Debate Prep Excercise

Time recently posted a "The Five Most Important People in Presidential Politics Who Aren’t Running for President" - in the article Brett O'Donnell, debate coach for Liberty University, is listed as fifth. Dr. O'Donnell has been a close debate prep adviser for McCain since the beginning of the primary election. Within the last few days, Brett transferred to Palin when he set up a "debate camp" for her at Senator McCain's ranch in Sedona, Arizona.

MSNBC First read wrote , "Given the extraordinary attention paid to the campaign and Palin's surprise selection as John McCain's running mate, it stands a strong chance of becoming the most-watched vice presidential debate ever. The standard was the 56.7 million viewers in 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman ever selected for a major party ticket."

For today at least, the McCain campaign is hurting, this weeks economic situation and the Palin gaffes in the Couric interview seem to be tanking their poll numbers (Zogby )

The Palin bounce is no longer. A Florida state poll indicates that after the RNC – Palin increased the likelihood of a voter picking up the ticket by 45% compared to 34%who said they were less likely to do so. Now the more likely" percentage is down to 40 percent -- while the "less likely" percentage is at 41 (Orlando Sentinel)

Here's my question - if you were Brett what would you do with your short time to prepare her for the debate? How do you rebuild the ethos of Palin as a viable VP candidate? Expectations are riding low for her performance. That’s good to an extent. All Palin needs to do is show that she can rationally respond to few questions. As long as she responds with short, eloquent, and easy to comprehend responses, the media spin will give her kudos. Winning or losing this debate means little. Making a fool of herself may risk losing the election.

Palin hit the nail on the head with her RNC speech. Her performance was well prepared and followed the Republican frames Lakoff outlined to the T. I have a hunch Dr. O’Donnell is showing her techniques on how to dodge questions by drawing bridges to answers that she knows well. These frames can help re-establish some of her ethos by drawing attention away from her and more towards the “liberal media” myth we heard so much about last class.

For the purpose of “stickiness” I expect Palin has been loaded with a few vivid yet simple anecdotes for every general area of inquiry. The McCain campaign will want there to be a few made for TV clips that the Media can repeat continuously for the next week.

I believe the priorities for O’Donnell and staff are as follows: 1. damage control. She cannot ramble incomprehensible statements. Limit response times, give straight answers. Although Palin was chosen to reinvigorate the conservative right, do not allow her to be a threat to those independents that identify with “strength” and “rational-facts” republicanism. 2. Play up the Washington “outsider” image. Use stories an anecdotes specific to Alaska that cannot be falsified. In doing so, Identify with rural swing voters. Do what Bush did in the 2000 election. Make yourself appear approachable and look like “that Girl” that people would like to have a drink with (or attend a hockey game).

Micro-Targeting – Our campaign has a list of voters that we are losing and/or can gain by election day. It appears to me, at least, that Palin has been oversaturated with micro-targeting information going into her interviews. The jumbled responses are Palin failing to become her advisers, their well constructed arguments are lost in the translation. Will Brett be able load Palin with some targeted quotes for this debate? Or has Palin proven to be a lost cause, and the primary objective of damage control will supersede?

Those are my two cents for today. See you tomorrow!

New Obama Ad- untraditional

The link below is to a new Obama ad about the economy. The ad is 2 minutes long and discusses his economic plan in more depth than the traditional 30 second ad. What do you think of this? Will it work? Will people sit and listen to a 2 minute ad? Is this the attention to issues some of you have been calling for or is he really saying anything different in these 2 minutes than is usually said in an ad?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/30/obamas_two_minute_ad_on_taxes.html

The scary popularity of Obama

This is unrelated to the reading or discussion questions, but I came across something pretty interesting today on Drudge. You may remember weird stories of Obama supporters passing their babies to the candidate during the Primary (word had it that infants would be thrown at him as if he were the Pope). If you were amused by those stories (Dr. B certainly was), you may want to watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA

A few broad questions: 1) Am I the only one who thinks this is creepy? 2) Are people ever too young to be political activists? Or in other words, at which point should parents wait to get their kids involved in campaigns? 3) Does anyone know the context behind this video?

Palin, Gender, Media blackouts

Some of us were recently talking about how constrained, restrained and over coached Sarah Palin has seemed. I remember watching interviews she did before she was announced as the VP and she seemed sharp and comfortable. I have always expected her to be smart and politically talented (kinda like she was in the state of the union). However, the disaster that was the Couric interview raises all sorts of other questions. I wonder how the Palin selection will be looked back on, what the legacy of it will be. This article offered some interesting perspective: it's angle is tokenism and affirmative action. I think the author is struggling with a similar questions:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200928/

This week's discussion questions

1. Recently, there has been lots of discussion concerning community (both in class and in the reading). Through these discussions, we have generated numerous conceptions of community (physical proximity, network of interdependent people, interest-based groups, online interest-based groups, etc). Faced with these multiple understandings, I think it is important to ask in some form of community is "better" (politically) than others? Or if one is more "real"? Also, what are the political implications of our shifting conception of community?

2. We have spent a substantial portion of class discussing issues related to messaging (how to accurately target a message, how to make a message "stick", etc). Meanwhile, some students met with Dennis Moore and left feeling unfulfilled with his answers. Some seem to imply that he was simply sticking to his stump speech or "message". So my question is this, does "sticking on message" destroy or damage democratic discourse? Staying on message can certainly help you get elected, but does it shortcut the principles of the democratic process? Or is it not the job of politicians to aid the deliberative process? If it is not their job, whose job is it.....media, the citizens?

3. The conservative critique of the "liberal media" may just be one of the most powerful and damaging political narratives in the last couple decades. With this thought, the conservatives have been able, among other things, to strongly entrench an us vs. them mentality among their base. With Jack Garmond's presentation in mind, how does the media buck that conceptualization? Is it even possible? Garmond seemed to suggest that the media should just continue reporting and eventually the truth will come to light. Is that possible? Can the "truth" come out in such a fragmented world? 

Research/Thoughs

I really think you all should give this article a read:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20080925_Viral_video_melds_Obama__McCain__Letterman__Palin___Couric_into_cyber-soup.html
It puts the spotlight on the role of viral videos in politics. It even makes commentary about what viral videos are doing to print media. It has interesting arguments about the way people ignore important stuff (Bush's speech) in favor of less important things (Letterman's rant) but also argues that there are some benefits: i.e. people who couldn't see the Couric interview can watch it online.
I also think you all should look at these two videos:

When I'm posting this the video has been watched almost 1.25 million times. It has only been online for a day.
This next one has been viewed almost 400,000 times but it looks like some earlier versions have been taken off so that may not be an accurate number:

These videos are among the most viewed content on YouTube and the Letterman rant is #1 with a bullet, viewed almost 800,000 times more than number 2.
So questions: what are the impacts this has on democracy? I'm assuming some are good and some are bad, but can we safely say that "viral video" culture is a phenomenon fully separate from the way we've talked about the internet in the past?

Second, to everyone and especially new media folk, this seems like one of the major stories of this election. I already have a giant stack of news articles about the way youtube videos and such have played out in other elections (especially in 2006). Should we be talking about a research project that gets at the question of viral videos? What questions should we be asking? What kind of research should we conduct?

Here's a fun one!

So, if you're someone whose advice Obama/Biden actually take seriously, how do you suggest they deal with this one? Quick! Don't wait until they actually respond to respond!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/biden.earmarks/index.html

For Further Discussion

1. If “swing voters” elected Clinton and “inactive conservatives” elected Bush (as is speculated in Applebee’s America), what demographic will swing this election? Is it “inactive democrats” like young people, African American voters and the Hispanic population as Dr. Strother suggested when he first talked to us? If so, is this really Obama’s election to lose or can McCain activate a unique demographic of his own?
2. According to the PEW last week McCain is gaining on Obama on the issues (and holds a lead on terrorism and national security that rivals Bush’s lead over Kerry).
http://people-press.org/report/450/presidential-race-remains-even
However, the same report finds that
“As has been the case throughout the campaign, Obama's strong suit is in being seen as the candidate most likely to bring about change. And Obama's biggest weakness continues to be the widespread belief he is not as qualified as McCain. Fewer than half of voters (47%) say the trait "well-qualified" applies to Obama, compared with 75% who say it describes McCain.
In this and other respects, voters' assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates have been stable for much of the campaign. Far more voters view Obama as inspirational and down-to-earth than say these traits apply to his opponent. Far more voters view McCain as patriotic than say that about Obama.”
Is change a gut value connection? Is patriotism or experience? Can Obama win by being the “change” candidate even if he can’t convince America that he can keep them safe from terrorists? What do you think Sosnik, Dowd and Fournier would say?
3. Obama released a 2 minute ad that he is running in battleground states. Watch the ad:

a. Is this ad core? What is the “commander’s intent”?
b. Is this idea sticky?
c. Did Obama burry the lead (change) or is the lead the economic crisis?

Obama, Technology and "Community Organizing"

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/votercontactTraining

I'm in the middle of a debate tournament, so I don't have much time to write my thoughts about this new component of Obama's campaign. I think it's interesting, potentially dangerous, but astounding at the same time. Is this unprecedented???

Discussion Questions from 9/17

Q1.  Below is a link to the Johnson campaign's 'Daisy' ad.  During his presentation, Dr. Strother used this ad to demonstrate what successful TV spot might 'look like.'   How does this ad meet the SUCCESs criteria laid out Drs. Heath for creating messages that stick?  Do you think these criteria would be useful in creating campaign ads?  Have either of the candidates (or perhaps the media) been successful in creating sticky messages?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

Q2. Dr. Stother also mentioned that "Pictures can change the world."  Would the Drs. Heath be able to account for this in their SUCCESs criteria?  In other words, does it, as they seem t0 imply, have to be verbal to stick?

Q3. Dr. Stother also told us that to be successful in getting your message across, you need to choose words that communicate with the people you are, in effect, targeting.  He stated, 'you need to talk with them, not take pride in talking above them.'  If a candidate is using mirco-targeting to learn how to best package messages to different groups to enhance their understanding of policy decisions, would this still be ethically (which is where I think the class discussion was heading on Wed.) dubious?

Palin: A "Feminist Victory"!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html

Came across this article while researching Palin. Seems she was a "maverick" and went against the grain in Alaska- by refusing to abide by a law that had law enforcement pay for rape kits. Instead, survivors had to pay for their own, costing up to $1200.

I wonder if having a woman in the White House who works against feminist goals is more counterproductive than not having a woman in the White House at all...

micro-targeting

I think the discussion about micro-targeting voters and why it bothers some is a very interesting discussion. From what I heard to day, I think the problem with micro-targeting is really about how it constructs the voter. It seems that "citizens today are as much a definable-sortable-searchable-targetable entity in commercial databases as they are a set of complex, yet anonymous rational-critical actors that exist as subject of governmental action. And these data trails produced through consumption habits are increasingly becoming part of their status and location as citizens". In essence, the problem is that micro-targeting constructs the citizen as nothing more than a list of consumer choices. If that is the case, we are seemingly robbed of our ability to critically think and engage our surroundings. Thus, we are robbed of our agency. So my problem with micro-targeting is this: how are we supposed to function in a democracy as rational actors if our politicians are not engaging us as such? 

My most trusted political source.

Somehow I always find that if I'm thinking it, Steven Colbert has nailed it. Here he is on talking points, double standards, and all that 'controversy' we've endured over the last two weeks:

Bush Doctrine and Charlie Gibson

This article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_gibson_doctrine.html
accuses Charlie Gibson of attempting to humiliate Palin by asking her an unfair question without a real answer. It argues that the "Bush Doctrine" is ambiguous and that there is no real answer to the question. Here is the clip if you haven’t seen it:



I have heard the argument made an number of times and have seen it "chaining out" on comments to videos and conservative blog posts. I think the "there is no Bush Doctrine" or "there are many "Bush Doctrines" defense is false and I think this article I have posted is intellectually dishonest. However, I don't want my partisanship to dictate what I would rather have as an academic conversation both about the implications of this interview and the concept of the Bush doctrine. I will propose two theses that just-so-happen to line up with my politics:
1) The "Bush Doctrine" is a term of art-it has a specific meaning inside foreign policy discourse and most people who are steeped in foreign policy are intimately familiar with it. It represents the shift away from international law and is a justification for attacking another state without provocation. It can mean "if you harbor terrorists we will treat you like terrorists" (hence the Afghanistan invasion) but it was also used to justify invading Iraq when there was no evidence that Iraq was planning an attack on the United States. It is important to note that this doctrine violates international law and just war theory and thus has been one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush administration. Here are some links that show it is clearly used the way I have described:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
The first two links are to very generic definitions from SourseWatch and Wikipedia. In include them to demonstrate that, while "Bush Doctrine" may not be "common knowledge," it does have a commonly accepted meaning. The Wikipedia entry even recognizes that the doctrine shifted over time (giving some credence to the "multiple doctrines" argument) but clearly defines it as the shift away from international norms and into an aggressive "strike first" posture.
The third like is to an article by the American Enterprise Institute, a sharply neo-conservative think tank (the origin of the idea for the Surge in Iraq). The article is very pro Bush Doctrine but also clearly operates with a precise understanding of what it is.

2) The interview does not reflect poorly on Charlie Gibson. If he were drinking coffee, he would have spit it when she said "In what respect Charlie?" He was genuinely surprised that a vice-presidential candidate would be unaware of a MAJOR shift in US foreign policy. I think this demonstrates the vast difference between folksy, every day knowledge and the knowledge of a "serious" candidate for VP. Lots of people don't know what the "Bush Doctrine" is or that there is a specific "Bush Doctrine" but from an IR perspective it is THE story of the Bush administration. You shouldn't have to know that if you are Gov of Alaska, but you should have to know that if you might be the president.

These opinions are strong and the must be colored with my own political preferences but I firmly believe that my position is also academic. In this instance I hope my feelings would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot and Obama didn't know about the drastic implications of Bush's foreign policy shift.

questions for Palin

1. Suppose your 14-year-old daughter Willow is brutally raped in her bedroom by an intruder. She becomes pregnant and wants an abortion. Could you tell the parents of America why you think your child and their children should be forced by law to have their rapists' babies?

2. You say you don't believe global warming is man-made. Could you tell us what scientists you've spoken with or read who have led you to that conclusion? What do you think the 2,500 scientists of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change are getting wrong?

3. If you didn't try to fire Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Baker over her refusal to consider censoring books, why did you try to fire her?

4. What is the European Union, and how does it function?

5. Forty-seven million Americans lack health care insurance. John Goodman, who has advised McCain on healthcare, has proposed redefining them as covered because, he says, anyone can get care at an ER. Do you agree with him?

6. What is the function of the Federal Reserve?

7. Cindy and John McCain say you have experience in foreign affairs because Alaska is next to Russia. When did you last speak with Prime Minister Putin, and what did you talk about?

8. Approximately how old is the Earth? Five thousand years? 10,000? 5 billion?

9. You are a big fan of President Bush, so why didn't you mention him even once in your convention speech?

10. McCain says cutting earmarks and waste will make up for revenues lost by making the tax cuts permanent. Experts say that won't wash. Balancing the Bush tax cuts plus new ones proposed by McCain would most likely mean cutting Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Which would you cut?

11. You're suing the federal government to have polar bears removed from the endangered species list, even as Alaska's northern coastal ice is melting and falling into the sea. Can you explain the science behind your decision?

12. You've suggested that God approves of the Iraq War and the Alaska pipeline. How do you know?

www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/pollitt

Bill Clinton's campaign advice to Obama

Apparently Clinton passed on these points of political wisdom:

1. Don't make this about you

2. Define yourself through your policies - yours and theirs

3. Have more fun

4. Make the election about something big

5. Spend more time speaking to your opponents

6. Don't take Hilary voters for granted

7. Stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking

8. And while you are at it, give me an apology

www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13394.html

Palin's small town appeal

This Time article hints at a few important issues surrounding Palin. For rhetoric people, the word myth is really being used in two ways. The author points out that small towns are not really that important to the U.S. in 2008. However, talking about small towns allows her to tap into a powerful story that resonates with the American people. Palin reconciles the notion of a small-town utopia (prevalent in 1950s pop culture) with the social changes that have happened since the 1960s. Her story might suggest that the myth of Main Street can be recovered.

Lee Siegel gets cultured

Here's a link to Siegel's commentary in the Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal that relates to a lot of what we've been discussing and reading (Lakoff, The Brothers Heath, et al). A warning though: It's not a 2.5-minute video clip. It's a relatively long piece that may require some investment of time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122125912790430149.html

Race and wolves

Feel free to call me crazy but...



Isn't it possible that this ad is an attempt to play on a typical cultural stereotype about black men and white women? I’ve watched it a few times and here is what I’m thinking:
1. The image selection goes like this: Palin, mean looking Obama, yelling Obama, wolves.
2. The voice-over talks about Obama attacking Palin as the image transitions from Palin to Obama.
3. The “angry black man attacks helpless white woman” is one of the most common myths used to perpetuate racism throughout American history. It’s not just a part of the story, it is a pervasive and embedded cultural myth.
You may think this is crazy to say because there is next to zero evidence that race is present in this commercial. However, as we know in our culture, race is always present. Blackness is never invisible and the race of an African American is always in the background of any situation.
Last semester Dr. Banwart showed us a picture that the Clinton camp had doctored to make Obama look darker and to make his facial features appear more in line with stereotypes/caricatures. Why bring this up? Because I think politicians will do anything they think they can get away with if it helps them get elected and because I don’t want people to think the race issue only applies to Rs. It is great that sexism in politics gets to be discussed so openly (but sad that it is becoming so trivial…can’t we talk about the real challenges to Palin as a woman seeking the role?). So what about race?
So if I were thinking like Lakoff (or if I were doing a poor imitation) I might suggest that this ad is designed to activate the cultural archetype of an angry black man preying on a helpless white woman. Thoughts?

'Fact Check' and gender

There's a new McCain ad out(video clip as well as a break-down/analysis: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/10/1374041.aspx)

While this may or may not fit into the two established frames that Lakoff is concerned about, it certainly draws upon some interesting notions and expectations of gender and how 'a man should treat a lady', which is a very powerful frame itself. As the MSNBC article points out, such tactics of sending in research teams are common, particularly when a candidate is not very well known. The McCain campaign has made Obama's experience and record a central feature of their campaign against them. So it would seem that scrutinizing someone's background/experience should be fair game. What takes that practice from 'business as usual' to a new political attack seems to be an underlying frame about the 'proper' way to treat women. "Attack a man, by all means...but to attack a woman?" The ad seems to say "it's not nice to hit a girl, and Obama is hitting a girl."

It just seems very interesting about how the radical potential for gender inclusion in politics (having a woman nominated for such a high office is historical in its own right) still falls within a more dominant frame about gender roles and expectations of behavior.

It also raises questions as to what extent Palin's gender will be instrumentalized in this election. Is it a move to pander to Hilary loyalists? Is it a creative way of disarming Obama/Biden from being able to make effective attacks about what is ordinarily fair game for political scrutiny? How can or should Democrats approach the problems that this frame presents for their ability to engage/attack the McCain/Palin campaign?

Just some thoughts. Also another Slate article touching on some of the issues in a different light: http://www.slate.com/id/2199363/

Ol' McDonald had an election, e-i-e-i-o!

It's not about the issues.
It's not even about the personalities.
It's about pigs!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/campaign.lipstick/index.html


Why does all this remind me of LBJ?

Father Figure Frame in Action

While I do not mean this post as a response to Lacey's critique of Lakoff's book, I would like to offer up the following brand spanking new ad out of the McCain camp. I think this ad may add (oh look at my pun usage) to the theory of framing and how Lakoff says the Republicans try to get folks to understand messages through the powerful father figure frame.

I am sure Lacey's comments will get a good discussion of the book going tomorrow, so this clip can add a little bit of extra spice to the conversation. I think it is necessary to understand how and why McCain decided to endorse and run an ad that attacks Obama in such a stern and direct way. I think Lakoff's theory of framing throughout the book begins to answer those questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Enjoy!

My "Elephant" review

Since our assignment for tomorrow is to read George Lakoff's book, I was finishing the last chapter tonight and going over my notes in the margins one more time, and even though our discussion over this is tomorrow, I feel the need to begin a dialogue about it now.

While I agree with a few points in his book, the majority of it (to me) seemed illogical and hypocritical. I admit that I am not as deeply entrenched in the political scene, and do not know as much as Lakoff, but I feel like my upbringing is the polar opposite of his, and, therefore, if we were to ever meet, we could probably have quite a dynamic conversation.

Throughout his book, Lakoff argues (through backhanded compliments and risky assumptions) that the conservative right has mastered the art of conning the American people through the use of language and, in some cases, outright deception. Lakoff says in the opening chapters of the book that the right winged conservatives base their ideas of policy and value on the all-knowing and all-powerful father figure. He says that the right believes that there is a right and a wrong, good and evil, and that good should always prevail. However, throughout the book he clearly makes his opinion known: that right-winged Americans are evil and left-winged "progressives" are good, and that the left side should triumph over the crazy right-wingers. How are these any different? He condemns the right side for thinking that way, but clearly demonstrates in his writing that he thinks through the very same frame. A very strong example: [talking about how to cure the problem of terrorism] "Country by country, the conditions (both material and political) leading to despair need to be addressed, with a worldwide commitment to ending them. It should be done because it is a necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism - and because it is right!" How can he critique the conservatives for arguing that there is a right and a wrong when he says in so many words the same thing. This causes me to doubt not one, but pretty much everything he says.

Secondly, (even though it is a minor detail), his description of James Dobson is not fully correct. Trust me, I grew up on James Dobson and even visited that zip code that Lakoff discusses in Colorado. What Lakoff fails to mention is that Dobson also emphasizes to parents that they must be nurturing when raising children...similar to what he described as the "other" side of the coin of the conservative right. I am curious to find out which of Dobson's books Lakoff read. I can see how he would get the father-figure impression by looking at the titles of Dobson's books ("Dare to Discipline," "The Strong-Willed Child," & "Love Must be Tough" to name a few), but he missed the part when Dobson discusses having a love for your children like God loves you the parent...which is forgiving, understanding, nurturing, unyielding and, above all else, unconditional.

Throughout the text Lakoff is an idealist. Of course we would all like wars of all kinds to end. Nobody wants to see innocent lives lost (and if they do, then that is a problem much larger than political affiliation). He makes overly generalized statements, such as "Idealistic progressives see beyond the material benefits..." (page 49); [talking about the causes of terrorism] "But a conservative government, thinking of the enemy as evil, will not take the primary causes seriously."

Finally, in the last part of the book, he talks about "what the right wants." The first thing he mentions about the right is God. From his description, he is talking about the traditional, western picture of God that one would find in writings like the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In fact, he writes on page 81 -82, "God wants good people to be in charge. Virtue is to be rewarded - with power. God therefore wants a hierarchical society in which there are moral authorities who should be obeyed...Those who are disciplined enough to be moral are disciplined enough to become prosperous and powerful." Later on page 82, under the Economics section, he says "The poor remain poor because the lack the discipline needed to prosper. The poor, therefore, deserve to be poor and serve the wealthy. The wealthy need and deserve poor people to serve them." But in order to make assumptions about what a religious right thinks, you must go to the source of where you believe the ideas came from. In this instance, it would be the Bible (since it is the foremost Western book concerning God). In Proverbs 22:22 (New Century Version) it says, "Do not abuse poor people because they are poor, and do not take away the rights of the needy in court." I could give examples for paragraphs and paragraphs about how this statement contradicts the Bible, which, Lakoff infers, is where the conservative right seem to get their moral standards.

In general, the impression that I got was the Lakoff was trying to talk about a viewpoint (a "frame") that he doesn't understand as well as he thinks he does. He gives the impressions while talking about the Bush administration that he thinks George Bush is evil and purposely abused the American people and doesn't care who has to die, so long as he gets his way. I cannot think of a more childish viewpoint. Yes, conservatives and progressives think differently. They have different priorities and different frames to look at situations. But to chalk it up to "the right side is bad and evil and you should be a progressive" is such a juvenile thought process. I expected more from this book. I expected at least an attempt at objectivity, and I was very disappointed. At least in my fence-sitting case, Lakoff would have been more successful at persuading me if he would have made less generalizations about the opposing side, and would have also pointed out that the progressives have had their share of mistakes in political history as well.

1st presidential debate

I have seen footage of the first presidential debate and have it here, and advanced preview for your eyes only:



Who do you think won?

Fannie Mae, Free Market, Little Government

McCain's campaign manager stated last week that this campaign is "not about the issues." I am left wondering whether this new Fannie Mae government takeover will impede on the "free market" ideological push that I noticed at the RNC.

Palin commented on Fannie Mae as a company that has become "too big and too expensive for the tax payers, the McCain administration will make them smaller" (link). While scanning some articles, I found that many have commented on her strong attachment with the free-market for health care, education, and in general business.

With Obama and McCain backing the government's takeover, I think this extraordinary action may result in giving Bob Barr more airtime which would lead to some negative press for the McCain-Palin ticket. If this election will be as close as some are projecting, Barr may be a difference maker in the swing states. His campaign has largely gone unnoticed thus far, if things go badly for the F-Mae transition, it may lead to alienation of those borderline Ron Paul voters, and a ramping up of support in terms of money and advertisements for Barr. Here's an LA Times article that makes this argument.

Obama's quick advocacy for the takeover is a lost opportunity to link McCain and Bush together with special interests. David M. Moffett, a senior adviser at the Carlyle group will be managing the transition for the Bush administration. Carlyle-Bush ties go back to Bush Sr. when he was a "global emissary" for the company. Some have contended that the company is apart of the "military-industrial complex," as a weapons dealer that has profited pretty well during the last 8 years. I'm fairly certain McCain may have spoken first on the subject, and Obama followed. Obama could have created a distinction between him and McCain by attaching him further to Bush. It was an opportunity to further his narrative that Washington and McCain are too integrated with special interests. Of course, Obama is already pushing this issue with various other arguments. I guess we'll see whether the campaign will decide to use their limited resources to make distinctions, and start fights over issues like Fannie Mae, or if they'll continue their current path of general criticism on a lack of McCain's focus on the economy.

--My 2 cents for the day

Kansas State Fair campaign

Greetings all: As promised, I am posting the response from a State Fair official to my email in which I expressed concern over the content and tone of the 2008 Kansas State Fair pr campaign. They indicate it "isn't intended to be inappropriate," and frankly my students' papers aren't "intended to be Fs" -- am interested in your responses. Instead of taking up the entirety of this page, am including the text of the email response in the first comment to this post.

Ethics in campaigns

There has been a lot of discussion concerning ethical communication in campaigns. As everyone already knows, I feel that current campaign communication falls short of what we need. More importantly, I think most, if not all, of us agree that there is a difference between the campaign communication we would LIKE to see, and the campaign communication that we DO see. The argument breaks down usually at the point where someone notes that the campaign communication we see now is being used because it works, not because it is ideal, but simply because it works. And to institute some kind of higher level communication that is not based on manipulative messaging would be too hard and would lose elections. To that argument, I would like to draw a parallel. The vast majority of nations on this globe have stood together and denounced torture. They have agreed that those kinds of practices are unethical and below us as a global society. Some may argue (the US?) that torture works...and that very well may be true, and the global community knows that as well. Yet, they have chosen to make a principled stand. Now my point is this, why should politics be any different? Can't we all agree that citizens should not be used a means to every politician's end? That they should be treated, and communicated with in an honest and ethical way? If ethical stances in the mist of war on a global scale are possible, why can't ethical stands in our political arena be possible? 

Media responsibility

One thing that amazes me the most during political campaigns is the amount of double speak. Double speak simply meaning saying one thing in one situation and then saying the exact opposite in a similar situation. For example, the republicans attacked hilary for implying some sort of sexism in the system (both political and media). They said that if she can't play with the boys, then she should go home. But now, they are the party with the female candidate, a female candidate that has come under fire for a CLEAR lack of qualifications. So what do they do...they cry a sexist foul on the part of the media. They say that these questions stem from the imbedded sexism within the system. The Daily Show does a perfect job illustrating my point. (see video) So, my question is this, why must we rely on the daily show to point out the complete absurdity of the republican line of thought? How hard would it be for the major networks to use the party's own words against them? Let me be clear on this, this is not a partisan argument, this is about pushing people off their "talking points" and forcing them to answer real questions and forcing them to account for their clear lack of logic. I would sincerely like to hear everyone's thought on this matter. 

Palin's Speech & Sexism

Hello all! I am curious what everyone thought of Gov. Palin’s speech last night. I thought she did a good job. While the speeches last night reminded me why I am a Democrat, I thought from a non-partisan viewpoint Palin did a lot of what she needed to do. She handled the large crowd well, introduced herself, argued her experience was enough and more than the opponents’, attacked the credibility of Obama, and argued for the McCain/Palin ticket. I think she also sounded knowledgeable on the issue she highlighted, energy. While I disagree with her and McCain’s policy ideas to solve many of these problems, I thought she touched on policies many Republicans support.

There were some interesting parts to her speech. First, I thought it interesting she spent what seemed like a long time talking about her family. Since female candidates with children usually avoid prominently displaying them, her long discussion of her children and husband seemed interesting. I am not sure if this helps or hurts her, but its worth noting. Second, I don’t like how she uses her son Trig as a reason for people to vote for her. In my opinion it makes her son seem like a political game piece. However, I do think her discussion of her son Track and her nephew made it seem like she could relate to the mothers and fathers with children serving in Iraq. These two uses of her children seem different to me because her oldest made the choice to join the military while her youngest has no choice in how he is being used politically.

Last, I thought her attack on the media for sexism was interesting. I agree that many of the comments and questions about her ability to lead have been sexist because they have asked if a mother of 5 can juggle being VP and her children. However, Palin also chooses to emphasize her role as a mother (both in this speech and others), so the question is, does that make it fair game for the media? I’m not sure that it does, but I think her decision to emphasize that role make it more complicated than just a sexist media. Also, Palin commented about Hillary Clinton’s complaints about sexism saying that women should just “plow through” media’s sexism, and that any “whine” about it does women a “disservice.” It seems that she has changed her mind about that, so it begs the question, is this just a political strategy? Is it an attempt to make us feel sorry for her, and/or to make former Hillary supporters vote for her even though they disagree with her on the issues? It seems unlikely that this would really work in tricking many women to vote for her, but the decision to mention it in the speech is not meaningless. Below is the video where she comments on sexism faced by Hillary.

I am interested to see what others think about her speech, and especially about the sexism she faces and how it might be being used as a political strategy.

Gender, Palin, Feminism

This LA Times op-ed penned by Gloria Steinem is linked on RealClearPolitics today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
It is a good read. It makes a strong case against Palin as a candidate for women or feminism without resorting to tasteless attacks on her family (who would do that anyway...could we scrub the posts below where I do that?).
For all interested in discussing the gender implications of this selection, I suggest this article is a good starting point. For me there are a few points that stand out:
1. Steinem does challenge Palin on experience. Many on the right have played the sexism card when others have raised the experience concenrn. Steinem blames McCain for selecting an inexperienced woman over more qualified republicans (Maine Sen. Snow among them).
2. She points out what many of us have been saying, that if McCain thinks Palin is going to pick up many Hillary supporters he is clearly confusing form for content.
3. She makes a truly compelling cases against Palin from the perspective of a liberal:
"Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."

We've been talking around the question of Palin and gender for a while, hitting on it every now and then as it deals with other conversations. I thought it merited focus and thought. I know some of our blog others have studied the subject of gender in politics quite extensively. This nomination ensures that even with Hilary's exit from center stage gender will still be focal. So lets talk about it : )

MSNBC's Ooops

One thing I just found...

Evidently Republican analysts Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught on MSNBC on tape having an open discussion of their opinions of VP pick Palin. The analysts thought their microphones were off, but were not.

Here is the link to the CNN article, including a formal apology from Noonan:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/hot-mic-catches-gop-strategists-trashing-palin-pick/

Here is the link to the clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Just a quick note

Just wanted to drop a quick note...while watching the RNC a few minutes ago the MSNBC correspondent was interviewing Bob Dole and he mentioned how he attempted a "Rose Garden" technique while he was campaigning for president in the 90s. I just got really excited because, since I am new at all of this, I knew what he was talking about because of the readings for today.

DeLayed reaction

I apologize for the title of my post, but how could I resist? Tom DeLay, along with other Republicans, recently praised the organizational efforts of the Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13118

I am always curious about the implications of praising the opposition. It seems like this praise is often limited to the technical proficiency of the other side. This is a sort of non-compliment. It carries the suggestion that the opposition is mainly interested in "playing the game." However, the article also notes some concern about McCain's messages to middle- and working-class voters.

Backing the Backers of Carl

Mr. Shepard (aka Shep) posted a clip of the Tucker Bounds interview and Katy gave us the response of the McCain campaign to back out of their interview with Larry King. I thought this clip of Michael Dukakis on Hannity and Colmes may give you a shred of insight into the hypocrisy of some media coverage in these two weeks of convention craziness. Listening to Hannity's question of Dukakis is eerily similar to the question of Campbell Brown and her interview of Tucker Bounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4bXbAoaoUs

Enjoy.

"And the elephant shall lay with the donkey"

Adding to the whole "are these parties REALLY that different?" argument, let's take a look at Obama's VP pick:

A lifetime senator with a good record on foreign policy and security. Also, he's a stodgy old white man who can come across as just plain mean.

And the McCain VP pick:

A young minority with but a few years of experience on a political level. She is, however, dynamic with an audience and seems personally approachable.

Obama picked the Democratic McCain, so McCain went and found the closest thing to a Republican Obama. I'm reminded of an episode of Futurama where John Jackson was up for president against Jack Johnson. Thankfully though, by the end of the episode, the disembodied head of Richard Nixon attached to an evil robot body won the presidency.

The Question of Clinton Supporters

A lot of the discussion surrounding the Palin pick is whether or not she will be able to pick up Clinton supporters (also seems to be the only real reason for McCain to have selected her). Many think that there will be at least a small percentage of people who will jump on the bandwagon for the sole reason of Palin being a woman; however, others have given the voters a little more credit than that. Palin is certainly no substitute for Clinton if voters truly believed in what Clinton stood for on the issues.

A poll was conducted the two days following the Palin announcement that should give us some faith in the voters. Gallup seems to breeze over the fact that this poll was conducted post VP announcement and focuses more on the impact of the convention. However, I believe the results should still be comforting to Obama supporters. After the convention and the announcement of Palin, the percentage of Clinton supporters who said they were certain to vote for McCain went down by 4 percent and the number of Clinton supporters who said they were certain to vote for Obama went up by 18 percent.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/Obama-Gains-Among-Former-Clinton-Supporters.aspx

I think this shows that when people really examine their beliefs, they realize that voting to make a statement is a mistake when it will come back to haunt them in the form of policy those voters do not support.

Backing Carl: New interview with McCain spokesman reveals poor knowledge of Palin

Carl has said it already today, but the Palin decision is looking like a really bad idea as the days go by. What we are hearing about her experience in the various forms of media has failed to impress, and it certainly seems that she is being defined by her critics before she can define herself. THE REALLY BAD NEWS, however, is that the McCain campaign appears completely clueless about how to respond to this criticism thus far. A recent CNN interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds regarding Palin is making the rounds on the internet. Is the following video simply an example of a single poor interview, or a sign that the McCain camp dropped the ball?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qCL3G4DZSc

A new rumor makes the rounds

Apparently the AIP (Alaska Independence Party), is now claiming that Palin was a member of their group back in the 1990s.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

McCain's camp is denying it, naturally. It already seems like McCain's camp is spending quite a bit of time putting out fires about Palin's life/credentials.

Ah, and on the Biden front, he apparently received 5 student deferments during Vietnam, before being declared ineligible due to asthma.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/ats-ap-cvn-biden-vietnamaug31,0,2934547.story

A reflection on McCain's decision making process

The controversy surrounding Palin's choice gives us an interesting opportunity to examine McCain's decision making process. This thought has nothing to do with Palin's daughter being pregnant because I could absolutely care less. However, this does relate to the fact that McCain's choice seems to have been made hastily and purely for political reasons. They seemed to have missed her entanglement in ethics investigations, and were willing to overlook an extremely slim political resume. Furthermore, McCain has almost a non-existent relationship with Palin. Current reporting says that McCain first met Palin in Feburary, held one phone call a week later, and then didn't speak to her again until days before offering her the VP. In what seems to be a continuing pattern, the Republican party seems overly willing to settle for short term political gains (the shock of selecting a woman) that may jeopardize future political situations (her complete lack of experience). Seeing our current political situations domestically and abroad, a president's decision making process is all the more important. I may be looking too far into this, but given the lack of substantive reporting, I find myself analyzing anything I can. 

George Lakoff's take on the Palin pick

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-palin-choice-and-the_b_123012.html

"[The] Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse."

It seems we can put one rumor to rest

Bristol Palin (Gov. Palin's 17 year old daughter) is currently pregnant:

  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc

The Republican Party and the Red Cross will get us through Gustav

Here's my favorite link of the day (so far, the day's still very young):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/31/rnc.gustav/index.html

I'm telling you, Gustav is a conspiracy! With a name like that...