Posts
I’ve been thinking about what purpose this current interminable campaign for president serves. No other nation in the world holds such a protracted, financially bloated circus for the right to lead. Are the 24 hour news networks so desperate for programming that every candidate’s move and whether they fart after they dine becomes the next line of scrolling text below the latest disaster or mass murder on the screen?
What purpose does it serve to hold debates with eight candidates on both the Democrat and Republican sides, when anyone with any experience following politics knows that at best, two, or maybe three candidates on either side, have a legitimate chance to win. I’m not sure that most casual voters could name more than one, or maybe, two candidates on either side. If pressed, they even might have a hard time knowing, for instance that Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and that Rudy Giuliani is a Republican.
In our recent political past, campaigns traditionally ramped up just after Labor Day, the year prior to November’s presidential vote. This year, candidates have been battling it out and visiting the key primary and caucus states since early 2007.
Personally, I think some of the most interesting candidates, are the ones towards the back of the pack. On the Democrat side, Dennis Kucinich is the most outspoken about bringing our troops home from Iraq. To those on the right, he’s just a “kook,” and he might be viewed by some on the left similarly. In reality, Kucinich is a principled candidate that in person is charismatic and very persuasive. Unfortunately, he’s short and has big ears, so he comes across less than telegenic. Actually, that theory is somewhat dubious when you consider Hillary, who is shrill and often comes across terribly on TV, or Giuliani, who is just plan “ghoulish” looking.
Speaking of television, Barack Obama has fully embraced the reality that politics is nothing more than entertainment on crack. The candidate that charges for access, has enlisted Oprah to wipe his ass and push his candidacy forward with all the brain-addled mothers and Wal-Mart shoppers of America.
Oprah is the personification of today’s entertainment-saturated culture. An African-American drama queen, no minority entertainer has so captivated white America like she has. All a book, movie, or new pop psychology theory needs to break it nationally, is an endorsement from the maven of mothers everywhere. It will be interesting if the candidate that charges for access gets the same bump politically, from Oprah's stamp of approval.
I can’t think of anyone that personifies our cult of celebrity and entertainment better than Oprah. Corporate America has no better shill for their products than the queen of afternoon programming. In our current cultural milieu; apparently all it takes is savvy marketing and pulling at women’s heartstrings to build an entertainment empire. Oprah’s kingdom is worth in excess of $1 billion.
Recently, I read an old Rolling Stone article written by the late Hunter S. Thompson, penned during the nightmarish 2004 campaign for emperor.
Few saw politics in quite the way that Thompson did. Thompson’s ability to write about the candidates, with irreverence, yet still accurately capturing the hubris, lust for power and blood sport that is the race for the American presidency, always made Thompson essential reading.
His article made me reflect back on Richard Nixon, a candidate that few on the left ever lionize.
Thompson wrote that, Nixon “looks like a flaming liberal today, compared to a golem like George Bush. Indeed. Where is Richard Nixon now that we finally need him?
If Nixon were running for president today, he would be seen as a "liberal" candidate, and he would probably win. He was a crook and a bungler, but what the hell? Nixon was a barrel of laughs compared to this gang of thugs from the Halliburton petroleum organization who are running the White House today -- and who will be running it this time next year, if we (the once-proud, once-loved and widely respected "American people") don't rise up like wounded warriors and whack those lying petroleum pimps out of the White House on November 2nd.
Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.
You bet. Richard Nixon would be my Man. He was a crook and a creep and a gin-sot, but on some nights, when he would get hammered and wander around in the streets, he was fun to hang out with. He would wear a silk sweat suit and pull a stocking down over his face so nobody could recognize him. Then we would get in a cab and cruise down to the Watergate Hotel, just for laughs.”
It’s a sad day in American politics when our current slate of hacks and wannabes makes one wax nostalgic for “ole” Nixon. But, I think that’s where we’re at.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Dumb politics
By now, it should be obvious to anyone with more than a passing interest in politics that the 2008 presidential horserace is comprised of a field of mostly mediocre and a few arguably, awful candidates. This may explain why much of the reporting coming from the mainstream has focused ostensibly on the horserace itself, rather than the issues. Or, maybe it doesn’t.
For anyone wanting in depth coverage that adheres to some traditional standards of journalism (if any still exist), there are a few places, mostly online, where the emphasis is placed on the side of journalism, rather than entertainment, in covering the candidates. Jay Rosen’s (What Are Journalist’s For?) project, Off the Bus, is one example. There are others.
Rosen characterizes the site as, “open platform campaign journalism,” and in fact, eschews taking a “horserace approach” to the coverage of the candidates.
There’s been an ongoing debate/concern about the role of television and how it has changed politics and campaigns. The late Neil Postman and others have argued that television, which emphasizes image, rather than substance, renders today’s politics more about selling a candidate, using emotion and evocative props and less about carefully crafted position papers. Of course, this is nothing new and was carefully detailed in Joe McGinnis’ book, The Selling of the President, about Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Forty years later, things have only gotten worse.
It seems like new technology and gadgets get trotted out every four years. While it makes the media go “ga-ga,” rarely, if ever does it give voters a better sense of what the candidates stand for. Inevitably, it narrows discourse, which at this point, doesn’t seem like it could constrict any further, given the five-second sound bites that are the rage.
An example of new methods and technology would be the YouTube factor and specifically the recent YouTube/CNN debate. I ran across this letter to the editor in the Washington Post highlighting the issue and the writer closely captured my own sentiments about videos from snowmen and pro-gun questioners, “locking and loading” for effect.
Dumber and Dumber Discourse
Friday, November 30, 2007/The Washington Post
The dumbing-down of America continues, judging by the latest Republican presidential debate, presented by CNN/YouTube.
Candidates who surely have better things to do than to waste their time with trivia and nonsense fielded questions not from a knowledgeable, distinguished panel of journalists but from ill-dressed, offbeat, humor-focused "everyday" Americans who asked such "probing" questions as what type of guns the candidates own, whether they believe every word of the Bible and why Rudolph W. Giuliani rooted for the Boston Red Sox.
Although some of the questions were interesting, valuable and posed cleverly, many were pure fluff.
It is regrettable that the political process has degenerated not only into a perpetual cycle that is bound to disgust most people but into one that demeans and degrades the process and is an insult to the intelligent voter.
If YouTube and its "stars" are now to dominate the process, the process will have collapsed into slop.
Owen M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair, PA
Speaking of technology, many of the candidates, at least on the Republican side, seem lost when it comes to discussing this subject. The Washington Post’s Garret M. Graff, had an article in Sunday’s Washing Post titled, “Don’t Know Their YouTube FromTheir Yahoo.”
The article highlighted the glaring deficiencies of Republican presidential hopefuls, when it came to understanding technology. Apparently, as we tunnel deeper into our technological bunker, our political candidates, all falling within a demographic, which tends to have phobias towards technology, are being left behind. Mitt Romney, who hails himself as “America’s leader” at every paid opportunity and who has a high-tech background (at least compared to other candidates), didn’t know the difference between YouTube (the fourth most popular site in the world) and MySpace (which is #6). Do you want this man making decisions at the presidential level?
In the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, which relies upon instant communication and whose economy is based upon technology, to have presidential candidates this ignorant of something as ubiquitous as technology is quite telling about where we are at, politically.
For anyone wanting in depth coverage that adheres to some traditional standards of journalism (if any still exist), there are a few places, mostly online, where the emphasis is placed on the side of journalism, rather than entertainment, in covering the candidates. Jay Rosen’s (What Are Journalist’s For?) project, Off the Bus, is one example. There are others.
Rosen characterizes the site as, “open platform campaign journalism,” and in fact, eschews taking a “horserace approach” to the coverage of the candidates.
There’s been an ongoing debate/concern about the role of television and how it has changed politics and campaigns. The late Neil Postman and others have argued that television, which emphasizes image, rather than substance, renders today’s politics more about selling a candidate, using emotion and evocative props and less about carefully crafted position papers. Of course, this is nothing new and was carefully detailed in Joe McGinnis’ book, The Selling of the President, about Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Forty years later, things have only gotten worse.
It seems like new technology and gadgets get trotted out every four years. While it makes the media go “ga-ga,” rarely, if ever does it give voters a better sense of what the candidates stand for. Inevitably, it narrows discourse, which at this point, doesn’t seem like it could constrict any further, given the five-second sound bites that are the rage.
An example of new methods and technology would be the YouTube factor and specifically the recent YouTube/CNN debate. I ran across this letter to the editor in the Washington Post highlighting the issue and the writer closely captured my own sentiments about videos from snowmen and pro-gun questioners, “locking and loading” for effect.
Dumber and Dumber Discourse
Friday, November 30, 2007/The Washington Post
The dumbing-down of America continues, judging by the latest Republican presidential debate, presented by CNN/YouTube.
Candidates who surely have better things to do than to waste their time with trivia and nonsense fielded questions not from a knowledgeable, distinguished panel of journalists but from ill-dressed, offbeat, humor-focused "everyday" Americans who asked such "probing" questions as what type of guns the candidates own, whether they believe every word of the Bible and why Rudolph W. Giuliani rooted for the Boston Red Sox.
Although some of the questions were interesting, valuable and posed cleverly, many were pure fluff.
It is regrettable that the political process has degenerated not only into a perpetual cycle that is bound to disgust most people but into one that demeans and degrades the process and is an insult to the intelligent voter.
If YouTube and its "stars" are now to dominate the process, the process will have collapsed into slop.
Owen M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair, PA
Speaking of technology, many of the candidates, at least on the Republican side, seem lost when it comes to discussing this subject. The Washington Post’s Garret M. Graff, had an article in Sunday’s Washing Post titled, “Don’t Know Their YouTube FromTheir Yahoo.”
The article highlighted the glaring deficiencies of Republican presidential hopefuls, when it came to understanding technology. Apparently, as we tunnel deeper into our technological bunker, our political candidates, all falling within a demographic, which tends to have phobias towards technology, are being left behind. Mitt Romney, who hails himself as “America’s leader” at every paid opportunity and who has a high-tech background (at least compared to other candidates), didn’t know the difference between YouTube (the fourth most popular site in the world) and MySpace (which is #6). Do you want this man making decisions at the presidential level?
In the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, which relies upon instant communication and whose economy is based upon technology, to have presidential candidates this ignorant of something as ubiquitous as technology is quite telling about where we are at, politically.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Storm report; winter's first major snowfall
[Appropriate sign for the day]
[6:00 am scene]It appears, at least according to weather reports that we are set to set records for snowfall, with this morning's early season snowstorm. The former record for the Portland, Maine is just over 11 inches and Roger Griswold, of WCSH-6, is calling for 12-18 inches. 12 out of Maine’s 16 counties are under a winter snow warning. North of here and in the mountains, they may receive upwards of 20 inches.
In my front yard, I currently have four inches and the snow has begun to fall with greater ferocity. I just came in, after doing some shoveling, thinking I was going to try to attempt the trek to the office. While outside, my boss called and left a message, informing me that unless I had something pressing, to do my best from home. That’s all I needed to hear.
[Bernie and Santa] 
[Luckily, most people are staying off the road...]
[...which makes me happy.]
When I worked for CMP, during the 80s and 90s, I had to go to work, inclement weather, or not. Spending over 10 years driving for my work, I have always considered myself a good winter driver. I’ve always had confidence in handling a variety of vehicles in all types of weather. As I’ve gotten older, however, I no longer enjoy being out on the road, when the conditions deteriorate. Oh, I’m still confident in my own abilities, but I find that as I drive according to conditions, slowing down, leaving ample space between my vehicle and the one in front of me, other drivers either don’t know about driving according to the road conditions, or just don’t care. Inevitably, I have someone hanging on my ass like a boil, or worse, passing and risking their life, as well as my own and the safety of other drivers on the road. As a result, if I can stay off the roads and let the other idiots drive foolishly and crash into one another, I prefer that alternative.
I planned for the worse and brought work home with me, on Friday, so I'm set to spend part of my day working on various projects. I'll also keep the fire stoked and probably venture out about midday and keep the pathways of the compound cleared.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Selective choice of topics
In Maine, there’s a local storyteller named, John McDonald. McDonald, who has acquired a measure of fame, spinning tales about life in the Pine Tree State, also hosts a Saturday/Sunday morning talk show on WGAN, Maine’s right-wing, AM blowtorch. He's done so for over a decade.
I’m assuming his show is popular, otherwise it wouldn’t stay on the air. McDonald, who bills himself as a politically independent, more often than not, comes down on the side of conservatives, at least that’s my take. In addition, the callers to his show, which are made up of a stable of the faithful, tend to be Bush-loving, gun-toting and I’d say, TABOR-worshipping.
I like McDonald. He’s funny, never takes himself too seriously and always manages to interject some story, or anecdote from Maine, which makes listening to his show worthwhile. Having said that, I do find many of the callers a tad over the top.
Take for instance today. I didn’t catch the start of his show, but the topic must have been Hillary Clinton, because when I tuned in after 8 am, caller, after caller, was offering their own version of Clinton-bashing, taking potshots at both the former president and his wife, who aspires to be president.
Personally, I’m no fan of Hillary. I think far too many Democrats are making a big mistake thinking that Mrs. Clinton has a chance against any Republican that gets the GOP nod. My problems with Senator Clinton, however, have nothing to do with her being a powerful woman, the fact that she’s running for president, or that she’s married to Bill. I also don’t go apoplectic when I hear her name, like most conservatives do.
My issues are with her policies on Iraq, the fact that I don’t think she’s far left enough and that she tries too hard to outflank conservatives on many issues. With that said, I don’t understand the vitriol and hatred that this woman (as well as her husband, for that matter) engenders from those self-identfying as conservative Republicans.
I found it interesting that while McDonald considers himself politically neutral, why he didn’t choose for his Saturday topic, the news about Rudy Giuliani?
What news am I referring to? Well, let’s start with the story that was reported a few years ago and subsequently disappeared down the memory hole, about then Mayor Giuliani’s expenses associated with maintaining an extra-marital affair with the current Mrs. Giuliani, while he was still married to wife #2. There were also some expenses "tucked away," related to his aborted Senate run, in 2000.
Back in 2000, the New York papers broke the story that the city had provided a security detail for Nathan, who became Giuliani's third wife after his divorce from Donna Hanover, who also had her own police security detail at the same time. Furthermore, it appears that many of the security expenses were initially billed to obscure city agencies, effectively hiding them from oversight, at least according to politico.com.
These costs involved overtime and per diem costs for officers traveling with Giuliani to secret weekend rendezvous with Nathan in the fashionable Hamptons resort area on Long Island.
The Office of Comptroller first noticed these curious additional expenses back in 2001 and made repeated requests throughout 2001 and 2002 for records and information, but the Mayor’s office, under the guise of “security,” failed to turn these over.
Giuliani is claiming the release of this story is a “hit-job.” While that might fly with his acolytes, the former mayor of the nation’s largest city has this and numerous other “problems” from his days of running the city with an iron fist. These and the fact that he has real fascist tendencies makes me a little worried that he might get the GOP nod and end up running against Mrs. Clinton.
If you thought Bushworld is problematic, wait ‘til you see what a Giuliani presidency looks like.
I’m assuming his show is popular, otherwise it wouldn’t stay on the air. McDonald, who bills himself as a politically independent, more often than not, comes down on the side of conservatives, at least that’s my take. In addition, the callers to his show, which are made up of a stable of the faithful, tend to be Bush-loving, gun-toting and I’d say, TABOR-worshipping.
I like McDonald. He’s funny, never takes himself too seriously and always manages to interject some story, or anecdote from Maine, which makes listening to his show worthwhile. Having said that, I do find many of the callers a tad over the top.
Take for instance today. I didn’t catch the start of his show, but the topic must have been Hillary Clinton, because when I tuned in after 8 am, caller, after caller, was offering their own version of Clinton-bashing, taking potshots at both the former president and his wife, who aspires to be president.
Personally, I’m no fan of Hillary. I think far too many Democrats are making a big mistake thinking that Mrs. Clinton has a chance against any Republican that gets the GOP nod. My problems with Senator Clinton, however, have nothing to do with her being a powerful woman, the fact that she’s running for president, or that she’s married to Bill. I also don’t go apoplectic when I hear her name, like most conservatives do.
My issues are with her policies on Iraq, the fact that I don’t think she’s far left enough and that she tries too hard to outflank conservatives on many issues. With that said, I don’t understand the vitriol and hatred that this woman (as well as her husband, for that matter) engenders from those self-identfying as conservative Republicans.
I found it interesting that while McDonald considers himself politically neutral, why he didn’t choose for his Saturday topic, the news about Rudy Giuliani?
What news am I referring to? Well, let’s start with the story that was reported a few years ago and subsequently disappeared down the memory hole, about then Mayor Giuliani’s expenses associated with maintaining an extra-marital affair with the current Mrs. Giuliani, while he was still married to wife #2. There were also some expenses "tucked away," related to his aborted Senate run, in 2000.
Back in 2000, the New York papers broke the story that the city had provided a security detail for Nathan, who became Giuliani's third wife after his divorce from Donna Hanover, who also had her own police security detail at the same time. Furthermore, it appears that many of the security expenses were initially billed to obscure city agencies, effectively hiding them from oversight, at least according to politico.com.
These costs involved overtime and per diem costs for officers traveling with Giuliani to secret weekend rendezvous with Nathan in the fashionable Hamptons resort area on Long Island.
The Office of Comptroller first noticed these curious additional expenses back in 2001 and made repeated requests throughout 2001 and 2002 for records and information, but the Mayor’s office, under the guise of “security,” failed to turn these over.
Giuliani is claiming the release of this story is a “hit-job.” While that might fly with his acolytes, the former mayor of the nation’s largest city has this and numerous other “problems” from his days of running the city with an iron fist. These and the fact that he has real fascist tendencies makes me a little worried that he might get the GOP nod and end up running against Mrs. Clinton.
If you thought Bushworld is problematic, wait ‘til you see what a Giuliani presidency looks like.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Hillary Clinton is unelectable
As we get deeper into the never-ending march to November 2008, various polls tell us different things. The Democrats, aka, “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight,” have a front-runner, in Hillary Clinton that couldn’t beat any of five selected Republican candidates.
A new interactive Zogby survey shows that Senator Clinton would lose to anyone of the following five GOP candidates; Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, or John McCain.
Consequently, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat all of the same five candidates, with the exception of an Edwards-McCain bout, which ends tied, 42-all.
I’m wondering why Zogby didn’t extend this out to include Ron Paul, who continues to raise money at an astounding clip and seems to be getting more truck from the mainstream.
It’s curious to me how often we hear candidates being framed as “electable,” or “unelectable.” According to this Zogby poll, Hillary Clinton falls into the latter category. Of course, I doubt this will change many minds on the Democratic side, since they seem to be comfortable in their role as America’s second party.
[Thanks to A True Believer's Weblog for the Zogby info.--JB]
A new interactive Zogby survey shows that Senator Clinton would lose to anyone of the following five GOP candidates; Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, or John McCain.
Consequently, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat all of the same five candidates, with the exception of an Edwards-McCain bout, which ends tied, 42-all.
I’m wondering why Zogby didn’t extend this out to include Ron Paul, who continues to raise money at an astounding clip and seems to be getting more truck from the mainstream.
It’s curious to me how often we hear candidates being framed as “electable,” or “unelectable.” According to this Zogby poll, Hillary Clinton falls into the latter category. Of course, I doubt this will change many minds on the Democratic side, since they seem to be comfortable in their role as America’s second party.
[Thanks to A True Believer's Weblog for the Zogby info.--JB]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)