Republican Strategy

I was pleasantly surprised to find so much current information on Republican strategy on the Internet. The first web site quoted contains a perfectly written, intelligent statement on the need to employ the tools found on the Internet in an effort to replicate the success of the Obama campaign. Though not an interview, the answers found online almost certainly represent the direction of the Republican party more accurately than a blue state party chair could.

Question: What three things does the Republican Party need to do to broaden its national base for 2012?


Answer: 1.) The Internet: Our #1 Priority in the Next Four Years Winning the technology war with the Democrats must be the RNC's number one priority in the next four years.The challenge is daunting, but if we adopt a strongly anti-Washington message and charge hard against Obama and the Democrats, we will energize our grassroots base. Among other benefits, this will create real demand for new ways to organize and route around existing power structures that favor the Democrats. And, you will soon discover, online organizing is by far the most efficient way to transform our party structures to be able to compete against what is likely to be a $1 billion Obama re-election campaign in 2012.


2.) Our technology should give Republican activists the ability to connect with fellow activists at the precinct level. We must encourage the growth of standalone volunteer communities, giving them the tools to organize themselves online, with the official party taking a step back and not trying to control them. We can't anyway.


3.) A "40 Under 40" initiative. Undoing the damage to our party's brand among America's youth will take more than new slogans and hip spokespeople. It will mean making young voters the face of the Republican Party, and not just another target group with its own bulleted list of "outreach" talking points. To that end, the next Chairman should commit to a simple goal: working towards a Republican Party where at least 40% of our challenger and open seat candidates for Congress are under 40. Such a party will send a signal to all Americans that the GOP is once again the party of the future.


Question: What conditions will be right for a Jindal campaign for 2012? Alternatively, what conditions in 2010 would cause Bobby Jindal to wait until 2016?


Answer: Even though I have committed myself to giving Obama a chance to prove me wrong about him, I am still looking ahead to 2012 and trying to figure out what it's going to take to unseat this jerk.The way I see it, the GOP strategy will probably vary based on Obama's approval ratings toward the end of his first term. If he holds a high approval rating over 50%, Republicans are going to have to go for the "hail mary" and run someone unconventional. Bobby Jindal comes to mind, as he is young, fresh, energetic, and has the ability to galvanize the base. Even so, it might not be enough considering that if Obama is regarded at least somewhat favorably, there probably wouldn't be many moderates/independents ready to hand the WH back to Republicans given a not-so-distant memory of Bush's abysmal ratings. I'm not sure I have the answer to this scenario, but it will take some creative thinking.The strategy is much more simple if Obama's approval ratings are in the 40's or below. You run Mitt Romney and let him run away with it. The GOP campaign strategy in this scenario will be to point out that we tried to vote for "change," bringing in someone inexperienced with the hopes that he would infuse Washington with new and fresh ideas, and it didn't work out. So let's put a "familiar old shoe" in there with a ton of experience and a long track record of success and let him right the ship.


Question: What does Bobby Jindal (or any prospective candidate for 2012, for that matter) need to do over the next two years to position themselves for a successful national campaign?


Answer: Building Jindal Up to Tear Him Down…
Ramesh Ponnuru poses an interesting thought regarding recent coverage of Bobby Jindal: “I wonder if this sort of swooning is really going to be helpful to Gov. Jindal in the long run.”
Jindal is being built up beyond the level at which anyone can deliver, by those who are excited about his candidacy. He now holds the mythic title, “Perfect Candidate, Heir of Ronald Reagan.” Funny thing is that I’ve remembered quite a few candidates and political leaders who’ve been hit with that label and fallen to Earth, not because they were bad, but they were not what we were expecting.
The way the GOP puffs up politicians is reminiscent of the scene from Braveheart when William Wallace identifies himself and then is challenged because William Wallace was 7 feet tall.

Bobby Jindal is a man of great accomplishment, he’s one of the party’s best young leaders. He’s a heck of a governor. Let’s leave it at that. While I don’t think he’ll run in 2008, I hope he runs someday, and I hope that conservatives don’t build Jindal up to a point that he simply can’t deliver.

Another McCaffrey Rant

Did I forget to mention that McCaffrey was also Clinton's drug czar? In the following clip we see the evil general avoid answering Alex Jones' questions concerning high-level government drug trafficking. Note his calm demeanor and Jimmy Stewartish voice:




What the hell was that about? Answer the question!

Drug czar McCaffrey had a bit of fun with the networks during his crime fighting years. Not content to employ PSLs to get the anti-drug message to the people, McCaffrey found a way to get the networks to embed anti-drug messages into the story of some of their shows. The incentive to the networks was simple--lots of money. Of course, this underhanded attempt at mind control was never revealed to the viewing audience. You can't exactly tell people that a government official is reviewing embedded messages from their government in their favorite show before the show is aired. That takes all the fun out of it!

Fear This Man

The spectacular New York Times article concerning General McCaffrey's conflict of interest issues with NBC News brought to our attention by Mr. McEnroe is, to me at least, a perfect example of the value of large, professional news gathering and reporting companies. Citizen reporting will probably be a part of the future of news, but there will always be a need for experienced, well-connected and determined reporters.

The David Barstow expose' in the New York Times that led to the Salon article by Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of a level of reporting far beyond even the most determined citizen reporter. The expose' was expertly written, engaging, thorough and in depth to a degree suggesting numerous high-level contacts and trusted sources. I was not surprised, incidentally, that General McCaffrey profits from the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--he has a history of being on the wrong side of the law.

I was especially interested in the story because I believe General McCaffrey is also a war criminal. I base this belief on the stories related by the multiple reliable witnesses of McCaffrey's ordering of the slaughter of thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers after a cease-fire had been ordered in the Desert Storm conflict. Was there outrage in the media about this atrocity? Not really--its hard to replay the down, if I may use a sports analogy, when the clock has run out and the victorious team is carrying the coach off the field. We won, we didn't lose that many lives on our side, and Sadam Hussein was humiliated. But we're talking about real people really dying. The photos of the slaughter were of a staggering number of dead bodies and burnt vehicles and equipment not vanquished athletes hanging their heads in defeat. McCaffrey wanted to be famous for something, so he gave the order to kill them all.

General McCaffrey deals in death at the highest levels. Only reporters with access to and experience at those levels can get the kind of story David Barstow has given us. If the media goes too far in the direction of the citizen reporter we may never be informed of what the super powerful are up to. We might lose the trail on scoundrels like General McCaffrey.

Jindal=Goodness

This is the kind of image we like to see early on in the process--our man making nice with a not- so-bright looking white guy who thought it necessary to point out the writing on his t-shirt. We see it, buddy.

This article from the Times Picayune reports that Gov. Jindal was apparently satisfied with his meeting with the incoming Obama administration. With an attitude like this, its hard not to like the guy:


"The administration used this as an opportunity to hear from us," Jindal said. "They weren't looking for a consensus because they were not yet ready to present a package. They didn't have details. But rather this was purely an opportunity for them to gather input. As they emphasized, this was the first of many steps."

Apparently, Gov. Jindal made a favorable impression on Mr. Obama at the meeting:

Jindal said he shared a light moment with Obama regarding recent reports that Republicans consider Jindal to be their version of an Obama-style rising star.

"President-elect Obama and I had a very nice, friendly conversation about the issues," Jindal said. "As he was leaving, he made a very friendly, complimentary, joking comment. I will keep it private because it was said in private."

A "nice, friendly conversation" with your future opponent is a good thing.

Jindal the Believer

If Bobby Jindal runs for president in 2012, he will almost certainly be attacked by the left for his beliefs on abortion, stem cell research and the idea of teaching creationism in public schools. So be it. With 76.9 million Catholics in the U.S. Jindal can easily explain his beliefs as in keeping with his Catholic faith, as not based on religious extremism, as in keeping with the beliefs of the majority of American Christians. He can express these beliefs, but the message should not be that he will attempt to impose them of government policy; remember, a true Republican believes in the sovereignty of the states. Small government is less intrusive government.

I realize that these issues are more complicated than the simple assertion that abortion, for instance, is a state issue. But what Jindal will have to do, through the MSM and the Internet, is keep the message simple and the responses to the left short and consistent: "As a Republican..." and "As a Catholic..."

In defending his beliefs, Governor Jindal will have to embrace not only the right leaning websites such as Townhall, but also the left leaning websites not traditionally courted by Republican candidates. Sites like the Huffington Post will have to be given the highest level of access to the campaign and the candidate. Jindal will have to show that he has nothing to hide and he is not ashamed of his religious beliefs or his philosophy on the role of the federal government.

Jindal: A New Republican

Harry's most recent post containing a clip of a brief interview of Governor Jindal on Fox got me thinking that the Republicans would be fools to run anyone else against Barack Obama in 2012. Jindal is smooth, smart and polished. His appearance, demeanor and age make him the perfect "breath of fresh air" the Republicans now so desperately need.

As far as Jindal's presidential campaign's possible exploitation of new technology is concerned, I think they would be wise to follow the model so effectively used by the Obama campaign. The Jindal people would be smart to start working on their strategy now rather than waiting until the primary season of 2011. If I were part of their team I would have young republicans setting up Facebook accounts, MySpace accounts and Twitter accounts now from college campuses in all fifty states. I would have subtle links on these accounts to "new" republican websites and blogs. These sites and blogs would sell a younger and simpler republican message--a message of boiled down conservatism without the criticism of democrats or liberals. In short, try to make the republicans seem like the cool, new political party of change toward simplified, down-to-earth values.

If I were a strategist for the Jindal for President campaign of 2012 I would focus all messages to potential voters on just a few image enhancing aspects of republican beliefs. I would show the farmers, but I would also show the laptop in the barn that the farmer uses to calculate how to use less pesticide in an effort to save money and do less harm to the environment. I would show the conservative banker investing in small businesses in the inner city in an effort to make money for the bank and the community. I would show good, hard working people from every ethnic group going to work with smiles on their faces. And I would show soldiers, so often associated with the republican party, helping poor people in a far off land unload much needed food and medicine.

With the new republicans, "We All Win."

I'm a Twitterin'

I signed up for Twitter and now have something to look forward to at the end of the day...I can "twitter." In Twitter I can tell people what I'm doing. But does anyone really want to know what a 46 year old man with dark circles under his eyes is doing while sitting at the computer? Does "twittering" sound like the answer most people want to hear? If I tell people that I've been spending too much time at the computer "twittering" are they going to want to know more? Will they want to "twitter" with me?

Alex Jones

A friend of mine, Tom, who moved from East Hartford to Chicago 18 years ago told me that I should check out the website of Alex Jones, a controversial radio talk show host out of Texas.



Radio can be a powerful influence on people.

Fear and Loathing?

I was struck by a line in the Al-Qaida statement embedded in Amanda's most recent post. The line, "heart full of hate," attributed to al-Zawahri in the following quote sounded oddly familiar:

"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.

Could al-Zawahri be a fan of one of our greatest writers?

"Maybe there is no Heaven. Or maybe this is all pure gibberish—a product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow—to sleep late, have fun, get wild, drink whisky, and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind except falling in love and not getting arrested . . . Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll."—Gonzo Papers, Vol. 2: Generation of Swine: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the '80s, 1988

The author is, of course, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and the sentiment in the quote represents exactly the values and beliefs Al-Qaida so often attributes to Americans. Could it be that al- Zawahri and his pals have been reading Thompson all along?

Talk Radio

Mr. McEnroe's post to the class blog concerning conservative radio talk show hosts references an article which makes some fairly obvious observations. I was not, for instance, blown away by the revelation that conservative talk show hosts employ the "us vs. them" approach in order to gain and hold their audiences.

One would not have to be an especially intelligent or sensible person to realize that Rush Limbaugh, the most popular conservative radio talk show host, does not rely too heavily on facts or journalistic "fairness" in his presentation of the news. This story from the Rush Limbaugh web site is a good example of the mentality behind his radio show:

RUSH: I mentioned mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen, that President-Select Obama met with Senator McCain and said that they were going to work together. That scares me. It just scares me. We now have, ladies and gentlemen, the actual audio of Senator Obama this afternoon making this... It's not really an announcement. It's sort of a casual comment.

OBAMA: We're going to have a good conversation about how, um, we can do some work together to (bleep) up the country.

RUSH: So they're going to... "We're going to have a good conversation about how to do some work together to (bleep) up the country." Here it is again, ladies and gentlemen, exclusively here on the EIB Network.

OBAMA: We're going to have a good conversation about how, um, we can do some work together to (bleep) up the country.

Mr. Limbaugh can't actually believe that Barack Obama told reporters that he intended to discuss f-ing up the country. It must be a joke. I work with twelve year old kids who are beyond that level of humor.

What Rush is doing with such a joke is akin to what the Daily Show does. A joke is made at the expense of a politician for the benefit of the audience most of whom will find it funny because they see some truth in it. Liberal leaning media sources also seek material which buttresses their views and the views of their audience. What is the difference?

Mr Shelley's article assumes that the conservative viewpoint is only palatable when presented in a dishonest manner. Surely, intelligent people would not agree with conservative viewpoints if they were only presented in a somber and reasonable fashion. Am I now to believe that conservative radio talk show hosts are capable of "fooling" vast numbers of "intelligent" people as Mr. Shelley suggests?

The stereotyped liberal view of the talk radio audience is that it’s a lot of angry, uneducated white men. In fact, the audience is far more diverse. Many are businesspeople, doctors, lawyers, academics, clergy, or soccer moms and dads. Talk show fans are not stupid. They will detect an obvious phony. The best hosts sincerely believe everything they say. Their passion is real. Their arguments have been carefully crafted in a manner they know will be meaningful to the audience, and that validates the views these folks were already thinking.

So, if the listeners are "not stupid" and have views already in agreement with the talk show host, then what, exactly, is the point of the article? If the point is that conservative radio talk show hosts, people who are, "after all...in the entertainment business," should be held accountable for misrepresenting the truth in their broadcasts, then the same standard would have to be applied to any "entertainment" which relies on the political agreement of a particular audience.

60 Minutes...again

I know that Colin addressed the Barack Obama interview on 60 Minutes tonight, but I thought I would include the link for anyone interested in watching it:


Watch CBS Videos Online

With this week's subject in mind , I wondered why Senator Obama would choose 60 Minutes, (wouldn't the Huffinton Post be more hip and edgy?) as his first interview after winning the most important election in more than a generation.

I watched the interview and came away from it with even more respect and admiration for our next president. I felt at ease, as I think Senator Obama did, with the tone and theme of the questions Steve Kroft asked. I sensed a mutual respect. The two men seemed to be enjoying the event without having the interview lose sight of the serious problems now facing the next president. I didn't feel I had to worry about the interview turning ugly or confrontational. And yet, even without the confrontation, the interview was informative and entertaining. Is there a lesson there for other members of the media?

I believe that most people will eventually tire of clearly partisan and combative news coverage now so prevalent on cable news and the Internet. I know it has gotten old for me. I am not even any longer amused by the partisan rantings of people with whom I agree. I want to hear watch and read good news and bad presented clearly and concisely. And the stories deemed to be "news" should at least be interesting. 60 Minutes is at least interesting.

Enquiring Minds

The Huffington Post must have seen a substantial dip in their traffic since the election ended. Imagine reporting on a National Enquirer story about Cindy McCain's recent infidelity! For shame! Then again... it caught my eye.

Katie's Take

Katie Couric offers a nice summation on the Obama campaign's efforts to attract voters by using the Internet. In this clip she suggests that Obama could use his already effective use of technology to promote civic responsibility:



Watch CBS Videos Online

Chasin' Wabbits

One of the ways that Fox News can keep their viewers happy is by trotting out the old tried and true right wing fear mongering tactics of the past. This election season was virtually free of Second Amendment rights talk. It just wasn't considered an issue. Now that Obama has won, however, we can expect Fox and the other right wing news outlets to submit more stories about the fear gun owners now feel. A fear of not being able to buy guns? Fox reveals:

Handguns and rifles are flying off the shelves at Ted Sabate's gun shop in Kensington, Md.
And while it's not uncommon for gun sales to spike when the economy takes a downturn, Sabate says that's not what he's hearing from customers. According to Sabate, gun enthusiasts are stockpiling because they say they're afraid the incoming Democratic administration will impose new gun bans.
"People are afraid that if there's another ban imposed ... they won't be able to buy them at all," Sabate said. "So they want to get something now before they don't think that they can."

Been putting off that gun purchase, have you? I wouldn't wait too long...Democrats a' comin'!

The Fox story then rightly finishes up with the strange predictions of the head of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre:

The head of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, foresees a split in the Democratic party.
"What you're going to see is a real struggle between the elite wing of the party -- the Manhattan, Georgetown cocktail party circuit, the Los Angeles -- versus the union, rank-and-file members ... the members that are going to (say) wait a minute, my district likes to hunt, my district respects the Second Amendment," LaPierre said.

Can't people be both partiers and happy gun lovers? I think the two compliment each other. That's good, old fashioned, small town values right there--get drunk and shoot stuff.

Fox will have no trouble entertaining their audience now that the election is over. They're going to watch President Obama's every move. Like the tenacious Mr Fud, Fox will continue to play their old, tired game no matter how pitiful or ridiculous the endeavor.

Andy Again

I like Andy Rooney. I think Andy is probably the best spokesman for his generation. I trust him and find his writing entertaining and enjoyable. His reflection on the election of Barack Obama for President on 60 Minutes sums up my feelings on the event.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Historic Headline

The Washington Post announced Thursday that it would be printing 350,000 new copies of the election edition of their newspaper. Why? Because some people like to collect things and because the election of Barack Obama for President is so historically enormous that folks want something to hold and look at in the future.

People who stayed up late, bleary-eyed from television or online page clicking, woke up needing something to touch. They sought physical proof that it wasn't all just a dream from a computer monitor's blue glow.

I know that I haven't really yet grasped the enormity of the election. Watching the returns on Tuesday night I knew that when the polls closed on the West coast that Obama would be declared the winner. It was obvious by 10:30 that the networks and the cable news outlets were trying to kill time until 11:00. They all waited. The suspense was painful. And then...it's over. I felt numb. Would a copy of a newspaper declaring Obama the President Elect make the event more real for me? Probably not.

Patriotic Journalism

Is it the job of journalists to help a president?

The Mandelbrot Set

Within the idea of media bias is the idea of memes and the influence of information. Each of us, for instance, had to have heard of each of the presidential candidates from some source of information. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we learned about each of the candidates from a media source. We can also assume that every media source is biased to some degree and seeks to spread one or more memes in relation to the candidates. Thus, we have learned of the candidates, we have been infected with one or more memes, and we now have our preference.

Polls are a measure of the success or failure of one or more memes gaining influence on our preference for president in the upcoming election. Polls taken over the course of the presidential campaign show the patterns of our attitudes over time. Therefore, it must be possible to predict with certainty who will win the election. For even if we factor in possible last minute information, at this point in the process, "new" information does not have enough time to change the outcome of the election because the pattern of the polls cannot change. Why? For the same reason a "healthy" or "normal" elm tree cannot suddenly shoot a new branch straight down to the ground. There is a pattern to which the tree must abide. The tree, like voters and the memes they carry, follow a simple and elegant formula: the Mandelbrot set.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s Benoit Mandelbrot, the inventor of fractal geometry, and several others were using simple iterative equations to explore the behavior of numbers on the complex plane. [Read an interview with Mandelbrot.] A very simple way to view the operation of an iterative equation is as follows:

changing number+fixed number=result

Start with one of the numbers on the complex plane and put its value in the "Fixed Number" slot of the equation. In the "Changing Number" slot put zero. Now calculate the equation, take the "Result," and slip it into the "Changing Number" slot. Repeat the whole operation again (in other words, recalculate and "iterate" the equation) and watch what happens to the "Result." Does it hover around a fixed value, does it spiral toward infinity quickly, or does it stagger upward by a slower expansion?

Simple enough, right? Polls contain the numbers representing attitudes and voting intentions. Fortunately, like the elm tree, the presidential election is a finite process; that is, the process will end as the elm tree eventually stops growing and thus ends the pattern it has adhered to. This brings us to the "strange attractor":

Applying zoom-ins and different iterative prisms to the numbers in the boundary area of the Mandelbrot set has revealed that this region is a mathematical strange attractor. The "strange attractor" name here applies to the set because it is self-similar at many scales, is infinitely detailed, and attracts points (numbers) to certain recurrent behavior. Scientists study the set for insights into the nonlinear (chaotic) dynamics of real systems. For example, the wildly different behavior exhibited when two numbers with almost the same starting value and lying next to each other in the set's boundary are iterated is similar to the behavior of systems like the weather undergoing dynamic flux because of its "sensitive dependence on initial conditions."

Therefore, no amount of positive or negative, biased or unbiased, reporting by the media can change the eventual result of the election. The media, because it is simply a collection of people, intuitively knows that there is a pattern and that the pattern has, certainly by this point in the election, been established to the point of conclusion. Obama wins.

I'm Just a Caveman (Woman)

Colin brought an interesting story to my attention. Governor Palin is not really up on the Bill of Rights. Article 1 of the Bill of Rights mentions the right to free speech:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simple enough. Glenn Greenwald of salon.com wasn't too impressed with Ms. Palin's interpretation of Article 1. Not to worry. We have these down-home smart folk in our country:

That is free speech too. O.K. I don't like it, but I'm not ready to say it should be illegal. And illegal is what Article 1 is all about.

Voter Suppression

Last night our class had a brief discussion concerning voter suppression and the YouTube/ PBS effort to encourage voters to videotape the polling places next Tuesday. Some in our group seemed not to be aware of the need for video evidence of subversive voter suppression tactics like those used in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004. This videothevote.org video offers a few examples of voter suppression in 2006:



Andrew Burman's voter suppression article found on Salon.com gives a state by state breakdown of what has happened this year in some of the most hotly contested states. The article focuses on the voter suppression attempts made by state or local Republican officials. Ohio, the state where the most alleged voter suppression occurred in 2004, was again the focus of attention this year for suppression attempts based on voter verification. The idea being that the poll workers would be forced to turn away voters who do not conform to new and complicated registration guidelines. Long lines of voters would form as a result, and as Sarai points out, some people might give up and not vote at all.

People being turned away at the polls is an easy thing to document with a video camera. I expect the broadcast networks will probably follow the lead of PBS to some degree and have cameras ready in Florida and Ohio "hot spots." I just hope that the obvious and historic connection between voter suppression efforts and Republican officials doesn't dissuade the networks from covering the polling places for fear of seeming biased.

I'll Start With Fox

This clip goes right to the heart of what we will be discussing this week:



Here is the statement made by Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, that prompted the discussion in this video clip:

"This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months. In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all. Americans know that the real choice in this election is between four more years of Bush-McCain policies that redistribute billions to billionaires and big corporations and Barack Obama's plan to help the middle class by giving tax relief to 95% of workers and companies that create new jobs here in America. That's the change we need, and no amount of eleventh-hour distractions from the McCain campaign will change that," said Obama-Biden campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

The discussion between Bill Burton and Fox's Megyn Kelly is focused solely on whether or not Fox News is biased against Obama in their reporting on the prospect that Obama may be a socialist because of something he said concerning graduated tax rates during a speech back in 2001. At the end of the clip Mr. Burton finally asks why Fox has not reported on a speech McCain made in 2001 concerning his disagreement with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The question comes too late in the discussion for Ms. Kelly to respond, however, and the viewer is left with Ms. Kelly concluding that Fox News is fair and balanced.

I find it interesting that Fox felt compelled to respond to the charges made by Mr. Burton by having him come on one of the newscasts to defend his statement. Fox could have simply released their own statement saying that they stand by their reporting and make every effort to insure the accuracy and fairness of the information they present to the public.

The Traditional Dance Off

I know this video doesn't fit into our focus on advertisements this week, but I thought I'd share it just the same in case some folks haven't seen it yet.

An Interesting E-Mail

I don't know who sent this to me, but I found it damn funny when I opened it last night.

What Was That Noise?

Remember the N.R.A.? In previous elections the N.R.A. got a great deal more press coverage than this time around. I thought I'd check in on our friends with guns and see who they were endorsing for president. Let's watch this fun loving video and see if we can tell who they think should be our next president:






Well...I'm not too surprised. But is this video accurate? FactCheck.org says, "not so much." Good thing I checked--I was just about to initiate my cooling off period at Cabela's.

An Odd Endorsement

I know I tend to go retro with many of my posts, but I couldn't resist offering this unusual campaign ad:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

This video is interesting because it attempts to persuade people to vote for Obama by relying on the popularity of three television giants from the past. Anyone born between 1920 and 1970 will recognize some or all of the T.V. stars in the video. Do I care who Fonzi thinks I should vote for? Yes I do. And who can deny that Andy Griffith is one of the most beloved and respected television actors of all time? Sheriff Andy Tate would never give bad advice.

Well, at least someone agrees with me.

*Not sure if the video is going to work. If not, the link below the stubborn black square will lead to the video.

Love or Death

Johnson is the first president I have any memory of. He was a stern looking, serious man with serious issues to deal with. During the run for reelection in 1964 the Johnson campaign produced an ad that has stuck in my mind for almost my whole life. I don't remember when I first saw it. It must have been replayed in the years after the 64 airing to be so clearly printed in my memory. Just the same, it has imagery that spoke very clearly to my young mind, imprinting in me the often re-enforced fear in the sixties that we could be annihilated by "atomic" bombs. We had the bomb drills in school and the air raid siren tests every once in a while. Kids back then talked about the possibility of Russia dropping "atomic" bombs on the U.S. And, growing up in East Hartford with Pratt and Whitney only a mile from our house, we were sure that if an "atomic" war broke out we would be annihilated.

This video was too powerful to use in a presidential campaign and was rightly pulled after airing only once. Once, it turns out, was more than enough. The power of the imagery prompted the networks to find reason to show it again and again as news. So how can a short, simple video have the power to stick so permanently in the mind of a two year old?




Johnson says, "we must either love each other, or we must die." Good Lord! He didn't say that we might die or that we may die. Love or death were the choices he gave us. We could choose Johnson (love) or Goldwater (death). How's that for whittling the issues down to a clear choice?

The current presidential campaign has suffered no similar clear choice. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain has had the gall to inform the voters that their vote could result in nuclear Armageddon. The only mushroom cloud I could find in a current ad came from the McCain campaign. The message is much more subtle.






Th ad asserts that by 2013 the "nuclear terror threat" will be "reduced" if McCain is elected. If Obama wins, it is logical to assume, the "nuclear terror threat" will not be reduced. Big deal. People have no idea what the "nuclear terror threat is"--no image of death. We can imagine a terrorist with a small nuclear device killing a large number of people somewhere within the U.S., but there is no imagery to go with the idea. The ad has the explosion but not the little girl innocently plucking pedals from a flower in a sunny meadow--the image of love. Without the image of the innocent victim the ad lacks the power to convey fear of the consequence of the wrong vote.


I don't think either Senator Obama or Senator McCain would dare reduce one of their ads to such a drastic level no matter how badly the campaign was going. They wouldn't get away with it as Johnson didn't get away with it back in 64. Or did he? That single airing of the ad on one network was nevertheless eventually played by the other networks as news. The massage got out, the images were displayed and people understood what Johnson was saying. Me or him. Love or death.

P.J. O'Rourke

Since the focus this week was on humor (and polls), I thought I would look for political articles by some of my favorite authors of humorous stuff. I did the post on Hunter Thompson, so I thought I might look for something by a funny cat from my youth...P.J. O'Rourke. I first read Mr. O'Rourke's work in the National Lampoon magazine of the mid-seventies. After he left the magazine I kinda lost track of him until he emerged, years later, as a Republican. I was confused. I read a few of his articles in Rolling Stone, but it was not the same.

Now I'm ready to forgive him for his heresy. I'll buy one of his books as soon as I can find one in the bookstore. Until then, I'll have to get my fix from what I can find on the Internet. I found this article humorous.

This video clip is a good example of O'Rourke's legendary wit:






The guy asking the questions looks familiar...

I had hoped to find an O'Rourke article on the current campaign but was unsuccessful. Any ideas?

Palin Might Be Funny Also

Oops...wrong Palin!

Part of me worries that Sarah Palin's appearance on SNL tonight will help her in the polls. After all, as Mike's blog points out, Lorne Michaels may be a McCain supporter. We have all been commenting on the power of humor in this election. Sarah Palin, considering her poor relationship with the media, could really benefit from a strong performance tonight. If she is able to come across as self-deprecating and lighthearted, then she could see a bump in the polls. I hope not. Makes me think of Janet Reno's cameo on SNL--funny, but not enough for me to forgive her for Ruby Ridge and Waco. Sometimes funny is not enough.

The Glorious Onion

This story concerning media coverage of the election seems germane to our focus. As does this satirical look at blogging. And another satirical blog looks even more like ours!

I didn't think The Onion could get any better:



This is the kind of stuff that helps restore my faith in our country. People who follow this election, especially those who follow it as closely as our group has, need the relief of humor and satirical perspective offered by fine media outlets like The Onion to help us keep our sanity.

Never Wear a Funny Helmet

Sen. Obama has a lead in the polls going into tonight's debate. Even so, I am still nervous. I know its irrational, but I still have the fear that we could see another Dukakis disintegration. Not likely, I know, but I remember being optimistic and confident as the poll analyst for Dukakis for President Connecticut headquarters in Hartford. Yes, I was there twice a week clipping the poll results out of a pile of newspapers and putting them in a report on the direction of the campaign in Connecticut. I was the whole poll analysis apparatus for the campaign in the state of Connecticut--one person, no training, no experience, no budget, no expectations. When I started, Dukakis had a solid lead in the polls and was at least a lock to take Connecticut. That would change.

Without going to far into the reasons for Dukakis' drop in the polls and eventual crushing defeat in the election, I will say that not one of us in the campaign headquarters foresaw the ruthless attacks launched by the Bush Sr. campaign. There was no Internet then, no Daily Show and no Fox network. Bush's people had to work with the ads and media manipulation to get their hard message across. Interestingly, the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, was Bush Sr.'s campaign manager and the mastermind behind the truth-stretching and the out and out lies told to the voting public. Mr. Ailes was and is a master of the creation of memes and the manipulation of codes. I watched the evening news, I watched the ads and I watched the polls steadily drop. There was a clear cause and effect relationship between how Dukakis was portrayed in the ads and the media and his poll numbers. The last week before the election looked so bad for Dukakis that I would go into the headquarters, read the polls, and not do my report. No one wanted to see it. Dukakis lost big.

Now, it must be said that Dukakis did not have as big of a lead as Obama now enjoys at this point in the election. Obama has the luxury of an expanded media with almost instant fact-checking capability. On the other hand, we should never underestimate the depths to which a republican presidential campaign will go. Polls can change quickly. Election night 1988 I sat in a folding chair next to Barbara Kennelly and Andrew Young and watched the returns come in. There was no party that night.

Where Have You Gone Hunter S. Thompson

Let me start this week of posts off with a small tribute to the greatest political journalist of all time--Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Hunter had a way of getting inside a story, especially during a presidential campaign, that compounded the truth. He reported through his own eyes and his own mind. Hunter told the story he wanted to tell in the way that he wanted to tell it. If he thought Nixon was evil, he would tell you Nixon was evil. But, you may ask, is that legitimate journalism?

I found this nearly perfect example of Hunter's style reprinted from Rolling Stone magazine on The Atlantic website. This particular paragraph holds his justification and legitimization for his style of reporting:

Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.

Hunter used humor and satire in his political writing because it was necessary in order to deal with the hypocrisy and dishonesty that he saw. As Courtney asserted in her post, humor in journalism has its place and that place is legitimate. I urge anyone who reads this to select the link above from The Atlantic and read the entire essay by Thompson. It is beyond belief.

Fox Protecting Palin

Fox News has a reputation of being biased in favor of the republicans. As the following video shows, Fox is not willing to report on Ms. Palin getting booed at a hockey game.



Not surprised? Neither was I. But we must keep in mind that Fox News presents itself as a legitimate news source. They might defend their edited video as proof that they are "fair and balanced." After all, don't all news editors decide what story gets presented to the public and which does not? Not this time--this is a simple case of Pappa Murdoch protecting a young, pretty republican woman. If this had been a male republican candidate Fox would have reported on the crowd's negative response and chalked it up to the crowd being made up of rich East coast Liberals. But because Ms. Palin is a woman, the video of her getting booed is too unsavory to display.

Gender and Humor

Try to imagine this humorous video referring to a female candidate. Think its possible?

Sarah Palin's Broad Appeal

This is an interesting blog. Careful--the annoying audio may turn you into a Palin convert! Apparently, this "Mom 4 Sarah Palin" has a bounty of free time. "Hang on, kids--Mommy's busy psycho-blogging for Sarah."

Here we see some Palin supporters expressing their shallow yet heartfelt support for the Governor from the soon-to-be very dark, very cold State of Alaska:





I'm not quite sure what to make of the blog or the video. My search was focused on the question of what women who support Sarah Palin find so alluring about her. I found the blog mentioned in a CNN web video linked to a Yahoo story about Governor Palin. The video was found in a search on the CNN website for Sarah Palin supporters.

The Economy is Fine

It is little wonder John McCain's campaign is attempting to get the voters to focus on Sen. Obama's friendship with the fiendish William Ayers. The markets have fallen so fast and so far that people are now wondering if the economy is sliding toward a possible worldwide depression. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the world markets continue to fall despite the best efforts of the U. S. government as well as the governments of most of the nations of the world. As of today we have seen market value losses in the last week unseen since 1929. Watch as this sweaty, disheveled editor tries to explain what has happened so far:



Mr. Callaway seems to have had a tough day.


So...hey! Never mind that economy stuff. Have you heard that Obama is friends with some guy who blew up the Pentagon in, like, the sixties or something? Booo!

With the way the economy is going, Joe-six-pack might have to switch from Bud to Piels.

A New Look at Sarah Palin

I must confess to only a passing knowledge of modern feminism. I believe that the ERA should be passed, that women should be paid as much as men and that traditional gender roles in marriage are based in ignorance and fear. Because I consider myself progressive on feminist issues I was shocked at my own ignorance and shallowness while reading the excellent Camille Paglia article recommended us by Colin.

The following paragraph, in particular, made me feel petty and dim-witted:


It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.


My assessment of Ms. Palin's performance at the Republican National Convention was colored not only by my childish hatred of anything Republican, but also by my inability to consider the woman as a person, just like me, who had found herself in a strange and frightening situation being watched and judged by millions of people. How would I have performed in that situation? I can barely sputter out my opinions and observations in class without nervously pitching face forward onto the table before me. I, who came from a family of five boys and no girls, who knows next to nothing of what it means to grow up in America as a woman, did not even know that it was possible to look past my mindless hatred of Republicans to see a person who has overcome more than I will ever be able to comprehend to stand before the country with confidence and strength and offer herself as a viable candidate for vice president of the United States.

So now I am left to reconsider all my previously held views on the candidacy of Governor Palin. I may still believe her to be misguided in her political beliefs and inexperienced in national affairs, but at least I can now admit that she has a great deal of courage and determination. Sarah Palin is a feminist.

Being There

Linda Bergthold's article immediately following tonight's debate raised an interesting question regarding the reaction time of men vs. women while trying to pay attention to a presidential debate. The gist of her argument, I think, is that men are slower to react to stimuli than women. Okay. So the men watching the debate while hooked to a CNN reaction measuring device reacted more slowly and more mildly to McCain's "tough rhetoric" than did the women. But was it necessary for Ms. Bergthold to conclude from that that "guys are trainable" and should "just listen to the ladies?" I realize that her article is a lighthearted look at the CNN instant reaction focus group, but I don't think it is necessary to depict men as slow and in need of training.

Undecided Women Voters

When Governor Palin was announced as Sen. McCain's choice for Vice President there was the assumption that she was chosen because she is a woman and would help the campaign garner more women voters. This is a cynical assumption, of course, based on the idea that Sen. Clinton nearly took the Democratic Party nomination because she had a large following of women. That Sen. Clinton also had a huge following of male voters did not seem to be a concern.

But has the McCain strategy to attract more women to his ticket succeeded? Where, on the eve of an important Presidential debate, do women voters stand? I have found little from the media on the role of women voters in the last few days. A quick look at a pre-Palin/Biden debate Gallup poll sheds some light on where women voters stood before having a prime time look at Ms. Palin:



It is hard to tell from this poll if Governor Palin, simply by being a woman, had been able (before her debate performance) to attract women voters to her ticket. What is interesting is the concentration of middle income, child-free 35-54 year old women who do not go to church very often making up the bulk of the undecideds. It will also be interesting to see in Governor Palin is able to somehow use gender to attract more independent women voters. If Ms. Palin does decide to target this group, and if she is successful, then I would expect the media to more thoroughly cover the effect Ms. Palin's gender has had on this campaign.

Love Thy Neighbor

Governor Palin has recently attempted to resurrect the Obama-Ayers connection as part of the campaign's latest desperate attempt to shift voter attention away from the economy. If, like me, curious voters seek to refresh their memory concerning the Weather Underground and Mr. Ayers role in it they can easily find all they need here.

The weakness of this latest attempt to smear Sen. Obama is so obvious that even one of the usually lock-step partisan websites cast doubt on the strategy:

While it is known that Obama and Ayers live in the same Chicago neighborhood, served on a charity board together and had a fleeting political connection, there is no evidence that they ever palled around. And it's simply wrong to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was committing terrorist acts.

However telling this criticism of one of their own may be, at this point in the campaign the ads and speeches will conform more to the polls than to what is written on partisan websites. If this type of attack works, even slightly, then we can expect to see many more like it.

I Pity The Fool

Before the debate last Thursday there was a pity Sarah Palin meme beginning to spread across the land. It caught hold in me after watching Ms. Palin struggle during the Katie Couric interviews, and I saw signs of it in many of the articles I read on the web. Then I read Rebecca Traister's meme smashing article at salon.com. This paragraph in particular began to eat the meme I was hosting:


But just because I'm human, just because I can feel, just because I did say this weekend that I "almost feel sorry for her" doesn't mean, when I consider the situation rationally, that I do. Yes, as a feminist, it sucks -- hard -- to watch a woman, no matter how much I hate her politics, unable to answer questions about her running mate during a television interview. And perhaps it's because this experience pains me so much that I feel not sympathy but biting anger. At her, at John McCain, at the misogynistic political mash that has been made of what was otherwise a groundbreaking year for women in presidential politics.


After reading this article and the watching the debate last Thursday I no longer feel bad for Sarah Palin. The pity Sarah meme is gone from me; what is left, however, is the question of why I would have ever felt bad for her in the first place. Would I have felt bad for a male candidate for Vice President who did not seem to have the ability to answer simple questions during an interview?

Enter The Penguin

Senator McCain had to be happy with the way his vice presidential choice performed in the debates last night. Ms. Palin, though coming across as a high school student debating a senator as a goof, at least was able to appear to most people to not have recently suffered a traumatic brain injury--she stood at the podium, her eyes were open, she spoke and she appeared to be in good spirits. Beyond that, I'm not sure she said anything of substance. I don't know...she somehow seemed to have an almost strobe-like effect on me. After watching the debate I felt dizzy, nauseous and disoriented. But at least I didn't start talking like the Penguin from the early Batman shows.

Who You Callin' Old?

This post started out as a comment on Cheyenne's most recent post about McCain's age and potential longevity. It made me wonder if there was any way that the McCain campaign could make the age factor work for their candidate. Are there, for instance, any cool people who are about the same age as John McCain who could be used as examples of cool old people? The answer is, yes and no.

McCain, at 72, is the same age as John Madden. Robert Redford is only a year younger at 71 and he is still pretty cool despite his stubborn lack of a face lift. How about Jack Nicholson also at 71? Isn't he still pretty cool? I think so. Jane Fonda is a very young 70 and I have no doubt that she would make a decent president. Gene Wilder is 75. Who wouldn't vote for Willie Wonka? Glen Campbell is 72 and has consumed more drugs and alcohol than most living people and he's still alive. He's not really that cool though. Not too many potential youth votes from a reference to the singer of, "Lineman For the County." Wink Martindale is 73. I'm not sure even I know who he is.

What I concluded while going through the sad website referenced above is that maybe John McCain is a bit too old to be president. McCain is not a "young" 72 the way that Jane Fonda is a "young" 70. Some people start to really lose it in their early 70's. Some people, when they have been beaten nearly to death every so often for seven or eight years, never make it to 70. The poor man is lucky to be alive never mind having a happy life as a U.S. Senator from the beautiful state of Arizona. Maybe he should have left it at that.

Its A Small World After All

Forgive my late post--news from the outside world has a difficult time penetrating the Walt Disney World computer system...

With this week's focus being on internet news sources I decided to look at some of the less noticed, back-ally websites. I found a real doozy here...what the hell is this? Is there really a need for a conservative Wikapedia? And take a look at their exhaustive 2008 Presidential Election page. Now that's more like it! Finally a fair and balanced online encyclopedia.

I found these interesting takes on the debate on one of the older websites, alternet.org. Interesting but a bit long winded for my attention span. No real breaking news here.

This strange and cluttered website might be more to Colin's liking. Don't all radio personalities know each other? I was not able to find any coverage of the debates here, but I would guess that it might be possible to link off of this site and learn how aliens are controlling the federal government.

Anyway...I was not able to watch the debate last Friday night because I was in a crushing throng of economy boosters and baby strollers in the wonderfully noisy, vertigo inducing Epcot Center. I almost pulled a Paulson while waiting for my tray of Moroccan food. I tried to watch the debate on the Disney computer but it would not let me. So, when I got home, I looked here for my debate coverage. And what does my going to the Huffington Post to get my news say about me? It says I'm changing. It says that the more I use websites as a source of news the more I find them convenient and comprehensive.

searching for interest

After reading the Atlantic article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid" about how we get information from the Internet I was prompted to consider my own thought patterns and information absorption ability. I have, over the past three weeks, used the Internet exclusively when gathering information for my posts. Before this course I looked only occasionally for news and other political information on the web. The reason? I hate reading from a computer screen and do so only when searching for information. Reading for pleasure, in my mind, involves paper.

But what does this say about the way that I think? I don't usually enjoy using Google as a search utility because I feel that I may be guided to sites that someone else wants me to go to. Google, as I understand it, decides what website to send the seeker to based partly on what websites others have sought. I want the less used websites. I want to go to the sites that have the information that most of the other web browsers have not considered satisfactory. I want the slow, weird websites that have little focus and a questionable purpose. Do these websites exist?

I read The Onion online because I can do so for free. I like The Onion, but I read it only for a quick laugh. Nothing I read on The Onion website lasts for more that a minute or so in my brain. The Onion is set up that way whether you read it from the web or actually read it in paper form. The punchline is the quick hit of the humorous headline accompanied by a photograph. The joke is in the parody of the newspaper format. The Onion translated to the Internet more perfectly than any other newspaper because there is no need for the article when the headline is the bulk of the joke--read the five word joke and then move on to the next.


So I am not sure that I can empathize with Mr. Carr because I don't think I have fallen victim to the machine-like purpose info seek think that the author has. Not yet. I still read the same way that I always have. My mind only wanders away from what I am reading when what I am reading does not interest me. I only seek information from the Internet for practical purposes. I would never, for instance, read fiction from a computer screen. If I find something on the Internet that I think I would enjoy reading I will print it and then read it. That hasn't happened yet.

A Pirates Life For Me!

I've been having a tough time over the past few weeks attempting to gather campaign information from the Internet. I sometimes get the feeling that I've been reading the same thing over and over and none of it sinks in.

So...I now find myself at Disney World in Orlando. There is no worse place to go when one is suffering from information overload. Yesterday, for instance, my brain, in need of normal and acceptable information, began to see the pirates on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride as real. I laughed at their jokes and wanted to join them on their tour of carnage. Yes, I thought, I do want to race through this town you have pillaged and drink a huge amount of rum! I struggled against the lap restraint.

I have recently taken to attempting to focus my campaign watching to a few choice sources. I find that Fox yields a more user friendly Republican perspective than Townhall.com. I still check Townhall to make sure that they haven't scooped any of the other websites with a story that will blow Obama right out of the election. They have not yet broken the story that will insure Obama loses the election. They'll keep trying.

I also look to the websites of CBS, The Washington Post and the Huffington Report for non-bias network and newspaper news and clearly bias web news. Huffington is a good source of campaign information, but it is also a biased source of information. I don't think anyone could dispute that. CBS and the Washington Post represent, to me anyway, relatively non-biased news sources.

Happier now, I would have to say that I believe that I am getting a better grip on the abundance of information on the web. I shop for more specific information and worry less about missing something important coming unanticipated from some smaller website. This is good. And if I can resist jumping off the boat and joining the make believe pirates, I may yet stay out of the notorious underground Disney gulag. "Yo ho ho..."

Palin goes to the U.N.

The McCain campaign seems to think Sarah Palin is unfit or unprepared to talk to the media. The Huffington Post reported on the reports that Gov. Palin was denied the opportunity to showcase her vast foreign policy experience while meeting with various heads of state at the U.N. today. For some reason, the majority of the media did not sympathize with Go. Palin and insist that the campaign managers allow the vice presidential candidate to speak with (or at least be heard speaking by) the media. There is another Fox treatment of the story here.

But beyond the guarding of Sarah Palin what I found interesting was how the Huffington Report reported on the Fox story. It seems as though the writers at the Huffington Report will gather their material for a story even from those media outlets that they are often at odds with. Maybe that's the point of the story: Sarah Palin is so inept and the McCain campaign so aware of their mistake in choosing her for vice president that even Fox is starting to see the cover-up. With this particular story I would have to say that the Huffington Report is reporting on the shielding of Sarah Palin and the Fox News response to the story at the same time.

60 Minutes Interviews

The dual interviews of Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain tonight on 60 Minutes was a welcome break. I came away from the interviews with the impression that both of these men are intelligent, sincere and likable candidates for president. 60 Minutes, again, justified their place as the most popular network news magazine. The interviews were equally timed, fairly constructed and informative. The candidates were made to feel at ease with the interviewer but were still pressed to answer timely and pertinent questions concerning their ability to govern and their plans concerning the multiple challenges facing the next president. I would be very surprised to hear either campaign complain about the way their candidate was treated.

The New Yorker

According to stateofthenewsmedia.org I, as a subscriber to The New Yorker, should be earning about $78,815 per year and should be about 50.4 years old:

The New Yorker and The Atlantic sit above the big three newsweeklies in both median age and income. The median income of the New Yorker’s readership is $78,815 and the Atlantic’s is $80,012. The Atlantic has the oldest readership of all the news magazines we look at, with a median age of 51.4 years. The New Yorker’s median age is 50.4 years.

That statistic doesn't make me feel very successful; it does, however, make me feel relatively young and sprightly at a mere 46.5 years old. And I have had the suspicion, based on the advertisements in The New Yorker, that I was not in the income bracket that they had hoped I was in. Sorry to disappoint them, but I'm currently not in the market for a Rolex watch or an Infiniti SUV.
Another interesting fact from the above referenced web site concerns the number of people who buy and read The New Yorker. I was surprised to learn that a mere 1.062 million people find The New Yorker as enlightening and informative as I. In a country of more than 300 million people that is not an encouraging number. Surely, based on the popularity of television, the cable news outlets enjoy a far larger audience than one of the least read news weeklies.
Of course I must pick Bill O'Reilly to compare to the meager circulation numbers of The New Yorker. One would think, based on the bragging that O'Reilly does, that his audience would number in the tens of millions. According to stateofthenewsmedia.org referencing Nielsen Media Research, O'Reilly averages 2.3 million viewers per show. That is more than twice the circulation of The New Yorker, but it does not represent the size audience one would expect the more popular news medium to have in relation to a weekly news magazine.
So now I am left to wonder where among the multiple sources of news the majority of non-commited voters will look in order to make their decision for president this November. Though I get my news from many sources, I read The New Yorker every week and monitor The O'Reilly Factor from time to time. I already know how I am going to vote. I read The New Yorker partly to buttress my long ago established political preferences and I watch O'Reilly simply to see what the "other side" is up to. I suspect that most of the voters who are "up for grabs" in this or any election are like me in that they already prefer one candidate over the other; unlike me, however, they may not have a strong party loyalty and must therefore rely on a multitude of media sources to help them decide. I think they should just read The New Yorker.

More woes all around

Without getting into details about the craziness on Wall Street, lets just say that the energy of the Palin story (fun to love, fun to hate) has been replaced with a dry, complicated story of greed and unregulated financial hijinks. The poor media is stuck reporting the economy (the hangover) after having whooped it up with the happy Alaskan (the bender). CBS offered a reasonable analysis of the economy in relation to the candidates as a part of a week-long series contrasting the candidates.
Even Townhall.com hasn't been able to make the crisis into a sexy anti-Obama rant. This article seems almost nonpartisan until you realize that the author points out that Sen. Obama has received more in campaign contributions from people working at Wall Street firms than Sen. McCain has. I don't think that that is a partisan path the right wants to wander too far down.
This business with the financial institutions is far more worrisome than the slumping economy which played a role in President Bush Sr.'s loss to Bill Clinton. You know there is a problem when the Federal Reserve has to borrow money from the Treasury Department. Its enough to make a person long for the good ol' days of glammed up pig images and the dreadful daydreams of minivan limosine motorcades.

Woeful Opportunity

The recent disaster on Wall Street will almost certainly have a major impact on the presidential election. The ongoing upheaval and the federal government's response to it are currently dominating the news at all levels. The problem is seen as still developing and promises to last well past the election.
The current situation may provide Sen. Obama his best opportunity to regain the momentum in this election. There is no doubt that a souring economy has a negative effect on the current administration's party. Republicans don't generally like the idea of government coming to the rescue of privately owned institutions at the citizen's expense. And although Senator Obama isn't seen by every media outlet as having a strong, clear plan for the country's economic future, the focus will eventually turn from what is happening to why it happened. If Senator Obama can persuade the media that he has a strong economic plan the American people will grasp easily and quickly, then the majority of media outlets will be more likely to present his plan as an alternative to, or "change" from the current economic plan.
It will be interesting to see how, as the days pass, the conservative media outlets respond to the purchase of AIG by the federal government.

Hunting

I'm not a hunter. but I'm not totally against hunting either. When I think about hunting I usually think about deer or turkey hunting. I see a man (I don't think most people associate women with hunting though I'm sure there are some women hunters) in camouflage sitting perfectly still in the underbrush waiting for something edible to wander past. On comes a turkey or an adult dear and the man shoots. He has been out in the woods, freezing cold and hungry and now he has shot a wild animal. The animal has been shot clean and died instantly. The man takes the dead beast back to his truck and then to his cabin where he will eventually eat it. Its a nice, clean vision of hunting which assigns to the hunter the same reverence for and respect of the hunted we usually associate with Native American beliefs and customs. The hunter uses the animal to supplement his diet with a free source of meat. The hunter needs to hunt.
When I think of hunting I do not think of hired airplanes or inedible prey.
By now you know that I am referring to Governor Palin's approval of the practice of shooting wolves from airplanes. This is not an allegation or a rumor. Governor Palin encouraged people to shoot wolves from airplanes.
I was not aware that it was legal anywhere outside of Uganda to shoot animals from moving vehicles simply to kill them.
This story should lead every newscast and be on the front page of every newspaper.