Archive for the 'Pandering' category

Bill Clinton on the (Kinder, Gentler) Attack

Jan 30 2008 Published by under Candidates, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Pandering, Politics

A friend and I were just discussing the latest installment of When Bill Clinton Attacks. According to news reports today (which I can’t find to link), the former Pres has a new kinder, gentler press strategy that doesn’t involve tirades against his wife’s opponent, the media, or small children. Mr. View asked, as a Republican, if I thought the assertion that Bill Clinton was negatively impacting Hillary’s chances was accurate. It led to a lengthy discussion of why, exactly, it backfired.

There has been a lot of chatter about the fact that Bill Clinton is not a candidate for the Internet age. The storyline assumes that he doesn’t get the instant communication and was unprepared for the reaction and the speed with which it spread. I disagree. I think there is a good probability that the reaction had been the same if the old model still applied.

The fact is, Bill is revered by many, many Democrats in the same way Reagan was. He is seen as a larger than life figure, a hero to the little guy. If Reagan had, ten years after leaving office, popped back on the scene to savage a guy in his own party, or to throw petty charges at the media, it would have been undignified.

Obama is also seen by many as more of the heir apparent to Bill’s legacy than his wife. They see in him the same young(-ish), dynamic leader looking to rock DC and take America to a new era of greatness. They see Hillary as an opportunistic weasel looking to further capitalize on her husband’s success.

It also doesn’t help that the guy who lied to America about a BJ and dragged us into years of investigation was questioning someone else’s integrity. Hillary, as Mr. View argued, could be let off as an innocent victim of her husband’s philandering. Bill, however, has no moral high ground from which to challenge someone else.

That’s the problem Bill has. It’s not that the accusations are off about the media, it’s a matter of right message, wrong messenger.

It does, however, raise questions of what she knew and when she knew it? She wants to be seen as a candidate firmly in control of her surroundings, yet she also wants us to believe that Bill’s attack (an attack by her own husband) was completely his own doing and she had no knowledge of his intention to speak out. Frankly, I find it hard to accept that she had no idea what he was going to do. Her campaign is built on the “control and disseminate” model. They dole out information like rations to disaster victims, yet she had no idea what the man closest to her would say? I just don’t buy it.

No responses yet

Good Luck, GOP. See you in 2012.

Jan 22 2008 Published by under Barack Obama, Candidates, Craziness, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Pandering, Politics, Republicans

As a lot of people chatter about the departure of Fred Thompson from the race, I’m sitting here thinking about the last 9 months and wondering how I can ever look my party in the face again. For that matter, I don’t see how I can look my fellow voters in the face. Fred Thompson ran the race we all claim we want to see. For that, he got disparaging remarks about his vigor, his ambition, his wife, and his personal appearance.

It really is sad. We claim we want a candidate to talk seriously about the issues, to put forth bold policy proposals and debate on the merits of his plan. In a race crowded with style, Fred was all substance. Yet the people looked away.

In a campaign marked by cat-fights between candidates constantly engaging in underhanded digs at others’ religion, age, and life story, Fred took the high road and stuck to records, and policy. With debates that more closely resembled a three ring circus of 30 second sound bites, Fred stood, hands down, taller than the rest and demanded a little dignity.

The one “failing” of Fred Thompson seems to have been the fact that he refused to be treated like some retarded, inbred poodle jumping through every hoop the media threw in front of him.

When he built and unveiled his Internet presence, the media panned his effort with calls that he ‘plans to run his whole show online.’

When he and Jeri appeared in public, the media savaged his wife as a gold-digger, an interloper in the First Lady sweepstakes, and as a micromanaging puppet master working the strings of the campaign.

When he chose to spend time with his family, the media called him lazy, disinterested, and uncommitted.

Yet that lazy, uncommitted, disinterested candidate was the only one in the race saying something that mattered. He was the only one talking in complete sentences about the issues our nation faces. He was putting forth plans that got noticed by economists and experts as being serious and substantive. He was the only one demanding an end to the pageantry and a beginning to a new era of serious policy based campaigns. He was the only one that made it through the debates with his honesty and integrity in check.

It was, in short, exactly the kind of race we claim we want. He was, by placing his priorities on his family and not the sideshow, exactly the candidate we claim we want.

Yet once we got the campaign we’ve asked for, and once we got the candidate we asked for, he was labeled ‘lazy’ and ‘not serious’.

Well, at this point, all I can say to America is congratulations. You will get the President you deserve. You can pick from 32 flavors of vanilla. You can pick from the 6 remaining monkeys who are rabid enough in their pursuit of self-glorification that they will dance as you grind your organ. You can hold your nose and cast a ballot for candidates that perpetuate this ridiculous system we have created.

As for me, I’ll be sitting out the Presidential election this year. I am unable to find anything in the remaining candidates on either side that gives me hope at a time when we really need it. I’ll sit and ponder the death of statesmanship knowing that our American Idol obsessed culture has taken another step away from electing leaders and another step down the road of electing entertainers.

At this point I don’t see why you don’t chuck it all and simply let the winner of Bruno and Carrie’s Dance War run our nation for the next four years. I’ll bet they dance to your music better than any of the candidates you have left.

6 responses so far

Calculation

Jan 10 2008 Published by under Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Pandering, Politics

Some friends an I were discussing the Clinton’s and the subject of the infamous video at Ron Brown’s funeral came up. You remember the one, right? Bill Clinton is walking along yucking it up with friends – grinning and laughing right up until the moment he sees the camera. Instantly his whole face changes to a somber expression and he begins wiping his eyes as if he’s been crying.

Now, normally I’m not one to question the sincerity of someone else. I’ve been accused of being cold and calculating. For the record, I’m not. Instead, I freely admit most of what I have accomplished in life was completely by accident. I’ve stumbled into almost everything.

The Clinton’s, however, are a whole different breed. I don’t think either of them has done anything in life that wasn’t planned. That’s why I have serious doubts about another, more recent Clinton moment.

You’re looking at declining poll numbers, and people are writing columns asking if you can be dull and studious and still appeal when your opponent is dynamic and inspiring.

Clinton talked about issue after issue in almost mind-numbing detail and answered question after question in an event that lasted more than an hour and a half.

Both drew large crowds. But Clinton’s crowd was much smaller at the end of her speech than at the beginning.

Hundreds of people trickled and then streamed out while Clinton was still talking. But she went on and on as if she did not mind. And maybe she didn’t.

“You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose,” Clinton said, quoting Mario Cuomo.

In other words: Dull is good. Dull is a sign of competence.

You’re known for being guarded and shrewd, and “nothing but business” and suddenly you break down in front of a camera at a time when people are telling you to be more human.

That the question was a softball at a roundtable focused on issues really makes me wonder if the question wasn’t planted. Watch the MSNBC video linked above and even the reporter comments on the fact that the question was out of left field and people in the audience rolled their eyes.

So my question is, was this a genuine moment, or another calculated political move by one of the two most calculating people in the business? The timing, to me at least, seems a little odd.

No responses yet

Most Influential ‘Conservatives’

Nov 02 2007 Published by under Candidates, Craziness, Pandering, Politics, Republicans

The Telegraph of London has an interesting article up on the “Most Influential Conservatives“. It’s really sort of a bizarre read and I can’t quite figure out what definition of conservatism they’re using.

Rudy Giuliani (who by all accounts is fiscally conservative, but not at all socially conservative) comes in at number one. Ok, so they must be basing this on fiscal conservatism, right? Well, apparently not. President Bush comes in at #21, despite an almost total absence on matters of fiscal conservatism for the last 7 years. With the explosion of spending by the federal government that he presided over, and the runaway sending of Congress that he rubber-stamped, it’s clear that fiscal constraint is not necessary to get you on the list, but non-stop pandering to the religious right is.

So what, in the Telegraph’s opinion is a conservative?

P.J. O’Rourke made the list, as did Drew Carey, with their libertarian conservatism. Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer both made the list (as did Mike Huckabee) with a solid record on social issues, but little in the fiscal ledger.

In explaining the fact that 43 didn’t make the top 20, the Telegraph explains:

So why isn’t George W. Bush, president of the most powerful nation in the world, wartime commander-in chief and leader of the Republican party not even in the top 20 of the Telegraph’s list of influential American conservatives? That’s a fair question. The short answer: the list is about the future rather than the past.

It also appears to be about perceptions of conservatism, versus actual conservatism. By listing, as ‘conservative’ both people who oppose social conservatism and people uncommitted to fiscal conservatism, the article actually serves to muddy the waters and confuse people who want to understand what conservatism really means.

If I were to make a list, I would argue that conservatism is defined by three things:

  • A recognition that political power in the US begins with the people, and ever smaller amounts are passed down to the federal government. Too often our politicians seem to get that backwards, and lately that includes a lot of ‘conservatives’.
  • A recognition that, as Milt Friedman said, “The government solution to a problem is usually worse than the problem.” That applies to government mandates in any aspect of life from economic policy down to the politics of abortion.
  • An understanding that it’s not the government’s responsibility to save me from going to hell. That’s between me and my God. If I screw it up, I have nobody to blame but myself. The constitution is quite clear on this matter. A law that codifies your religious beliefs about my behavior is a law that establishes a religion.

I will readily admit, however, that my belief in these three principles is what often sets me at odds with much the party is doing. However, I still maintain hope that the party will return to a belief in small government and fiscal responsibility first and foremost. If they do, there will be no misunderstanding of what does and does not make someone conservative.

No responses yet

David Responds

Oct 25 2007 Published by under Bloggers, Craziness, Democrats, Pandering, Politics, Republicans, Self-Promotion, The Internet

I had heard through the rumor mill today that David was fairly upset at Erick Erickson and I (and later Lance Dutson) for chastising him about his recent rant against RedState for banning Ron Paul’s venom spewing minions. I had heard he was worked up and would be writing a reply, so I’ve been keeping an eye out for it.

I assumed David would argue that he’s not bent on self-promotion. I had expected him to challenge the notion that he continually puts himself above the cause. I had a number of things floating through my head that perfectly illustrated David’s tendency to do this. The best example was the e-mail I received asking about the status of RightRoots while we were rebuilding. I told him we were expanding what we had done in 2006 and would soon be rolling out the new version. He then rushed to build Slatecard to compete with it.

Now I’m not against competition and welcome it, but it seemed odd that given his desire to advance the cause he would choose to muddy the water with multiple competing interests rather than jumping on board an existing initiative. His actions, in retrospect, all make sense. He would have been assisting with RightRoots, but his name would be synonymous with Slatecard.

So I had all this stuff running through my head, and the strangest thing happened. He explained away his tendency to put himself above his cause as the practical reality of trying to run a business in the PR world. So be it. It seems he agrees with our assessment that he’s out for himself, and offers a reason, so I’ll simply accept it and move on.

His motivations notwithstanding, let me dig into his reasoning for opposing the ban (he completely ignores the Google/MoveOn controversy by the way, and that is most of what Dutson dinged him on, so we’ll get back to that). David argues that the support for Paul is very real, and as evidence offers a NH poll out today showing him with 7 percent support.

And in New Hampshire, a state which Paul hasn’t actively campaigned in, he places fourth in a poll which was just released today by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College…

Ron Paul is turning on people that have likely never been turned on to politics including young people. And regardless of what party they thought they belonged to, they are now supporting a Republican candidate.

Well, actually, no, they aren’t. They’re supporting a fringe Libertarian candidate. Now don’t get me wrong. I consider myself to be of the libertarian wing of the GOP. I am not, by any stretch, in the religious faction and nobody who knows me would accuse me of that. As a libertarian Republican, I cannot now, nor will I ever, get behind Ron Paul. If Paul is our nominee, I would have to push the button for Hillary. I could no more vote for Ron Paul than for Dennis Kucinich.

And what’s interesting is another little study out today that shows I’m not the only one who considers Hillary to be more conservative than Paul. Based on visitors to their website, and those same visitors tendency to read partisan blogs, the kind folks at Compete have analyzed “The Company They Keep” – a look at the reading habits of campaign supporters. What did it show?

Internet darling Ron Paul is attracting significant interest from the left, leapfrogging even Hillary Clinton.

What, you say? Ron Paul’s supporters spend more time reading liberal blogs than conservative blogs? 23% of Paul’s visitors read liberal blogs while only 13% read conservative blogs. They are almost twice as likely to read liberal blogs than conservative. Does that make them “Reagan Democrats”? All draws that comparison (one that any Republican who was actually alive during Reagan’s entire tenure in office would find distasteful).

The fact is Ron Paul personifies a brand of Republicanism that most Republicans find objectionable. If the Republicans spontaneously nominated Howard Dean, there would be an exodus of GOPers regardless of how many crazed liberals he brought along.

All further explains his belief that Ron Paul represents “change” and this is going to be a change election. (Note: I have advocated that this is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent election, but not necessarily a change election in the traditional sense. 2006 was about change. 2008 is about anger at Washington. That’s not about change, that’s about lashing out with little concern for the fallout, and is a very dangerous and unpredictable type of election for either party.)

I disagree with his description of Paul as the change candidate, as well. Paul is a reactionary candidate. He is attractive to a very narrow and angry minority who feel displaced by society at any given point. If he loses the GOP nomination (which I will go out on a limb and guarantee) he will seek the Libertarian nomination (mark my words). His supporters will follow him, and he will get the same .5% that Harry Browne garnered in 1996 and 2000.

Will a single one of his supporters (attracted to an anti-war libertarian who has accused the current GOP administration of engaging in an illegal war) support a nominee that is likely to be in favor of finishing the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it. If his anti-war hysteria is what draws them to Paul, I don’t really think they’ll hang in there to vote for Rudy, Fred, Romney or McCain regardless of how welcome RedState makes them feel.

All’s attitude reminds me of the county parties in New Mexico. When I was first hired to analyze the races in the state and make recommendations regarding which legislative districts would get resources (and where we should deny them), we were met with howls. The “fair” thing to do would be to divide the money evenly amongst our counties and candidates. We stuck to our guns, and ignored districts where we would not win, and put it into districts where we could. As long as we did, we added seats every year (regardless of what happened in DC or the statewide races. It was only when we were savaged by infighting that we lost.

David’s model is much the same. We should expend resources trying to make inroads in places we have no hope of making them. It’s a losing philosophy. It’s throwing a hail Mary on first and ten instead of steadily moving the goal posts.

Google/MoveOn

David, as I mentioned, left the Google question untouched. Lance Dutson (who, like me, All describes as a ‘friend’ despite not knowing either of us very well) was not kind to David when he weighed in:

I don’t know David All very well, but I do know him. Based on my experience, I think I would take this beyond the criticism of self-promotion that Turk and Erickson levy against him, and say that he is actually hurting the very movement he has anointed himself the leader of. David All is providing a crass misrepresentation of the work that the rest of us are doing, he’s proffering poorly-deduced theories about how the Right should use the internet, and he’s allowing the traditional media to paint Republicans as inept and childish when it comes to technology. I’ve been fortunate enough to work with some extremely talented people in this world over the last few years, and it really bothers me that David All has become the public face of what is in reality a remarkable group of people. His two-dimensional YouTube mania, his incessant and misplaced references to Anderson’s Long Tail theory, and his predilection for cliche in lieu of explanation works to widen the gap between an older generation of Republican leaders and the rest of us who are attempting to convince them of the need to evolve.

He also sums up David’s approach to the Google/Collins flap pretty succinctly.

All wrote a post about the issue at TechRepublican.com, in which he described me as his ‘friend’. His post indicated that he had contacted Google, and that after listening to what they had to say, he agreed with Google’s decision to ban the ads. Strangely, All didn’t bother to contact his ‘friend’ to get reaction or further explanation, a move that would have helped him avoid making a completely incorrect assessment of the situation.

I don’t think I can top that, so I’ll stop trying.

2 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »