30 posts tagged “gop”

I am being fair and balanced here by airing one video that attempts to paint Republican supporters in a poor light after the previous video that did the same to Democrats. This was from al-Jazeera English and the network itself critiqued it on Listening Post after there were complaints and accusations of bias. Please note that the n word is used.

I’ve been having a think about the hatchet-job that Gov. Palin is getting, surprisingly, from the Murdoch Press, specifically its Fox News Channel arm. Considering that she was championed by this network after her selection by the party (over Sen. McCain’s own choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, who even my Democratic friends felt would have been a better choice to win moderate voters), the about-face shows a level of deceit either now, or before, by the media company.
   While there may have been some gentlemen’s agreement over concealing this information till after the election, I don’t think I have seen the Murdoch Press go after a political figure in quite this fashion since Hard Copy did its exposés on Sen. Ted Kennedy in the 1980s.
   To be fair, even Newsweek, on the left, has kept mum about matters till now, and I imagine other media outlets have done the same in order to maintain their access to the candidates.
   We are hearing some things about the Democrats and we now know that Sen. Obama isn’t above swearing, but overall the post-mortem, even in the conservative press, has been relatively muted about the winning side.
   But not against Gov. Sarah Palin.
   It also shows a disloyalty within the Republican Party that is not becoming of it, if it wishes to be seen as a party that was unjustly cheated out of the election this week.
   In 2000, Democrats could point to the recount process in Florida and the alliance between the state’s Attorney-General Katherine Harris and the Republican Party as having taken the presidency from Al Gore.
   This time, the divide that has occurred might leave Republicans thinking that the disunity in the party cost them the election, and they were beaten by Democrats who hid their divisions better. They may fairly and rightly point to the media as being complicit in giving Sen. Obama a free ride, just as Conservatives in Britain could in 1997, but the reality may be that there was something rotten within the GOP.
   I can’t believe campaign aides and workers coming out and breaching a level of trust by revealing such details as Gov. Palin coming to greet them in a towel, and having this make the news pages.
   Even the supposed hatred by Sen. Clinton’s campaigners for Sen. Obama stayed relatively under the radar, either by a cooperative liberal media or by a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party.
   We’re hearing news of the Governor’s tantrums and that the $150,000 shopping spree may have been more expensive than first thought.
   This is a personal attack on her that shows party workers who can’t maintain any sense of dignity and trust.
   Importantly, you do not see someone of the standing and decency of Sen. John McCain rubbish his running-mate.
   If this division has been inspired by higher-ups in the Republican Party, then Americans might be fortunate that this version of the GOP did not get into power on November 4.
   One may argue that it is our right to know, and maybe it is. But the pace of this so-called knowledge being disseminated points to a party that is acting out sour grapes and playing the blame game a little too soon, and I find it troubling.
   Every party says it will regroup after a loss. It is fair to note that the loss that the Republicans suffered was in fact very small, given how they were outspent by the Democrats to such a degree. At this stage, I do not think there will be much re-evaluation of where it will lead, because I am not sure if the Party itself realizes where it wishes to head. It may need to rebrand much later, but for now, it hasn’t been able to protect its own from this onslaught—and may well have caused it.

The Fox News folks have now joined in the Sarah Palin-bashing, which is a surprise. Some cynics who smell a rat say that the Murdoch-owned network is merely ensuring that Gov. Palin does not have a chance at another run because she alienated too many moderate Republicans. But having Republicans as friends, I know that many supported the Governor because they shared her value system, and some even said they only voted for Sen. McCain because Gov. Palin was on the ticket.
   The GOP might well be a divided party and we have seen these divisions before, with George Bush (the 41st president) who appealed too much to the moderates, and with the primaries this time around that saw former Govs. Huckabee and Romney only managing to get partial support from the party.
   Before some say that the Murdoch Press has covered this up till after the election, there does seem to have been some agreement internally to not reveal a lot of the behind-the-scenes stuff till the day after on both sides. Even Newsweek is now revealing a lot and I am told its video has then-Sen. Obama swearing.
   Whatever the case, I’m not sure if it’s wise for the Murdoch Press, if it is a GOP instrument as its critics say (its boss has always denied this) to be doing something that might divide the party.
   Or, was K. R. M. always right and that it’s being ‘fair and balanced’?
   I am always concerned when one politician is vilified to this extent. I have seen it in other countries, against people on the left and on the right. It’s dangerous stuff, and contributes to revisionism.
   I might not agree with the Governor on some of her positions, her lack of humility, or even her campaigning technique, but if some things sound too much like a tall tale, then they probably are. I don’t think we have seen the last of Gov. Palin; we might indeed see, and I know there is a lot of Bush fatigue out there, John Ellis Bush or even George Prescott Bush make runs somewhere down the line.
   Democrats might hope not—or they might hope so, if this will help ensure them a victory.
   Less likely things have happened. Remember, Marvin Bush once said of his eldest brother, ‘George is the family clown,’ and that he was unlikely to run for office.
   You just never know.

[Cross-posted] I was reading Karl Rove’s commentary on Sarah Palin today and he hit upon a few things I agree with (you read that correctly).

McCain–Palin must deepen those doubts by pounding away on questions about Obama’s character, judgment and values. Drawing on Obama’s own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he’s never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues. But the duo must also give voters reasons to support them. They must crystallize a positive, forward-looking vision so people who see Obama as unqualified have something to hang on to. It can’t be a laundry list of positions. McCain–Palin must offer a narrative about what they will do to help America see better days, especially on kitchen-table concerns.

   This is a lesson that comes up in branding, a lot.
   One of the necessary things we branding consultants always talk about is story-telling. There have to be legends in the company, things that become company folklore. The Murdoch Press has plenty of stories to tell, for example, about how one of its newspapers ran a piece about Elvis, coincidentally on the story of the King’s death. I still talk about the way the Lucire name came up, which probably paints to the way serendipity works inside an organization. TV3 probably has one on John Campbell’s tie.
   Stories unite people, and Rove’s belief that the McCain campaign must give a ‘forward-looking vision’ and a ‘narrative’ come straight out of a branding book. Maybe one of mine.
   Vision is important, and there have been other posts on that. But an easily grasped narrative goes beyond slogans. While the stories I refer to above come from the past, in an election campaign, candidates need to paint one about the future. We know the McCain legend of being a POW; we know Palin paints herself as a hockey mom. These form the background, but people need to buy into the sequel.
   Especially when one campaign is less well off than another. The Republicans are being outspent by the Democrats, so a consistent, continuous story about how the McCain–Palin principles will, in short soundbites, rescue America can have a great effect against their opponents.
   Big spending allows for promotions around the cult of personality; small spending needs cleverer ideas and stories are one of the better techniques open to supporting a brand.

With any election campaign, and now being involved as a political candidate myself for the New Zealand Parliament, my observations stem from the point of view of ‘Would I do this?’
   For example, I wouldn’t have tried making fun of Sen. Barack Obama for wearing traditional African costume, as Sen. Clinton’s campaign did, using it as a tactic of painting him as an outsider. (And I said so at the time.)
   I did, meanwhile, have a field day over Sen. Clinton’s sniper-fire gag, or the time she called the still-governing Helen Clark as the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’. I believe she opened herself up for those.
   At the end of the day, I want to see an even playing field, and I’ll do the little things that I know something about.
   And I thought today about Gov. Sarah Palin’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ remark.
   She said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to the construction of a bridge to a community of 50 in Alaska.
   Critics say that she was for the bridge before she was against it—something pointed out by Charlie Gibson in the ABC News interview.
   As far as I can gather, Gov. Palin and her Alaskan Congress would try to apply to Washington for a share of infrastructure projects, which, from what I can gather in western politics, is normal.
   I read about something similar in John Major’s autobiography, recalling his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with each government department trying to get a cut of the budget.
   So securing a share of the cake is business as usual in most democracies.
   When Congress (Washington, not Juneau) requested that Alaska itself pay for the bridge, Gov. Palin said, ‘No way.’
   Maybe I am being totally stupid but I can’t see what she has done wrong.
   Folks, I don’t support a lot of Sarah Palin’s ideas, not least her environmental stance, and as I have pointed out, her English seems to be below par for a woman holding a journalism degree and with broadcasting experience.
   I am for the Second Amendment, personally speaking. I like how she reduced her mayoral pay in Wassila and how she sold the gubernatorial jet which her predecessor had bought, against the will of his congress.
   She could be a populist. So is Sen. Obama.
   But on this “bridge to nowhere” issue, I thought about it this way.
   I get free samples of various products here that I give out to our team members. They are happy to take them. But if I were to ask them to pay for them, they’ll say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on most. They defend their own patch, as Gov. Palin defended hers.
   Critics say that Gov. Palin maybe should have said, ‘I said, “Thanks,” then “No thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.’ But I think it was a waste of time for Gibson to even go there.
   There’s plenty of other stuff to attack the Governor on, just as there’s plenty of other stuff to attack Sen. Joseph Biden on. Americans tire of the politicking in the news not because they are disinterested in who gets to the White House, but because the media are so happy to sway the issue to things everyday people could not care less about.

I don’t think there were any winners in last night’s presidential debate. Sen. McCain went off on his own tangents, and Sen. Obama sweated the small stuff, which I don’t think a potential president needs to be doing. Who was more relaxed depended on the stage of the debate: Obama first, then McCain got into his stride. I could go into more depth, but I know there are blow-by-blow summaries elsewhere on the ’net. Here, where my non-American viewpoint counts for little with the American voter, I can’t say there was a victory on either side.

Triangle did, to its credit, broadcast Sen. McCain’s entire RNC speech ex-PBS tonight, running till past 1 a.m.
   I liked the speeches tonight. While every day of the DNC there were pretty out-there attacks on Sen. McCain—by contrast only Rudy Giuliani on the second day of the RNC really got to the same level—this third night was reasonably civilized with the McCains’ speeches. Mrs Roberta McCain’s video comments about her son were touching and after seeing the strength of this 96-year-old lady, I had to conclude that she is a real asset to the campaign.
   As Mike Huckabee said during the primaries: don’t make fun of John McCain’s age. ‘I’ve met his mother.’
   Cindy McCain’s speech was touching and sincere, and showed her commitment to family. Their adopted daughter, Bridget, now a teen, is excellent evidence of this. They didn’t create a decade-and-a-half record out of thin air: this is part of the McCain family’s record.
   Played down was the junior Mrs McCain’s corporate connections and her role as chair of her father’s business.
   At the same time I realize that the McCains could have a great, comfortable retirement, but they don’t strike me as the sort who’d stop doing something they clearly enjoy.
   Sen. McCain gave a very good speech that was far more bipartisan and conciliatory, even toward Democrats, which stood in contrast to the populist, Republican-attacking speech of Sen. Obama.
   Rightly he acknowledged that there were crooked Republican politicians, something I have never seen anyone do at a convention. Even among the supporters I could tell there were more than a few uncomfortable with the assertion. But it’s true, and it helped Sen. McCain reach some undecideds and independents, I bet.
   In the bipartisan approach of Sen. John McCain, which he was already known for, and which he received plenty of flak over during his career, he earned some extra stripes in the third night. He was rubbished a lot by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News in 2004 for it, for starters.
   And the narrowness of Sen. Obama’s lead may be down to that bipartisan nature of Sen. McCain. If far-right Republicans—the type that are anathema to liberals and even centrists—once disliked Sen. McCain, then it may be a reason for liberals and centrists to like him. It’s not logical to say: Bush hated McCain, people hate Bush, people should love McCain; but he has crossed the floor just enough times for him to not appear disloyal to his party while appear appealing to voters who might not go for the Republicans.
   It’s too early to tell how the polls look but I believe there will be a post-convention bump for Sen. McCain.

I wasn’t monitoring Triangle to see whether it showed Sen. Joe Biden’s speech live via Aljazeera, but this afternoon, it did show Gov. Palin’s speech in full and live. Only problem is that ‘live’ means, in this time zone, the middle of the afternoon, when hardly anyone was watching.
   No problems, I thought: Triangle had promised, in advertising, that it would provide RNC coverage from 10 p.m. I could at least catch Gov. Palin’s speech.
   Well, thanks, Triangle, for cutting Gov. Palin off mid-speech. That never happened with any of your DNC coverage, even when that ran longer than expected.
   And since it wasn’t live, ever heard of editing to fit something in to a time slot?
   I know Triangle is community-funded and makes very little money, so I shouldn’t be so hard on them. Gov. Palin, to be fair, did go over even the US networks’ planned coverage times. It’s just that as an everyday viewer this sort of stuff is annoying when a programme that is supposedly a special feature on a channel is cut short for an old war movie.

Triangle finally decided to show the Republican National Convention in St Paul tonight, with a three-hour coverage ex-PBS.
   It plans to have two more nights, which will equal the coverage that it gave to the DNC.
   From a marketing point-of-view, the Dems do have the campaign better coordinated, opting for a smaller space on the first two nights so empty seats were not visible. Typographically and design-wise, and in the use of the background screen, the Democratic Party appeared right.
   However, speech-wise, this first full night for the Republicans showed a lesser inclination to rely on slogans and style, instead playing to their candidate’s strengths—principally his military service and his record in the Senate.
   There is truth to the claims that Sen. McCain bridged gaps, because this same willingness to cross the floor to get a better bipartisan outcome was used by the current president to attack him in 2004.
   But some division was also revealed as the crowd went silent on mentions about immigration and global warming, two topics that seem to be sore points with those attending.
   The First Lady’s speech was expectedly ladylike, and the President, as I have heard him on other occasions, especially outside the US, never fumbled a single word.
   One has to wonder, however, whether the President’s cameo appearance helped promote the Republican Party or whether it reiterated for some viewers the party connection between him and Sen. McCain.
   Reminders of the party’s military support were frequent, asking former POWs and veterans to stand up in the hall, including former president George Bush, who was there with his wife Barbara and daughter Dorothy.
   One early speaker, Tommy Espinoza, emphasized faith to appeal to the Christian crowd, and to Hispanic voters.
   Certainly the follow-ups from the presidential video kept pushing the idea of reform, distancing McCain in the same way the Gore campaign attempted to distance itself from the Clinton years in 2000.
   Criticism was veiled but it was present, and that must be one of the tough things confronting the Republican Party in the conference.
   Strongest speaker of the night was easily former senator Fred Thompson, who is probably a more skilled orator than Sen. McCain; and it was probably from then that the audience began to shift into high gear.
   What a pity for the party that he was the penultimate speaker of the night, then.
   He appealed to the audience when he claimed that Sen. Obama’s promises of tax reform would leave Americans worse off.
   In one of the better quotes that I have heard from both sides so far, Thompson said, ‘Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.
   ‘They tell you they are not going to tax your family.
   ‘No, they’re just going to tax “businesses”! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline, or unless you get a pay cheque from a big or a small business, don’t worry: it’s not going to affect you!’
   Smaller but clever bits included his mentioning Alaska as the biggest state in the union which, of course, in area terms, it is, to help Gov. Sarah Palin.
   Unsurprisingly, Sen. Joseph Lieberman spoke in support of Sen. McCain, knowing that he was not that far away from having been made the vice-presidential candidate, if it had not been a potential revolt due to his pro-choice stance.
   I imagine we will hear Mrs McCain speak on the next night, and it will be interesting to compare her speech with what Mrs Obama delivered last week. I thought Mrs Obama did very well (a couple of points off for the use of the fist in the “fighting talk” moments that looked a bit forced) and showed herself to be a dynamic, resourceful woman. I would assume that Cindy McCain, who certainly looked the part clothing-wise tonight, will focus more on the family side of things.
   I’m glad we are getting more balance on our TV screens.
   National Radio, meanwhile, as as balanced with its coverage tonight on its 6 p.m. programme as it was with the Democrats’, though it did devote some extra time to covering Gov. Palin’s pregnant, unmarried daughter and her hiring a lawyer to defend charges against allegations she attempted to influence the firing of her former brother-in-law. Still, it was all good for news junkies like me, and yesterday’s imbalance seems to have been redressed.

I expected better of Triangle Television, considering I probably watch more of it than any other channel in New Zealand. Even as late as 10.30 p.m. its site stated that the PBS News Hour would air, but you try watching that in Wellington. All that was on was Euronews, then Aljazeera, then the Triangle TV news. Where is our American news, a programme that is on nearly daily?
   The site was changed around 11 p.m. to delete mention of News Hour. The Auckland Triangle service listed 11.30 p.m. as the air time, but Wellington just showed Aljazeera.
   There was no notification on the site on why the coverage was changed.
   Its two-week listing indicates that News Hour was indeed scheduled to air from 10 p.m., so I didn’t imagine this.
   I watched every day of the DNC coverage and the day I wanted to watch the RNC begin, there’s nothing. Not even a regular News Hour. I realize that Gustav is interrupting proceedings, but there surely must be some programme? Unless PBS decided that there would be no News Hour today, which left Triangle without regular programming.
   I like to think that the absence of the PBS broadcast was hurricane-related.
   Or, the channel decided that New Zealand was full of woolly, wimpy, pacifist, Bush-hating, left-leaning hippies, socialists, Bolsheviks, Communists and liberals, and there would be no point airing the RNC to one or two ACT Party voters drinking chardonnay.
   But some of us—even leftist political candidates like me—want balanced coverage, thank you.
   I had to go online to a Murdoch Press site to watch the First Lady speak in St Paul. I took no pleasure in making a few bob for K. R. M., but at least he lets me see the news videos in New Zealand at a decent screen size. Thirteen minutes of Laura Bush and four governors versus hours and hours and hours of DNC coverage on free-to-air TV.
   Maybe American readers can let me know if there was any broadcast from the RNC in St Paul tonight before I conclude that some form of liberal media bias is to blame for the programme being pulled.
   Even for the Democratic supporters, I would have watched a news report about the anti-war protesters in St Paul.