quarter two, however, Romney registered an impressive $18 million. Translated, Perry and Romney have war chests roughly equal. The major Repub donors uncommitted remain prime audiences for the two media recognized "front runners."
This week, Romney secured a not-so-small victory; Ken Langone, co-founder of Home Depot, has announced that he is now backing Mitt Romney. To be sure, Langone brings deep pockets and some friends who have significant net worth themselves.
Meanwhile, FT.com ran an article on Friday discussing Cain's apparent surge in popularity. The former pizza guy and head of the Kansas City FED has proposed overhauling the entire tax system and replacing it with his so-called "9-9-9 plan." According to the authors of this FT article, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and James Politi, it is Cain's "9-9-9 plan" that is "attracting voters' attention." I am confident that his plan has sparked an interest, but I am reluctant to affix complete credit to the plan. But, then again, who cannot find interest in the statement "Our tax code is the 21st century version of slavery."? This gem was included in a Cain campaign ad from last month.
While we are on the topic of tax and tax reform, why not talk about Ron Paul's proposal? Abolish the IRS and repeal the tax code! While we are at it, we might also want to repeal the 16th amendment! A little revolutionary sentiment is good from time to time.
The FT article observes that Romney remains in the lead and that the Cain surge may be temporary. After all, Cain does lack "a serious fundraising base" (to quote the article's authors). And how much money has Romney raised? And Perry?
Cain is a maverick of sorts and what is a maverick to do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)