Rick Perlstein, a elegant and perceptive left leaning writer, wrote a breathtaking account of sixties era polarization called “Nixonland”, which he marred only at the end by weirdly inquiring whether American ideological opposites secretly wish to kill each other. The answer is emphatically no, but based on the two most infamous “gaffes” of this cycle—Mitt Romney on the untaxed lower and working class and Barack Obama on the parentage of successful businesses—the truth might be that they would just happily tax the hell out of the other side.
In fairness, which inadvertent coining of a catch phrase, “the 47 percent”, or “You didn’t build that” lives on as a classic terminal wound, and which ends up being peripheral noise, is entirely unclear at week’s end: Gallup’s tracking poll still shows the race deadlocked; on the other hand, a flurry of other state by state polls this week showed more good news than not for Barack Obama, who leads in every large swing state even as a battery of smaller state polls remain in a statistical tie. And there is a lot of fog in this race, more than usual even by the standard of instant, all-day news and Twitter.
But it is striking that this year’s verbal blunders are different in kind and nature from their ancestors in prior races: John McCain’s “the economy is fundamentally sound” during the week Lehman Brothers capsized; John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it”, George W. Bush’s “do they think Social Security is some kind of federal program?” ranged from the inarticulate to the clumsy, to the horribly timed, but not one of them seemed to reflect any footprints around a larger ideological perspective. Rather than being hints of a future program, they were backfires from notably uneloquent politicians trying to riff their way through a lull in their prepared texts.
Negative ads. Robo calls. Finger pointing. Divisive politics… How did it come to this?
With Ohio once again in the spotlight of an important presidential race, the Ohio Historical Society partnered with No Labels, a Washington-based movement seeking bipartisan political reforms, to host a panel discussion, moderated by Ann Fisher, host and executive producer of WOSU’s “All Sides with Ann Fisher.”
The panelists included:
Bob Taft, former Governor of Ohio and research associate at the University of Dayton
Senator Charleta B. Tavares, (D) District 15 – Columbus
Tom Suddes, editorial board member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Gene Pierce, Columbus-based political consultant
Jonathan Miller, No Labels co-founder and former treasurer for the State of Kentucky
Last night, The RP was a featured panelist for the semiannual Worldview Forum at Malone University in Canton, Ohio. The Forum is an academic program that brings in expert proponents to argue for different perspectives on topics that are important for the community.
Last night’s topic was Persuasion or Propaganda? The Effects of Public Relations on Elections, featuring The RP and Ben Porritt, a former senior aide to the McCain/Palin campaign and an official in the Bush White House. The RP focused a great deal of his remarks on the solution to our political mess — No Labels, the grassroots movement he co-founded, and now involves more than 500,000 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who believe that we need to set aside our labels on occasion and do what’s right for the country.
Additionally, it is very clear from his answers that The RP’s ultimate career goal is standup comedy.
Tune in below to the conversation. And if you are ever in Canton, Ohio, be sure to look up the Hambleton House Bed & Breakfast — wonderful accommodations and hospitality, and the best pumpkin pancakes you will ever eat.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
More secretly taped video from the controversial Mitt Romney fundraiser.
These surreptitiously obtained videos are really dirty pool late in the campaign season. They aren’t fair and can easily get misinterpreted or taken out of context.
But I’m afraid this latest clip will only do more damage to Mr Romney as he is caught again in a candid moment talking tough (singing, in this instance) to his supporters earlier that same day. A prelude to the milder 47 percent reference.
====
Mitt’s Father Jeremiah moment?
Yes.
That’s what I think the secretly taped “47%” comment amounts to for candidate Mitt Romney. Which is to say, it’s a political and electoral non-event event.
What do I mean by that?
Remember the public outcry last election cycle when Barack Obama’s pastor, Father Jeremiah Wright, had videotapes of him released online saying absurd things about America?
It was supposed to be the political scandal that would sink candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. But didn’t.
Was it a politically significant event for Barack Obama? Yes, in my view. But not because it caused his supporters to bolt. It didn’t.
What it did do is give a concrete event on which those who already had a vague unease about voting for Barack Obama —and weren’t going to vote for him anyway —something to point to and hang their hat on as the reason for not voting for him.
Yes, they were uncertain about Barack Obama—his politics, his origins, his qualifications for president and even his name. But those things weren’t as tangible or easy to talk about as the Father Jeremiah video which was disturbing and could explain why someone would not want to vote for Barack Obama.
Read the rest of… John Y. Brown, III: Mitt’s “Father Jeremiah” Moment
No Prix Fixe or full menu today — kitchen’s closed early. But I wanted to make a comment or two about the once-secret video of Mitt Romney that’s saturated the airwaves over the last 24 hours…
Frankly, I have no idea what Mitt Romney truly believes. The talking heads seem certain that Romney’ closed-door comments represent his actual convictions. I’m not convinced. He was addressing a small group of high-roller donors who love to feel like they’re getting their $25,000-a-dinner’s worth. Trust me — Romney’s stump speech a signed picture wouldn’t pay for that undercooked beef wellington they served. So, to please his check-writing audience, Romney felt the need to say something “fresh,” to be “bold.” Instead of giving them the usual talking points (or, better yet, insights into the policy plans he hasn’t shared with anybody else), he threw some red meat to the crowd and hoped they’d bite.
Please don’t be confused here. In no way am I defending Romney. Actually, I’m criticizing him for something which, I believe, is far worse than the socio-political view he espoused that night. Simply put, the man has no core principles. He’s a practical, numbers-oriented business man. And he’s perfectly suited for the board room or corner office. I’m not so sure about the Oval Office.
We need leaders who say what they mean and mean what they say. This video cements my belief that Romney simply says what he says depending on the audience, only to later to explain what he means because then he’ll have had ample time to realize what the prevailing opinion wanted him to mean. If that sounds convoluted, it’s because I’m having such a hard time wrapping my hands around him. For all his shortcomings, at least you knew where George W. Bush stood. For heaven’s sake, you could actually find firm ground on which to agree or disagree with him.
By Bradford Queen, Managing Editor, on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
The Politics of Media
Maureen Dowd (really – who’d have thought?) caused quite a stir with her Sunday column on the Romney-Ryan view of foreign policy. Liberals and conservatives alike were leveling charges of anti-Semitism against the New York Times columnist. The Times’ editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal dismissed the claims that she forward stereotypes in the piece. [Politico]
Quotation approval is a topic of much discussion among media members of late. Recently, many government and campaign officials are making interviews conditional to their own approval of quotes. Last week, Michael Lewis received some criticism from several journalists for allowing the West Wing to approve his quotes in a new piece about the President for Vanity Fair. The NYT’s David Carr took a look at the issue this weekend. [NYT]
30 Rock takes issue with the way the “Tiffany Network” is characterizing the ratings of ‘Face The Nation’. [AP]
Sign of the times? The new redesign for USA Today also signaled the addition of Web TV listings for YouTube and Hulu. [NewMediaRockstars]
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Sep 14, 2012 at 1:30 PM ET
With seemingly every news agency and blog conducting its own polling for the 2012 presidential race, it’s often tough to get a true picture where the race stands: Did Obama get a convention “bounce”? Will it be permanent? Who’s really ahead?
Over the past few years, I have come to rely on the New York Times‘ Nate Silver, whose diligent and informed analysis of all public polling data has become the gold standard in political prognostication.
I encourage you to check in periodically at his web site (Click here), but today’s post was so informative, I excerpt it below:
We have seen a shift toward Mr. Obama in the polls since the Democratic convention. It appears that if an election were held today, he’d win it by somewhere in the neighborhood of four or perhaps five percentage points.
If Mr. Obama is ahead by four to five points nationally, we’d certainly also expect him to post his share of leads by about that margin in swing states. Because of statistical variance and differences in methodology, some of the numbers are going to be a little bit better for him than others. But the consensus of the data ought to quite strong for him.
The Marist polls probably did meet that standard. But there were also two other polls of Ohio released on Thursday that showed Mr. Obama up only one point instead, along with a trio of Florida polls showing a tie there, on average. Those aren’t bad numbers for Mr. Obama exactly, but they aren’t great ones either — they are more like those we were seeing from the polling firms in question before the conventions.
There were also polls out on Thursday in several other swing states — in New Hampshire, Michigan and Colorado, for example. The data, taken as a whole, was pretty good for Mr. Obama, as he led in almost all of the surveys, although mostly by small margins.
But the forecast model is now judging Mr. Obama by a higher standard. Why? Because it had more or less fully priced in his convention bounce as of a few days ago. In fact, its assumption is that Mr. Obama’s polls probably slightly exaggerate his standing right now.
By Bradford Queen, Managing Editor, on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
The Politics of Media
Roger Ailes, the man who runs the show at Fox News, is in the midst of contract negotiations that could make him among the best paid TV execs in the business. [NY Mag]
Capitol Hill newspapers Roll Call and Congressional Quarterly are merging. [NYT]
Is it February yet? Nope. But if you have a few million dollars to drop on a Super Bowl ad, you better buy now. Slots are now 90% sold out. [USA Today]
Last night, CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ dedicated the full hour to the Navy SEAL who is the author of “No Easy Day,” the book that goes inside the raid that led to the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. [CBS]
Mark Owen is the pseudonym the SEAL used for the book. Several outlets – including Fox News – reported the man’s true identity. CBS chose not to reveal his identity, and seemingly called into question a “cable news outlet’s” choice to do so. [TVNewser]
This afternoon, The RP spent an hour on “Our Times with Craig Barnes,” a weekly radio program, broadcast on KSFR 101.1 FM, Santa Fe every Saturday at 9:00 am MST. They discussed No Labels, the party conventions, and even a little poker.
Rick Perlstein, a elegant and perceptive left leaning writer, wrote a breathtaking account of sixties era polarization called “Nixonland”, which he marred only at the end by weirdly inquiring whether American ideological opposites secretly wish to kill each other. The answer is emphatically no, but based on the two most infamous “gaffes” of this cycle—Mitt Romney on the untaxed lower and working class and Barack Obama on the parentage of successful businesses—the truth might be that they would just happily tax the hell out of the other side.
