Entries categorized as ‘Politics’
Beautiful Williams Piece From Inauguration
January 20, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Categories: Politics
Tagged: Inauguration, Itzhak Perlman, Yitzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma
Bored, Pathetic, Anonymous Bloggers Who Lie
January 14, 2009 · Leave a Comment
In an interview with Esquire magazine that has gotten a lot of press over the last two days, Palin took a swipe both at her home town newspaper and bloggers, who she blames for repeating the rumors that Sarah is not the true mother of her son Trigg.
When I first read the headline I thought – “Oh no, does she mean us?” But upon reading the full quote, it was clear she was talking about the unsubstantiated rumors that have indeed been out in the blogosphere. Specifically she was upset that a fact checker had called about the issue of determining Trigg’s mother. What she didn’t mention was that the story was to have been specifically about busting myths that persisted despite any hard evidence. In other words, the story was going to try to lay to rest the rumor about Trigg’s “real” mother, as well as other rumors.
I’m finding Sarah’s claims of being victimized by anyone she doesn’t like unstateswomanlike, boring and disingenuous. I can’t tell if she’s playing the media or really lacks even the self-awareness of an average human. The liberal media, Tina Fey, Katie Couric, Obama, bloggers – wow, talk about a persecution complex. And I thought that Alaskan politics were rough and tumble.
Mrs. Palin, whining does not become you.
And in a final note, Meghan McCain was willing to talk about anything (including her appreciation for Marilyn Manson’s ex-wife Dita Von Teese). Except Sarah Palin.
I think you have to read into that refusal some bad blood.
Lesson: pick your running mates carefully. Meet with them more than twice, and for more than a few hours. A decision like who you choose as a running mate is hugely important. Personally I’m very glad that we were spared an impulsive decision-maker in the oval office.
Categories: McCain · Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: blog, bloggers, Dita Von Teese, Katie Couric, Marilyn Manson, obama, Palin, Tina Fe
Palin Spends $165,000 on Stylists in Campaign
December 6, 2008 · Leave a Comment
In records filed with the Federal Election Commission, more evidence of profligate spending on behalf of Palin in her unsuccessful run for the Vice Presidency has come to light. An amount in excess even of the $150,000 spent on clothing and other accessories for Palin and her family – $165,00 – was spent on stylists for the candidate.
The amount is shocking, and even high-end stylists working in Hollywood have assessed the fees charged by the likes of Lisa Kline of New York ($54,900 paid in mid-October) as seriously out of the norm, even if the sytlist had traveled with the candidate every day. The campaign also paid Palin’s make-up artist Amy Strozzi, $68,400.
The image the campaign tried to paint of Palin as just a down-home every-day person is falling apart at the seams, just as the attempt to position her as a “maverick” is seriously faltering.
I continue to hope that the Religious Right believes that Palin and Huckabee are the future of the Republican Party, and are willing to fight their internal holy war in that pursuit. That just might give Obama the breathing room he needs to make some serious and significant changes to the profligate spending, cronyism, poor decision-making and corporatism that has left us fighting two wars and has nearly bankrupted the country.
Categories: Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: Amy Strozzi, Federal Election Commission, Lisa Kline, Palin, Spending, Stylists
Palin Loses Chance to Replace Stevens in Senate
November 19, 2008 · Leave a Comment
The announcement on Wednesday that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich won the Alaskan Senate race over Ted Stevens means that Palin doesn’t have a shot at replacing him, at least in the short-term.
Had Stevens been declared the winner, despite his conviction on felony charges for lying on his disclosure forms to the Senate over gifts made to him in the construction work done on his house, it was clear that there was widespread support in the Senate from both Republicans and Democrats to oust him for ethics violations. It was slightly ridiculous, and highly embarrassing for Alaskans, that Stevens got enough votes that his reelection was even a possibility. Had he been elected and then expelled, however, the Governor (Palin) would have appointed a successor. While unprecedented, it was not entirely implausible that a self-appointment or other political machination would have made it possible for Palin to become the replacement Alaskan Senator, and then avoid the new difficulties which now face her in Alaska. A position in the Senate would also have given her a greater national platform to continue her quest to become a major national political power.
In addition, the election of Begich puts the Democrats closer to the 60 Senator “super-majority” (the number of Senators able to invoke cloture, or the ability to stop a filibuster), which by Senate tradition can be used by a minority to forestall a vote and either kill a piece of legislation or get compromises from the majority.
There seems to be an increasing weariness of Palin’s high visibility in the media, with many calling for her to get out of the spotlight and declaring her 15 minutes of fame over. At least for now.
Categories: Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: alaska, cloture, filibuster, governor, Palin, senate, senator, super majority, ted stevens
Disarming Candor and Staggering Presumption, Sarah Prays For Open Doors
November 11, 2008 · 2 Comments
Sarah Palin is praying that God opens some doors. And if He opens up some national doors for 2012 (even a crack), she intends to walk through those doors.
As for me, I’m going to continue to view with great suspicion anybody who expects God to talk to them. Where I grew up they called people who heard voices telling them what to do schizophrenic.
Palin is attempting to use the residual glow that she still enjoys to improve her now-tarnished image by giving multiple interviews with reporters like Matt Lauer and Greta Van Susteren. Alessandra Stanley of the International Tribune writes “But so far, viewers have mostly witnessed some of the very traits – disarming candor and staggering presumption – that drove some McCain campaign aides to leak damaging accusations about her.” In those, Sarah opines that the loss of McCain-Palin was due to:
- Hispanics
- Obama’s money advantage
- The “R” next to their names (backlash against Republicans)
I guess she had nothing to do with the loss of the ticket. I think the McCainiacs have gone overboard trying to blame poor Sarah for all of their woes, but to claim that her presence on the ticket or the extremely poorly executed campaign had nothing to do with their loss sounds like magical thinking. But then again, Sarah is expecting God to tell her what to do next, and if that isn’t magical thinking, I don’t know what is.
Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: George W Bush, god, McCain, obama, Palin
The Vulgarization of Politics
November 8, 2008 · 1 Comment
On Friday, November 7th, just four days after the historic Presidential election, I had the opportunity to hear one of the key advertising architects for the McCain campaign. Fred Davis spoke to an exclusive and intimate gathering of sixty marketing executives in San Francisco as part of The CMO Club. Davis owns and runs Strategic Perspectives and was responsible for the advertising strategies of John McCain as well as the Senate campaigns of Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu, and a long list of other Republican losers. In the long list of campaigns that he worked on, all were Republican and most lost. I had to look across the table at the end of the list during his introduction and my table mate and I concurrently stage whispered: “those didn’t work out so well, did they?”
I was in equal parts mesmerized and horrified. I found myself admiring his cunning and his thought processes, but then would take a step back and realize that the net effect of his work is truly corrosive to society and to the reasoned discourse necessary for a well functioning democracy.
You have to admit that Davis’ efforts have often been effective. But they’ve been effective by appealing to the worst among and within us. The Harold Ford Jr. Playboy Bunny ad? That was his. The Elizabeth Dole “Godless” ad? His too. So was the “Celebrity” ad against Obama this season. When you review his work, as I did in the recent session, you see a not so subtle appeal to racism, class warfare, homophobia and misogyny. Convicts dancing in tutus and a white playboy bunny talking about a black candidate. Many of the most memorable extremes in negative ads have come from Davis’ work. It is this kind of slimy campaigning that caused McCain’s longtime friend Chuck Hagel to not endorse McCain in the Presidential election.
Davis claimed to be mostly not interested in politics, and that might be true. But he only works for Republicans, and seems to have drunk more than his share of the conservative kool-aid.
Fred Davis is at once smart and charming but also reprehensible and largely responsible for so much of the partisan rancor and the disgust with which most citizens now view the political process. The win-at-all-costs approach makes advertising hitmen like Davis the practitioners of a dark art that has become indispensable to campaigns on all sides of the political spectrum. It was an interesting experience to say the least. Fred played a number of his TV ads from recent campaigns as well as earlier campaigns on figures like James Inhofe (his uncle) and Sunny Perdue (the “King Roy Rat” ads. He was responsible this election for the Dole “Godless” ads, as well as the “celebrity” ad attacking Obama that featured Paris Hilton. Davis believes that these ads were responsible for improved polling numbers for his candidates. He claims that Dole won 60% of the votes on election day after his “Godless” attack ads, but the enormous early voting that the Obama campaign turned out led to Hagan’s victory.
I will show some of the ads here, but with mainstream news commentary around some of them, because I really don’t want to just amplify something that is so vile at its root.
If you know what I mean when I say that you feel like you were nearly seduced by evil, you know what I was feeling. Davis has so much charm that you feel yourself being attracted to what he’s saying, only to stop and realize that what the man is doing is manipulative and at is core evil and wrong.
Probably the best example is when Davis played the three minute Michael Monsoor video that was used during the Republican National Convention this year. If you’re not familiar with the story, Michael was a young Navy Seal who fell under enemy attack while on patrol in Iraq. After being struck by a live hand grenade, this courageous young man fell on the grenade, ensuring his own death but saving the lives of the other young men with him. It’s a moving story of heroism and self-sacrifice to be sure, and even as Davis replayed it he choked up. So why would I say that the use of this video was evil? Simply because it follows in a long line of examples of Republicans taking remarkable stories and trying to use them for their own political benefit. Monsoor was a hero. Using his tragic story to try to get votes, in my opinion, is a tragic, cynical and evil use of his sacrifice. Sacrifice and service are not partisan. Neither the Republicans or Democrats hold a monopoly on patriotism and honor. Even McCain, who personally sacrificed so much, does not hold a monopoly on service and honor. But then again the Republicans were willing to use Kerry’s remarkable service against him in the “Swiftboat” ads. That marked a disgraceful new low. While not his work, that ad is part and parcel of the work that Davis does. Yes, Monsoor was a hero, and we ought to honor his sacrifice. But we should never attempt to use his remarkable service as a way to get more votes for one candidate over another. That, my friends, is disgraceful. But you almost forget that when you get caught up in the remarkable and emotional story. And such is the way of Davis’ most successful efforts.
Some of the most interesting comments were about the struggle between maintaining an overall strategy (which Obama did with “Change”) and the daily tactical approach that the McCain campaign used, and which resulted in the changing messages which left only the impression of a candidate who had lost his essential self, and ended up hawking an inauthentic brand.
Davis is also a Sarah Palin fan, and claims she is a smart lady, and a future leader of the Republican Governors Conference. When Davis talked about his high regard for Palin, it was all I could do not to shout out: “If Palin is so smart, she’s done an amazing job of hiding it in her overcoat of ignorance.”
Davis was appalled that people within the McCain camp had turned on Palin and spread stories about her ignorance – not knowing that Africa was a continent instead of a country; not being able to name the three parties to NAFTA (The United States, Mexico and Canada). He said that top leaders of the campaign including Schmidt would be on talk shows this Sunday to rebut those claims, and that Schmidt had put Nicole Wallace (widely suspected from within the campaign as being the source of those comments, as she did not get along with Palin but was charged with her handling) in charge of shutting down that story line.
I left the session feeling like I had met the devil. I have it in my mind that the devil is clever and charming, but that behind the easy smile and the effusive charm lies an evil that slips into the room silently and poisons all who allow themselves to be lulled to sleep.
One thing is for certain, to borrow a phrase from traditional conservative Peggy Noonan, we are witnessing the vulgarization of politics in America. And the responsibility falls squarely on Fred Davis and his ilk, on the candidates who are willing to utilize these hit men, and on all of us who let them get away with it. (more…)
Categories: Bush · McCain · Palin · Palintology · Politics
Tagged: advertising, elizabeth dole, fred davis, harold ford jr, john sununu, michael monsoor, negative campaign, news, nicole wallace, Palin, peggy noonan, Politics, ronald reagan, sonny perdue, steve schmidt, strategic perspectives, vulagarization of politics, vulgarization
Wardrobe Malfunction
November 8, 2008 · Leave a Comment
We now have the most believable narrative yet explaining how Palin could end up with $150,000 in new clothes from upscale retailers like Neiman Marcus.
You’ll recall that when the story first broke the Palin camp claimed that the clothes were bought by the RNC almost against Sarah’s knowledge or wishes, that they were bought with the specific intention of returning a large number of items (a form of home-shopping, I suppose), and finally that the clothes were the property of the RNC and would be given to charity after the election. To my ear these sounded like after-the-fact spin.
The account now given by those within the McCain campaign tasked with managing Sarah Palin sounds much more believable. It is hard, however, to parse truth now that the Palin and McCain camps have turned to finger pointing and recrimination.
In the latest account Nicole Wallace suggested to Palin that she get 3 outfits for the Republican National Convention, and 3 more for after the convention, expecting a price tag of $20,000 – $25,000. Instead what they got were receipts for clothes for the whole family, luggage, jewelry and a wide range of luxuries for the whole Palin clan, and the price tag was the widely reported $150,000.
This account seems believable because of things we’ve learned about Palin’s tenure as Governor, and a tendency to treat the trappings of public office as an opportunity to treat the whole family to a little splurge. Palin billed the state her allowed travel per diem for 300 days in one year, most of which were spent in their own home. Palin repeatedly brought her husband and children on official trips, even though they had no official role, and billed the state. She even went so far as to go back into the official “paper trail” and adjust the receipts to try to claim some reason for those family members to be on the trip. One private group who had asked Sarah to speak in New York was then surprised to be asked by the Governor to invite one of her daughters, and then even more surprised to see that a number of luxury hotel rooms were booked so that Sarah’s daughter could travel in style. Furthermore, Sarah Palin then failed to claim as income State reimbursements for family members travel expenses, something that should be required if there was no State interest in their travel.
Palin now claims that the shopping spree was all the RNC’s idea. But the story that she was asked to shop for a few new clothes and then the whole family went on one of those timed romps through Neiman’s like the winners of some crazy game show seems more consistent with the record.
Categories: Palin · Palintology · Politics · Todd
Tagged: Palin, rnc, shopping spree, wardrobe
Change Has Come to America
November 5, 2008 · 1 Comment
Updated
I first saw President Obama at the Los Angeles Democratic primary debate with Hillary Clinton. I went in neutral and left an Obama supporter.
The single thing that struck me then and has stayed with me ever since was his consistency in never making this election about himself, but about restoring the hopes and dreams of the people.
I attended the debate because it was being sponsored by and broadcast on CNN, and I run marketing for a company that spends a lot of money advertising on CNN and Headline News. A colleague was with me whose brother-in-law is an ex-Republican turned Obama ward captain. I thought that Obama held his own in the debate, and displayed a trait that in the end helped him win the Presidency more than any position or talking point – his cool but engaged temperament. Hillary was also very impressive, and her candidacy was historic in so many ways. But in the end the Clintons had, to my mind, simply done too much to win the nomination at all costs and they used up all of the good will they had built up with me, and then some.
My colleague’s brother-in-law waded down to the front afterward where Obama stayed for quite some time interacting with anyone who waiting around long enough. He shouted out to Obama “I believe in you,” and Obama said something back that he has repeated time and time again to supporters – “No, I believe in you! This is about you.”
Obama has inspired the hopes of a new generation. While Obama won the support of most of the identifiable groups used for polling, there is no denying that symbolically this contest was about race. While Obama never made race the main thrust of the campaign, if anything his campaign was the anti-identity politics, because of our nations history the campaign was about the ability of an African-American man to become President in a country that continues to struggle with a legacy of racism. His nearly monolithic support in the black community (over 90%) and his very strong showing with Hispanic voters (70%) were most certainly deciding factors. While the Obama win is undoubtedly about race, it is equally about the passing of the torch to a new generation. Obama won in the 30 and under age groups by a huge margin (in most states well over 65%). In addition to his lopsided support, Obama energized new voters – especially among racial minorities and younger voters. A few times every century leadership passes from one generation to the next. We have witnessed that hand-off.
Race continues to be an entrenched and horribly difficult issue (just look at the vote tallies in the South), and racism continues to block millions of Americans from equal opportunity. We must not fall victim to the naive belief that the election of Obama means that racism has been defeated. But neither should we underestimate the enormity of this achievement and of this moment.
And yet all is not rosy. Virtually every anti-gay ballot measure on State ballots across the nation passed. Most denied gays and lesbians the right to marry, by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Some denied the right of single people to adopt as a way to discriminate against gay people. While one barrier to equality has fallen, others are being reinforced by the small-mindedness of the self-righteous. Anti-gay discrimination is now on the front lines of ensuring equality of civil rights.
One telling contrast struck me last night. McCain’s concession speech was gracious; the reaction of his audience was as ugly and petty as the campaign had been, booing at the mention of Obama. By contrast the crowd in Chicago’s Grant Park listening to Obama’s declaration of victory applauded the mention of McCain. It’s always easier, I suppose, to be gracious in victory than in defeat, but I was struck again by how rhetoric and tactics reveal character and are replicated in the reaction of supporters. One seeks to unite and break the politics of division and rancor. The other sees only its own loss. Let us hope that we all seize this historic moment as a time to renew our commitment to stay involved, to improve our nation and our communities, and to unlock the potential of all of our citizens by providing the basics of a society of opportunity: education, health care, and economic mobility – especially if it means self-sacrifice.
Obama has a steep hill to climb. Two wars going badly and a military overstretched. An economy in decline. Nationalized mortgage institutions. Huge amounts of public money pumped into a failing banking system. An equity market that has lost over 35% of its value. A world of disappointed allies and emboldened adversaries. And yet climb we must. And hope is the one thing that can bring us through this tough time.
Congratulations to Obama-Biden and their steady, disciplined campaign. The hard work is over, now comes the even harder work.
Categories: McCain · Palin · Politics
Tagged: biden, change, McCain, obama, Palin, victory


