Tancredo dropping out

Damn

Damn, Damn

Damn, Damn, Damn

I'll be sorry to see Tommy go. Honestly. Between him, talking about how illegal immigrants are the root of everything that goes wrong in this country from led being used in children's toys from China to global warming, and Duncan Hunter talking about how when he was 10 years old he and his dad used to go hunting when he was 10 years old with his dad after he got his hunting license when he was 10 years old with his dad. Did I mention Duncan was fond of going hunting with his dad when he was 10?

So good luck Tommy, in what ever illegal immigrant-blaming job you take on next, that is if you decided to stop blaming illegal immigrant as a member of Congress.

Shift Happens

I'm sorry for the lapse in posts to all you faithful reader(s?) of you. It's been a pretty difficult month for me to post, so I apologize.

Anywho, I came across this video today. Give it a shot and watch.



It's always important to keep these things in mind whenever we talk about changing ideals and demographics in the country and world

CNN/YouTube Debate Recap

Tyler over at The Wizard of Glover Park has good post game analysis of smackfest (as CNN is now calling it)

Read. Enjoy

Alf vs. Bill O'Reilly

Yes, you read that correctly



Finally someone who can match wits will Bill O'Reilly...an elaborate sock puppet

Republican Debate Thoughts

So I'm here watching the CNN/YouTube debate...at times restraining myself from throwing something through the television. But (and I will admit this is the first Republican debate I've seen so far) I keep noticing certain characteristics/personalities that come through with the candidates. Here is my observations:

Ron Paul: Angry man but makes concise points

John McCain: He's like the groundhog on Groundhog's Day--He appears every now and then in the debate and makes a point that everyone seems to notice but then falls to the background

Rudy Guilani: He really turned around New York City. I was beginning to think he could go 30 minutes without a 9/11 reference, but the man does not disappoint

Duncan Hunter: He has a father and has been hunting since he was 10. That's about all he's really said

Tom Tancredo: Always playing 6-degrees of illegal aliens. There is nothing this man can't tie back to illegal aliens. I'm waiting for him to link the Kennedy assassinations back

Mitt Romney: Geebus this guy will say anything he thinks will win him support. He won't answer questions directly and when he gets called out, is visibly shaken and on the defensive

Mike Huckabee: Grandpa? Is that you?

Fred Thompson: This man is sooo boring. He's a better actor than real person

Plugs!

Net Neutrality is a subject that is coming up more and more often these days. To see why this is important and how it ties into ugly sweaters, check out the 'Zard's Blog (now how about that for a lead-in).

Sports terminology in politics: Part Deux

This is the second installment in my series on sports terminology used in American politics. Today's term:

"In the Corner"

Origin: Boxing

Meaning: While this has a couple definitions in boxing, the one I am focused on is the team behind the boxer, supporting in the corner--the water guy, the coach, and the guy who cuts to open wounds (the other definition being backed into a corner). In the political world, it is generally used to talk about who publically come out in support of a particular candidate. We learned that Chuck Norris is backing Republican candidate Mike Huckabee. More recently, it was announced that Oprah Winfrey, of Baltimore's WJZ-TV 13 fame, was going to go out on the campaign trail to help support Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Writer's Strike: Week 4

I'm used to the way DC operates: quick-pased everything and public opinion-poll dependent. Around here, many people can't walk down the street without an opinion poll telling them that 57.4% of Americans want them to walk with their hands in their pockets.

So it's about time that someone finally got around to polling Americans on their opinions on the writer's strike; a strike that is soon going to cripple my ability to procrastinate from grad work.

As I've talked about before, it appears that the writers are winning the PR front on the strike. All the videos and internet media outreach the writers have been doing appear to have helped them sway public opinion. 69% of respondents, according to the poll, believe the writers are being more honest and forthright than the companies.

Also interesting to come out of the poll is that 67% of the respondents believe people will watch less television as a result of the strike. 62% think we'll be watching more reality programs. Please don't make us suffer through 10 more Hilton-based reality programs?

The Writer's Strike: Day I don't know

The Writer's strike has been going on for a little while now and I have to say, there really isn't alot of news outside of New York and Los Angeles covering the events, which is a shame. I've become pretty interested in the strike, as alot of the issues being dealt with could potentially impact how media is distributed to and gathered on the internet.

One thing I have noticed is the Writer's have put together a large effort to inform the public of what is going on and their side of the issue. Here's a good example of this:



It appears that the Writer's are dominating the communications aspect and coverage of the strike. It's also helped when you have celebrities like late night talk show staple like Jay Leno and 30 Rock's awesome Tina Fey coming out and supporting the writers. To be honest, I haven't heard anything from the corporate side, other than that without the writers, there is still enough material to keep new content coming for the time being. So nothing really coming from their side...that is, if you don't count this video from the 'their' point of view.



For more information about the strike and the Writer's Guild point of view, go to United Hollywood. Or for more frequent updates, check out the Huffington Post's Writer's Strike section.

Primary Voting

Before you cast your vote, make sure to get all the facts first...







Huffington Post has more

Sports terminology in politics

I'll be the first to admit that I am a huge sports fan. And as a sports fan, I tend to take notice when I hear a sports term used to describe an aspect in a political contest. With everything beginning to really heat up for 2008 and sports terms being thrown around all over the place, I have decided to start tracking the terminology I hear and begin to post them.

So for the first installment:

'Horse Race'

Currently being used to describe the presidential primary nomination process, this term is generally used to describe the polling numbers and statistics that go back and forth between candidates leading up to an election.

As an example Farhana Hossain at the NY Times yesterday wrote about the 'horse race' when discussing political coverage on news networks.

Book Club

For this week’s installment, we’ll be discussing The Interplay of Influence by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell.

To be honest, this is a text book. It looks like a text book and reads like a text book. And at this point, a lot of the information is not new. The main message put forth by Jamieson and Campbell is that in the past, the media used to have an immense impact on our thinking and persuasion. However, with new technologies, even though the media still persuades us heavily, we have a great deal of control and even influence them. In particular, Jamieson and Campbell focus on how news, advertising and politics in the modern society are some of the biggest factors, if not main, that shape out actions and behavior.

The book covers a wide range of issues, policies, and ideas. The issue discussed that I found the most interesting was that of the influencers on the media. By this I mean those forces that play a pivotal part in directly manipulating media productions. Among these include: pressure from advertisers (refusing to sponsor stories they see as unfavorable or don’t agree with), competition (politicians using political weight to pit channels against each other for their own gain), and the Internet.

My biggest argument with Jamieson and Campbell is in their discussion of the Internet’s affects on politics, which is especially strange since the latest update on the book was in 2006. In my opinion, they tend to minimize the effects of the Internet on political coverage and as a media manipulator (it is the shortest chapter in the book). In the 2006 election, the internet and the blogosphere (which Jamieson and Campbell don’t spend nearly enough time talking about) had an immense impact on political races, in addition to news coverage and what stories became news.

For the most part, it was an interesting read. I guess a lot had changed in the past two elections in our society. We now have many more interests competing for our attention and trying to influence us, which Jamieson and Campbell discuss. However, and maybe this is due to when they actually wrote this past update in comparison to when it was published, but I don’t think they do a good job conveying the immense impact of the online communities and blogosphere to political campaigns and media sources.

I'm back

Breath and rejoice.

I apologize for the long absence. The past week has been hectic.

Anyway, on the news front, the writer's are still on strike. Liz over at Verbage has a post on her site about the strike that's pretty interesting. She's also got the writer's video that explains the issues and their side of everything.

Go. Watch. Like. Enjoy!

Because I Can

As it is my birthday, I'm changing things around a little and giving you all a present. Here is one of my favorite versions of Where the Streets Have No Name, by the best band in the world U2. Enjoy everyone!

Geebus that's alot of money

The Ron Paul camp is saying that they have raised $2.7 million today in a 5 November/Guy Fawkes Day/calling all to arms/wallets day. And all I have to say is 'whaaaaa?' Seriously, $2.7 million in one day? Did they give a call to Brewster?

Think of what Ron Paul could do with that money if he decided to stop running today. Here are some of my suggestions...

1). Buy Action Comics 1 and Detective Comics 27 (yes I'm that much of a dork)
2). Pay Roger Clemens to pitch for about 2 games and give up 8 runs
3). Give out a car to around 92 members of his studio audience (at least, if he were Oprah)
4). Purchase a 30-second ad in the Superbowl and show nothing at all
5). Buy the world a coke and keep it company (or, at least 2.16 million people in the world when averaging a 20-oz bottle at $1.25)


Update: Make that $4.2 million

Writers Strike

This morning, the Writers Guild of America went on strike against the Alliance of Motion Pictures and Television Producers. The LA Times has a more indepth piece on it here.

One of the main sticking points here is the use of new media technologies (ie the internets) and the royalties that come along with them. The Writers Guild is holding out so their members get more of a share of the profits when television programs and movies are distributed online (through programs such as iTunes). The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers contend that the distribution channels are still too new to determine how much profit they pull in and therefore can't really negotiate with that in mind.

While many probably don't think this is too significant (aside from those who like me who fret the thought of even more reality programing on television) here's why it is. For one, it'll determine who profits and in what ways from programs distributed on the internet. That could have an effect of how television shows and movies are downloaded and flooded to the internet (through channels like YouTube) and how much they cost consumers. The other item of importance is, as described by Scott Collins of the LA Times (although he rejects the idea), is whether a prolonged strike will drive up viewership of online only and user-constructed programming.

In terms of programming, this will effect you, the viewer in terms talk shows and day-time 'stories.' Without their writers, these programs will be airing reruns for the time being. Most of the hosts of talk shows, like Jay Leno are supporting the writers on the picket lines. John Stewart is even paying the writers of his show and the Colbert Report for two weeks, should the strike last that long.

Rudy Giuliani adds the SuperPoke function

The Republican Candidates have their own 'version' of facebook.

The site was brought to my attention a couple days ago by Rafael over at The Machine is Us. It's pretty freakin funny, so if you get a chance, take a look.

War on the holiday season

Now that Halloween is over, the official 'War on Christmas' as FOX News will undoubtably begin anew, begins with pundits over there saying that Christmas is under attack from the liberal/secular left.

But, let us not forget the holiday that has just passed. The mighty Halloween. FOX News might be saying that Christmas isn't the only holiday with a war on its hands. Nicole Belle over at Crooksandliars has the story.

Geez, this 'War on Christmas' talk keeps getting earlier and earlier each year.

When 'Big Ben' doesn't pertain to a football player for the Steelers

For the last couple of weeks, I was highly invested in the NY Giants football game vs. the Miami Dolphins. Normally I wouldn't care about seeing either teams, but I was uber excited this time to see this game because it was being played in London. It was, as most of you probably know, the first regular-season game to be played outside North America.

Having spent the 2005 football season in London, I saw alot of interest and compassion for American football from British citizens. Also, it was a first and assuming everything went over well, I saw it as an opportunity to help rebuild some of our lost relationship (I know it's kind of a stretch) with the British public, even if it was a money making venture (to be honest) masked in good will and under the guise of 'expanding football into other cultures' around the world.

Overall everything got a pretty good review. While the play of game was pretty shitty, it was still good to see something other than a fast food chain expanding internationally.

Just in time for Halloween

Dennis Kucinich is seeing UFOs.

I really don't have anything else to follow that up.

Happy Halloween Everyone

Dave's Book Club-October 31st Edition

Interruption marketing will fail. A new kind of marketing is needed to succeed in today’s technologically-equipped environment. That is the basic premise of Unleashing the Ideavirus, written by Seth Godin in 2000.

Interruption marketing is what we have come to think of as advertising—television commercials, radio spots, etc. But these standards of advertising are no longer applicable. Instead, advertisers need to adopt a viral marketing-like strategy in order to get in the heads of consumers. This is necessary because ideas have become the newest form of currency in markets where goods and services used to rule. Here is where the ideavirus comes in. The ideavirus, as Godin says, is an idea that grows and effects everyone it touches (whether they want it or not). Ideaviruses appear to be accidents, but in reality are viral marketing campaigns that plant seed ideas in consumers. This form of marketing can be achieved by word-of-mouth promotion (although Godin calls it mouse-of-word as he argues the click of a mouse has a further reach than person to person communications), ‘sneezers’ or people with credible standing in society and groups who go out and promote something (Godin says that bribing these people is ok) , persistence, and the aid of an amplifier (kind of a guerrilla marketing technique). Current examples of this ideavirus can be seen with how Google distributed accounts for gmail originally (in which you initially had to be invited to get an account) and also best-seller book lists like the NY Times has.

Maybe it is because this work was written 7 years ago, but I don’t think any of these ideas are new. I think they are based off longstanding marketing principles that have been slightly modified with the technological and social advances (like You Tube and Facebook). Essentially, I feel that Godin's arguments encompassing the same ideas that have been commonplace in marketing for a long time, just with his take on them. Take for example the Beatles and their arrival in the United States. When the Beatles first came to the United States, they were a sensation even before they landed. There had been promotion of the Beatles through traditional advertising like radio airplay, word-of-mouth advertising, media gigs (Ed Sullivan Show for example), stickers--they were already everywhere before they arrived. It was a media blitz, along the same lines as Godin describes.

As for a new sink or swim necessity in expanding past traditional advertising, here is where I agree with Godin. In recent years, we have definitely seen it become harder and harder for advertisers to reach consumers. Products like TiVo and pop-up blockers have seen to this. However, I do not agree with Godin in his explanation that advertisers will fail considerably if they do not completely adapt to the new technological environment. When television first started, there were no commercials, just product placement and program sponsors. Then commercials became popular and product placement within the television show took a backseat. Now we are seeing a return to product placement in programs, which cost advertisers millions of dollars (which they would not spend if their advertising was not working). The new forms of advertising that Godin discusses are not revolutionary, just extensions and evolutions of previous forms.

Colbert/Edwards Feud: Round 1

CNN's Political Ticker has the story.

Key jab:

"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," [Edwards spokesperson Teresa] Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."

Thems fightin' words

'The evangelical crackup'

Here's the story by David Kirkpatrick from the New York Times, via MSNBC. It's a pretty interesting piece about the direction (or evolution as some might say) of the Evangelical movement and their political involvement in the US since the 2004 elections. Warning: it's a long piece.

What's really interesting is how much things have changed since the 2004 elections politically. As Kirkpatrick mentions:

"Just three years ago, the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement could almost see the Promised Land. White evangelical Protestants looked like perhaps the most potent voting bloc in America. They turned out for President George W. Bush in record numbers, supporting him for re-election by a ratio of four to one."

And now:

"The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations."

I think one of the important issues to come out of the article (other than the potential fracturing of the Evangelical movement in modern politics) is the issue of complacency with bloc politics. I believe candidates from both parties need to continually seek support from their primary voting blocs regardless of how safe they appear to be. No voting bloc should ever be deemed as a lock. When they appear safe, there is a great potential for them to be taken advantage of and potentially lost.

Another interesting point that comes out of the piece is that in the Evangelical community, while abortion and gay-marriage are still important issues for them, subjects like the environment, global warming, and poverty are becoming more and more prominent in political discussions.

Like I said, it's a long read, but pretty interesting nonetheless.

Colbert-in-Chief

It's been about a week now since Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy for President (starting in South Carolina) and since then, he's made the rounds of the political news programs. While this may or may not be a publicity stunt, I am truly excited.

For one, as some have pointed out, just his mere presence could change the way the media analyzes and dissects the candidates. Colbert has a lot of gumption, enough to be able to call the media out when they get complacent with the candidates (and their pre-rehearsed soundbites) or don't call them out when they need to be called out.

Additionally, Colbert has a platform none of the candidates have. This, in my mind means two big things: 1). he has the ability to talk about issues no one is talking about and talk to people for more than 5 second sound bites; and 2). he can challenge the existing campaign finance laws (candidate air time aspects in particular) that need to be revamped. He'll have a pulpit like none other to raise money (if he so chooses) and talk to the masses, which might conflict with some current financing laws.

The youth vote should mean a lot more politicians. Politicians rarely, if ever, respond to our needs and issues that are important to us (although one could make the circular argument that politicians don't seek our vote because we don't vote in strong enough blocks). However, we are a substantial portion of the Colbert Reports audience. Like any good politicians, I think Colbert will use his time to speak mostly to his biggest audience, even if it is in a sarcastic tone. Also, by Colbert's mere presence in the race, I think it gives a new energy and voice to America's youth and hopefully a renewed passion in engaging in the political process.

Finally, and I think most importantly, the longer Colbert stays in the race the more everyone has to stay honest. Politicians will not be able to take voters for granted, media coverages of politicians will have to change, and the candidates will have to piece together honest answers instead of the polished and honed canned answers they've been doling out.

Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but I really hope that at least, Stephen Colbert's presence in the 2008 presidential race will raise the level of debate in this country.

Now I know why Dumbledore wore purple

This past weekend, news broke that Professor Dumbledore, of Harry Potter fame, was outed by author J.K. Rowling. And the internets went wild.

Why, you may be asking yourself is this news on a political blog?

As ABC News reports, there are a number of people (most likely against the books from the start) who felt that Dumbledore's outing was some sort of political statement by Rowling and was further proof of 'an anti-Christian agenda.'

Really?!

Really?!

Here's where I take issues with these people. First, if Dumbledore is gay, good for him. Nothing wrong with that. But Rowling's outing of him is not a political statement, per se. If she wanted to make it a political statement about homosexuality she would have made it more explicit. Or, with the pulpit she has, if she were making a statement about gay rights we would have heard about it years ago. No, her statement is part of the over all issue of tolerance for everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, magical ability, preference in ice cream flavor, etc.

Another area I take issue with is the notion that this is 'anti-Christian.' MTV had a piece recently about how much Christian imagery is actually in the book.

Sometimes I think people have too much time on their hands

Republican trying to spread rumors: Rudy and Hillary sitting in a tree

CNN has the story

If I'm a Republican voter (which I'm not, we're thinking in hypotheticals here) am I more concerned about Hillary Clinton becoming president or determining which candidate in my own party is the best candidate for the job? Why do these candidates think it is more important to attack Hillary Clinton and distance themselves from her and her policies? Shouldn't they be trying to convince Republican voters of their own credentials and why they would be the better candidate, not the better one to oppose Hillary in a general election?

Maybe this is my problem with politics--across both isles--being that no one really touts their own abilities and genuine ideas (or actually debates, but that is a topic for another post), but instead tend to just bashes the other politicians and think about who they would be able to beat before they even lock up a nomination.

Sure, why not?

The man behind 'truthiness' has officially entered his hat into the 2008 race. If he does carry out with this, it'll be really interesting if he changes any part of the process and the way politicians talk to voters.

We're #2!!! We're #2!!!!

Where the commuting nightmares are

Take that Atlanta! Yea!

Really, I got nothing...

Really!?

According to Lynne Cheney, Dick has a relative in Washington, DC...Sen. Barack Obama.

I better get on factcheck.com and check this out.

The link possibly goes back about 8 generations ago, but regardless, officially mark that as the what the fuck moment of the week.

the cluetrain manifesto

(A full online text can be found here)

For this week’s reading, we were asked to read, the cluetrain manifesto by Levine, Locke, Searls and Weinberger. To be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan. While there were some interesting parts regarding the impact on businesses, the numerous author approach hampered the development of their point and seemed to disjoint the overall narrative.

Some of the authors, especially Christopher Locke seems to be snobbish and look down at all those people who didn’t think of the internet as much of a big deal when it first began to show its uses as dialogue mediums between colleges and for the military. While he says that the first use of the internet was for unadulterated speech, he elicits a demeaning tone to those who, unlike him, may have been late adapters to the internet. One of those late comers he talks about are major corporations. Corporations he iterates, treat people as idiots when in fact they are the true idiots. He also says that with the advent of the internet, markets and commerce were blind-sided by the popularity and importance of its networks of people and cultures. The true spirit of the internet, he concludes, is the “underbelly of the web”—the sites that are user-run and free of corporate interference.

David Weinberger and Rick Levine look at the internet as a resource that has redefined our society. The web, Weinberger says, is an excellent medium and perpetuator of dialogue. Whether it is creating a discussion between communities, perpetuating ideas or as a resource for collecting information. Because of this, the web has become ingrained and essential into all parts of our life. Additionally, the way business is conducted has also been vastly and permanently changed thanks to the web. Email in particular is seen as a device that has drastically changed how businesses and corporations communicate and how news is passed around. At first, business and markets were reluctant to take commerce to the internet.

At the heart of the arguments made in the cluetrain manifesto is that the development of the internet has truly reshaped our society. It has completely changed the way we as a society conduct business, created dialogues and shared information and news. The internet, the authors conclude, should also be open to all and free from restraint (especially corporate restraint)—a utopian society.

The cluetrain manifesto was written roughly 8 years ago and in that time a lot has changed, from business on the internet to marketing, to how communication is conducted. Maybe it is because of the difference in time that I came away underwhelmed by the ‘manifesto.’

Why we need embryonic stem cell research, Part I

The issue of embryonic stem cell research has always been pretty big for me. I find it so hard to fathom how people could turn their backs on a science that with a little more development and study has the potential to help those afflicted with numerous diseases and conditions. I understand the political, ethical and scientific dilemmas (which I will go into in later posts) that encompass embryonic stem cell research. Regardless, there are so many ways these cells can be used to heal people.

For those who do not know much about embryonic research or need a refresher, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has set up a helpful website here. They also do a nice job of setting up the necessity for embryonic stem cell research:

“Why are embryonic stem cells important?

Embryonic stem cells are of great interest to medicine and science because of their ability to develop into virtually any other cell made by the human body. In theory, if stem cells can be grown and their development directed in culture, it would be possible to grow cells of medical importance such as bone marrow, neural tissue or muscle.”

According to the National Institutes of Health, stem cells have the potential of helping people suffering from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Just looking at the first four listed, that’s 5 million Alzheimer’s suffers, 1.5 million for Parkinson’s, 250,000 people suffering from SPIs and 20.8 million people suffering from diabetes. Added all together and you get more than 27.5 million Americans suffering from four conditions. For some perspective, if you were to added up the populations of the states who still have baseball teams in the playoffs (Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts and Ohio) you get a number--28.8 million--a little more than a million more to that of people suffering from these four.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cells turn to adult stem cells as an alternative. Adult stem cells however are very limited in their uses. Earlier this year we heard that new technologies would allow scientists to take stem cells from unfertilized eggs. But, as mentioned by the Center for American Progress, that new research is as not hopeful as it would appear. "This breakthrough technology has great potential, but also some serious limitations that make it not viable as a replacement for embryonic stem cell research."

I've tried to set up the urgency of research for embryonic stem cells. Later this week I will post Part B where I will go into the ethical and political arguments for both sides. Who will win? Who will lose? You’ll have to wait until the follow-up for those answers...and more (see, I too can write in a Dan Brown-esq way).

Reason 498 why I hate Anne Coulter

Here's the story

We've come a long way, baby!

Aside from being the former crime capital of the country and every-now-and-again having crime emergencies, DC came out on top of a couple different lists of America's Favorite Cities.

Here's where we're tops:

CULTURE

Museum and galleries

1. Washington

2. New York

3. Chicago, Illinois

PEOPLE

Worldly

1. Washington

2. San Francisco

3. New York

Go us! Watch out Chicago. Next year the home design title is ours!

User-developed 'political' ad

We were asked for an assignment to find an example of a user-developed political ad. This one got my attention as well as some publicity a few months back so I figured it would be a good example. In the video "Obama's Girl" and "Giuliani's Girl" duke it out to see who is the better political candidate and potential president. Personally I think Obama's Girl won in a knockout.

Since this is for class I must post a warning: Gratuitous pillow-fighting is involved

Fred Thompson Hits The Applause Button

This video has been going around the internets for the past couple of days. It was too good not to put it up

Sen. 'Wide Stance' to stay in Senate

Here's the story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/craig.staying/index.html

After the scandal, Sen. Craig said he would step down from his office as of Sept. 30. It's now Oct. 7 and he's still in office and now he says he's not resigning. Most Senate Republicans are pretty pissed (pardon my French) that he hasn't resigned.

So why are so many Republicans upset that the three-term Senator has yet to resign? Is it because he solicited gay sex from an undercover cop in a public airport bathroom? No. Is it because he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge nearly a month after being charged and then tried to change his guilty plea only to have it denied by a judge? No. Is it because he may be gay (although he won't admit it) yet votes and speaks out against gay issues? Maybe. Why then, you may be asking yourself...It's because it hurts Republicans chances of regaining the Senate in 2008.

The Senator has already announced that he has no plans to run again in 2008, when his term is up. If he were to stay in the Senate until the end of his term that poses a couple problems for the Republican candidate running in his place. For one, they have to run with the Senator's story still around. If he were to resign, the 2008 candidate would be appointed to the Senate and have a year in office to bolster support and get their name and record established before the election. With the Senator still in office, all they can do is declare their candidacy and run when the time comes.

Another problem this means for the Republican candidate is that they have to completely distance themselves from the Senator, which is easier said than done. Not only will they be running in the election in the Senator's shadow, but you've got to believe their fund-raising abilities will be hampered as well.

Idaho is a conservative-leaning state. Both senators are Republicans and their governor is a Republican. When the Senator runs on very conservative principles and then gets caught for 'supposedly' trying to illicit sex in a public bathroom from a male police officer, it could be seen by some as hypocrisy. That in turn brings a cloud over the next election, dictating the debate and making it difficult, if you are the Republican candidate, to get your message out there. It also might discourage some voters from voting in the next election out of anger.

Bush Hearts Environment: Update Numero A

Stephen Colbert did a report last night on his show about Bush's new rhetoric concerning global warming...I mean climate change. Check it out...

Wow

Hillary Clinton raised $27 million dollars in the last quarter. Barack Obama raised $20 million. John Edwards raised $7 million dollars.

I'm a proponent of campaign finance laws so seeing these numbers really scares me. Between these three individuals, $54 million dollars was raised. And that money will probably be used to run ads online and on television to tell us how the other candidates don't warrant our vote. Why can't we raise this kind of money to help the homeless? Or feed children? Help out those who don't have healthcare afford it? Or help a family see a Hannah Montana concert? You know, real problems of today...

Dave’s Book Club

For today’s review, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion by Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder

I found this book a pretty interesting read. The premise of the study in the book is that the news we watch on television can have profound impacts on our different judgments. Whether it be on issues facing us or our political leaders, television news media can help (or hurt depending on the way you look at it) in the formation of our perceptions of society. To study this, a number of experiments are conducted to see whether the audience’s perceptions of different events, stories or politicians were affected by the timing of the news story, the delivery (audibly or visually) and/or the source. Overall, the studies conducted found that the news media has a profound impact on the public perception of politics and its players and settings. While the book is dated (copyright 1987) and can't take into account new media sources like the internet, with it’s 24 hour access to news and video, as well as the impact of blogs on news media, Iyengar and Kinder arguments are still, for the most part, valid today. Even some hypothesizes that they tested and were unable to prove can be validated, in my mind, by incorporating today’s technologies and stories into the argument and experiments.

One experiment I found particularly interesting was their attempt to test the “vividness hypothesis,” which formulates that that “agenda-setting is enhanced by stories that illustrate and personalize national problems” (Iyengar, 34). To test this, they tried two different sub-experiments, whereby individual were shown news programs with filtered content (some were shown impersonal stories about national problems and some were shown very personal and emotional stories for example) to see how the tone and presentation of the news would affect the participants perceptions of the story/political actors. They concluded that “vivid cases fail to enhance the influence of the evening news…but rather that, under certain circumstances, vivid cases may actually diminish the capacity of the news to influence the public’s political priorities” (Iyengar, 39).

I found this hard to believe. Any maybe it is because 20 years of technology advances have shaped my perception, but I couldn't believe that visual cues and the tone of a story couldn't affect the perceived out come of a news story (at least not in today's society). The first example that came to mind to counter this conclusion was last year’s big news story about Senator George Allen’s 'comment' at a campaign rally in Virginia. Of course, I am referring to the now infamous “macaca comment.” Here’s where I feel that this example validates the vividness hypothesis. The story when it first happened didn’t make any big splashes in the news media. All the media had to go by was text of his comment, which when shown to viewers wasn’t deemed as anything of note. That was until video of the moment began to pop-up. When the video and news media stories started showing it, it spread around the internets to where millions of people saw Sen. Allen make his comment. Public opinion then began to sway against him in Virginia. That moment and the uproar that it caused, more than anything else in my opinion, was the main source to his eventual election defeat. This in my opinion contradicts the results from the experiment from 20 + years ago because it shows that the visual cues in the story were much more powerful and effective the just the audio or text of the speech as it was presented immediately, and helped change public opinion on the Senator.

To sum it all up, this was an interesting, albeit dated presentation of how the news media effects the public’s perceptions through different elements in their broadcasts. This is the first example I can find of any type of comprehensive study of the media and its affects on public perceptions. I would be truly interested if these authors did a follow up to this study some twenty years later, to see how the many facets of the internet, news on demand and 24 hour news cycles, have changed their previous findings.


Citation for the book:

Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press. 1987

Bush hearts environment?

Ok, so for those who were only focused on the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (thank you copy and paste) this past week, it looks like President Bush has finally come around on the environment. So much so that the US held a two-day conference with the top 16 carbon emitters in the world at the end of this past week. The BBC has a piece on the meetings. Roger Harrabin has more on the Pres's motivations of the meetings as well.

A couple striking things from the article:

For one, the entire world calls the problem 'global warming.' The current administration calls it 'climate change.' Are they that afraid of being labeled environmentalists or being too worried to admit there is a problem that they cannot use the term that everyone else in the world is using? Or are they trying to brand themselves as the champion of the environment, just using a different name for the problem?

Another thing...If they are so committed to changing things around, why did they not specify any of their intended changes? As the first BBC article notes, all we have from them are statements like, " All nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best" from Condoleezza Rice and that the talks were held under the banner of trying to agree to the goals of "energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." It seems like they are trying to say "hey look we can do something too" yet still not show any action.

Finally, why not agree to the Kyoto Protocol? You know that agreement that was reaching in 1997 that would require countries to reduce carbon emissions. That would be the most obvious way to show that you are really making a strong effort to curb the problem and start on a path to change.

I just don't see how they expect people to buy this talk.

Plugs!

Liz over at Verbage has an interesting post about the "Disadvantages of American Youth." This post is the first in her series on how today's youth has it worse off than youth in past generations. This piece regards childhood obesity. If you get a chance, read it here.

Don't tase me bro--and don't take my money either

(***Homegrown Pundit would like to welcome Rachel to the forum. Rach is a grad student at the U of F. I asked her to write a guest post to help broaden the view of politics here, by focusing on some areas of policy and politics around the country we don't usually get exposed to much in DC. Any negative comments you may have can be sent to her. Any positive ones can be sent my way. --Dave)


The Chronicle of Higher Education reported this week that Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, has established an advisor of higher-education issues, “to serve as an intermediary between the governor's office and the state's colleges and universities. The role of Dean Colson, the adviser, is to work with the universities, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to find ways to improve access, affordability, and university governance. The appointment of the unpaid liaison comes at a crucial time for colleges, with tuition-setting authority in legal limbo and institutions facing potentially deep budget cuts.”


For those not living in Florida or attending one of the institutions affected, these are not “potential cuts”. Many state universities are already in crisis mode because of the millions of dollars they won't have this year. Florida State University has capped enrollment. USF could lose between $15-million and $36-million. The University of Florida is in a hiring freeze even though they historically have the lowest tuition of all the schools in the South Eastern Conference (athletic conference the institution's division 1 teams play in).

The St. Petersburg Times reported in July:

“The University of Florida's budget would shrink by about $30-million under the minimum 4 percent cut. And UCF could lose as much as $28-million. Other universities face similar cuts. The figures don't include the $19-million in potential revenue state universities lost with Crist's recent veto of a 5 percent increase in in-state undergraduate tuition.”

This “advisor” was put into place after the budget was cut, but his job is to look at institutions before “potential budget cuts.” Am I the only one seeing the problem here? If Crist was all that concerned about the access, affordability or university governance he should have had this “advisor” do the research before going to such drastic measures as to cut the state’s budget to education. It’s stupid to cut the budget to state institutions by millions of dollars each, then create an “advisor” to look into what’s going on in higher education. It’s an attempt by Crist to make him look better, like he cares. He cut funding to higher education then realized, “Oh shit, some people care about this kind of thing. Must think of something quick!”

Maybe I’m biased, in fact I know I’m biased, but it seems ridiculous that education is always the first thing to get cut when a state is in financial crisis. Just more proof the state isn’t as concerned about educating their citizens, how else would they get elected?

Labour comes out swinging

No, I did no spell 'Labor' wrong. In fact, I am referring to the British Labour party.

(*Also special note, I'm going to try and write about some other politics from around the world, other than just domestic. Enjoy!)

As the BBC discusses, it looks like there will be a general election sometime in the next year or so. As this is the first Labour Party Conference for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister--which begins tomorrow--many are beginning to speculate when the next general elections will be held. For those who don't know, the party conferences are meeting places where the British political parties gather to discuss and party initiatives, policy and leadership decisions. They are kind of like party conventions, except things are actually discussed, there isn't as much pageantry, it's very business-like. Ok, so really they are nothing like the political conventions we are used to.

This will be an interesting conference for a number of reasons. Specifically it will be interesting to see how the public views the party. A couple years ago, the public opinion towards the Labour Party was not all that strong, having much to do with Tony Blair's position and actions on Iraq. The party has been making substantial gains recently when it comes to public perception. Additionally, with this being Brown's first conference as PM, it will be interesting to see what policy decisions and actions come out of it.

Regardless of the outcomes, Labour seems to be pretty confident of their chances when ever the Prime Minister calls for another election.

DC Voting Rights Update

As the Wapo reported, the vote failed to get the 60 votes it needed in the Senate to move forward. Not an actual vote, but a vote TO vote.

Some noticeable statements:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): "If we were to expand the House, Montana's voice would become less influential."

One, you already have 3 full voting members of Congress. DC with around 60,000 fewer residents has none. Also, when was the last time you heard about this guy being influential?

Senator John Warner (R-VA): "My view is that only a constitutional amendment . . . will resolve this issue and thereby avoid interminable litigation flowing from an act of Congress."

The post is reporting that Sen. Warner is currently drafting the Constitutional Amendment. I sincerely applaud his effort to get this important voting rights measure in the Constitution. However, something here I find puzzling. He supports the measure so much he's willing to change the Constitution, yet didn't vote for the bill.

The media and the public

For an assignment, we were asked to look at three sites news media sites and how they reach out to the public. Here are my findings:

The Washington Post: Pretty good job out outreach to the blogging community. They have a number of tracking options and generally put together a number of events to permit live interaction (such as frequent q&a sessions on various topics). They also have their own bloggers who will post throughout the day and on occasion (like during last year’s election cycle) will do video blogs.

MSNBC: Do a pretty good job of allowing people to comment on posts and articles. Additionally, they even have a substantial portion of their website devoted to blogs and blog-type content.

And finally…

Fox News: Not so good on the user-friendly outreach. While they do have a blogger section, it seems to be buried on the pager. Also, unlike MSNBC, they don’t allow users to comment on news stories.

'We the People' Review

Written by journalist/blogger Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism By the People, For the People chronicles the development of media in this country. From revolutionary times and the use of the Federalist Papers to today’s bloggers and the weight they carry in the political/business/technology arenas, Gillmor’s book talks about the importance of embracing and promoting civil engagement to better out culture and values. Gillmor does an excellent job of opening a window into the behind-the-scenes of the current technological and journalistic revolution and how different bodies in our society (specifically big businesses, big media and the government) help and hurt the current developments and expansion of media publishing.

For the most part I found Gillmor’s insight very interesting. His discussion about how the ‘Big Media’ (i.e. large older media organizations like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal) have had a propensity to try and block and create barriers of entry for bloggers/civilian journalists to enter their realms due to a kind of fear was very intriguing. Other discussions, such as copyright laws I feel were too one-sided (which to his credit he did tend to giving varying views on many if not most of his other subjects) and didn’t give enough differing points of view.

I did have a few issues with the some stylistic elements of Gillmor’s writing. Whether it was his intention or not, Gillmor’s writing approach in this book had very much of a blog-written feel to it. Gillmor added his own opinions and insertions that didn’t really resonate with me (i.e. his insertion of which Star Trek program he favored) and didn’t seem to add any value to the information. Also, he tended to write with a rollercoaster approach much of the time. When he would gave details about the development of journalism and technology he would write a positive, up-lifting statement about the nature and future of something and just as quickly bring you down to earth by giving a counter argument. Finally, he tended to self-promote a little too much, discussing where he’s traveled, worked, taught, who he knows, etc. I rolled my eyes every time a new discussion of something he has done or who he knew arose.

I tend to write many questions on the margins of the book as internal questions arise (such as in this case: What are the implications of citizen journalism with regards to accountability? Aren’t bloggers for the most part just reacting to mainstream journalism? Doesn’t blogging tend create a single viewpoint of information disseminating that essentially blocks differing viewpoints from entering the conversation?) Just as I would think I had a discovered a question that Gillmor wouldn’t answer, sure enough he answered at some point later on through the text. Furthermore, I thought Gillmor did a great job of predicting the future of the internet’s growing influence over and interaction with politics (while there is no way of knowing in 2004 when the book was written how sites such as YouTube would effect political outcomes, he did talk about how internet technologies would become significant factors in upcoming elections as politicians embraced and learned to use emerging tools to communicate deeper with the electorate).

2008 VA Senate Race

Current Senator John Warner is retiring after his current term expires. And because in today's 'we-need-to-know-four-years-in-advanced-who-is-running-for-president' society, people are beginning to throw their names in the race. Right now, former VA Governor Mark Warner (no relation to John) has thrown his hat in the race. Current Republican representative Tom Davis (VA-11) is being coy right now about getting into the race, but most expect him to do so.

If this does happen, this will be one of the best Senate races to watch in 2008 (along with Minnesota...I think the Senate needs some humor). Warner is a very popular Democrat in a state that up until this past election cycle didn't generally elect Democrats. Rep. Davis is considered more of a liberal Republican. In a state with greatly changing demographics, this will be very interesting to watch.

Taxation without Representation

Being from DC, the issue of voting rights for the city has always been important to me. For a nation that declared war against the British under a rally cry of "No Taxation without Representation" we have been slow to develop essential voting rights for all citizens.

In the next week (Tuesday most likely), The DC Voting Rights Act is set to be voted on by the Senate. And to my surprise, there seems to be a good amount of support for the bill from both sides of the isle, as emphasized in an op-ed in the Washington Post this past Wednesday from Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Lieberman (I-CT) and Representatives Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Davis (R-VA 11). But, the closer we get to a vote, the more rumblings I hear about a possible filibuster to block the vote by some Senate Republicans.

I really have to ask, what the hell? Yes, DC does have a representative in Congress, but as Stephen Colbert made clear, DC's representative (no offense to Rep. Holmes Norton) lacks teeth without any voting rights in the House. Yet, DC has more residents than the states of Wyoming, and...well just Wyoming. Furthermore, Congress still has the right to govern over the finances of the District. But still, almost 600,000 people living in the nation's capital and cannot have a say over laws and funding that directly impact them.

Opponents of the bill claim that voting representation is set out in the Constitution only for states. They are interpreting the language in the Constitution in the strictest and most narrowed sense. The founding fathers however denounced the notion of residents being taxed without adequate means to represent themselves. In my mind at least, while it isn't implicit in the Constitution, the founders intended to give voting representation to District residents. In my mind (and here is where my political ideology filters through) what this boils down to is that Republicans don't want to enable a significant Democratic voting block.

This coming Monday (September 17) is Constitution Day, the 220th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. It is a shame that on such a monumental day of achievement, we still have citizens struggling to achieve voting representation--one of the vary principles our founding fathers rebelled for--against our own governmental body.

So that's my two cents. Once something happens, whether an actual vote or a filibuster, I'll have a follow up response.

2008 Fringe Candidate Debate

SNL got ahead of the game last season.

The Fringe Candidates Debate
Uploaded by twopugs

According to CNN there are 17 active candidates now running for President in 2008 (8 on the Democratic side, 9 on the Republican). That, coupled with 15 or so debates that have already happened this year, it's nice to see some good non-politically-tested debate humor.

Crooks and Liars

Crooks and Liars is one of my favorite blogs. It does a pretty good job of showing how the media reports and is affected by politics.

Recently they started posting the "In Memoriam" portion from ABC's This Week. For those who don't know, it's the segment on the show that looks back at those important figures who have died during this past week, as well as the soldiers who were killed in Iraq.

If you get a chance, check out Logan Murphy's posting this morning at Crooks and Liars for yourself