Politics Doesn't Quit, but We Do

Greetings, Stumped Speech fans:

We're going on summer vacation, but please check back in August for new management and more political action as Am Word Magazine gears up for it's fourth season. Thanks for reading!

Best,

Your Host

Smashin' the Vote

Apolitical niche organizations are reaching out to energize their bases.

(Updated @ 4:30pm)

You may remember the ill-fated “Vote or Die” campaign made famous four years ago by P. Diddy, 50 Cent, Mya and other MTV rock stars. It was part of Citizen Change, an organization that sought to empower those in the 18-30 age range to vote in the 2004 presidential election. The non-partisan organization says on its website that it wanted to make voting “hot, sexy and relevant to a generation that hasn't reached full participation in the political process.”

Now rising to take Vote or Die’s place on the pedestal of “Bizarre Ways to Create Voter Turnout” is Smackdown Your Vote! The call to “get off the couch and get in the booth” may make voting hot, but we’re not sure about sexy.

Smackdown is a project by World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., and is making a run at those elusive under-30 voters that did their duty to avoid dying four years ago. It’s not at all clear as to why the WWE started its wrestling-themed voter outreach during the 2000 election cycle, but with 5 million viewers tuning into Monday Night Raw each week, wrestling fans could throw the election to the mat.

Wrestlers aren’t the only niche group being reached out to. The Poker Players Alliance, which tracks legislation related to gambling and works to support their belief that "poker is not a crime," is forming PokerPAC, a political action committee backed by more than 1 million members. Their website encourages voter registration, saying that those who don't vote "simply aren't part of the equation of political power."

On a completely different note, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance is encouraging citizens to “vote for the cure” and make sure the next president sees a petition outlining steps needed to help cure breast cancer.

Your fellow citizens offer food for thought, part III

The ire of the public is up again!

Last week, Obama said in a Pennsylvania speech: "...you go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they feel through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Read the full speech HERE (bottom of page)
Hear the speech HERE

Today, the Washington Post reported that McCain (as expected) disparaged Obama's remarks, saying "These are the people that produced a generation that made the world safe for democracy. These are the people that have fundamental cultural, spiritual, and other values that in my view have very little to do with their economic condition." 

The Depression, McCain said, did not destroy "their confidence that America and their own lives could be made better. Nor did they turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity."

The Post blogs are already full of comments. Here is a sample of the range of remarks left by Post readers (chosen for no partisan reason other than I am biased toward thoughtfulness as equally as I am biased toward idiocy):

I seem to remember in history class learning that a lot of people threw themselves from windows when the Great depression hit. I guess since he married a beer heiress he doesn't have to think about that. Posted by: The Oracle
_________________________________________________________

So the guy with how many houses and a second wife that is how rich tells us Obama is "elitist." Obama's comments were in reference to all the emotional polling issues that Republican bring up each election because they have nothing else to stand on. Anti-gay marriage ammendments, for example, allow a person to cling to their religion as one issue they can vote about instead of facing all the real issues affecting the country. Posted by: BaselBob
_________________________________________________________

Note to all: while those with money may be the elite, the term "elitism" refers to an attitude of superiority, regardless of income. In other remarks, though less openly, Obama's elitism has shown itself. That *this* is his year, and we shouldn't look for him to run again, is an elitist sentiment. His entire posture when delivering a speech--gesturing and speaking out across the heads of the audience--reveals an elitist attitude. Posted by: Allen Hoey
_________________________________________________________

Why not just get down on your knees and beg for the votes? Oh, the Fine Hunting Tradition! The Glory of the Depression! Where did most of the residents hardest hit by the Dust Bowl go? California. That's a big reason why California is so 'Liberal'- It's made up of people who had their livelihoods taken away by nature, their houses taken away by banks, and their dignity taken away by 'farmers' in California. Posted by: McCainIsOld
_________________________________________________________

An elite, unqualified, gutless, hypocrite like Obama -- who would have voted "present" on the Iraq war resolution if he could have (like his hundreds of gutless Illinois legislature votes) -- shows what he is really made of when he lies about not being present during Rev. Wright's tirades (and then has to change that lie), and now is trying to get out of what he said and meant about people who "cling" to religion. Posted by: Sal
_________________________________________________________

I find it interesting that McCain and Clinton are both shocked... shocked! that anyone would dare insinuate that all is not well amongst the populace. Obama has not been a politician long enough to learn that most feel it necessary to sugar-coat and butt-kiss the voter at all times. Posted by: steve boyington
_________________________________________________________

In an honest conversation about what Obama said, i would have to agree that it smacks of a bit of elitism. I think it is a misstep for him, and I could see it being a bit problematic. If all he did was say that many blue collar voters were bitter, I think he should have stopped there. When he pulled in Religion and guns (erie) I thought uhoh...

NEWS FLASH: Politicians are elitist!
REACTION: shrug...

Posted by: sodumb

Seventeen Against One

Falling in line, a slate of Iraq vets hit the ballots as Republicans

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that seventeen Iraq War veterans are running for the House, all as Republicans and all pledging to support John McCain. What the article didn’t mention is that they aren’t the first to try. If any of the 17 is successful, they will join Patrick J. Murphy, a representative from Pennsylvania’s 8th district, a self-identified Blue-Dog Democrat and the only Iraq vet currently serving in Congress.

The seventeen are all running under the guidance of Kieran Michael Lalor – a former Marine who is campaigning for the seat in New York’s 19^th – and his organization, Iraq Vets for Congress. Lalor’s opening remarks on the group’s website welcome his fellow veterans, but with a caveat:

“All veterans whose service to the United States brought them first to Iraq and now to a run for the House as pro-victory Republicans are welcome to become part of Iraq Veterans For Congress.”

What would Murphy say to that? He spent a year in Baghdad as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. But the issues section of his own website openly states that he stood up against the troop escalation, voted to end blank-check funding for the war and introduced two resolutions in the House: the Iraq Accountability Act and the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007.

Corporal Lalor also writes, “We are unified in our commitment to relieve the Democrats of their command of Congress.”

Watch out, Captain Murphy. If enough of them are elected, the Republican warrior cabal might jump you, and your Bronze Star won’t protect you in halls of Congress.

This Week in Politics - Great Quotes

The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead. - Kurt Vonnegut

We have come to realize that the only way the Democratic presidential campaign will end is either by bowling tournament, or the destruction of the earth. - NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me

McCain's Long Road Ahead and the Slipping GOP

A March 20 report by the Pew Research Center doesn't bode well for Sen. McCain, who is already having to shout to be heard above the ruckus of the Obama-Clinton campaigns. From the survey:

Fewer Voters Identify as Republicans

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans. 37% claim no party affiliation.

As you can see, McCain is being met with an electorate that is increasingly turning away from the Republican party. Perhaps in response to this, part of the mission of his Service to America Tour aboard the Straight Talk Express is to "re-brand" the GOP.

If the problem is branding, I suggest a good place to start would be jettisoning the title "Grand Old Party." GOP sounds like a 19th Century gentleman's club (members only), and not something that's going to draw in the passionate crusaders of the next generation of political participants. It just reminds us that McCain is Old. He may be Grand, but so far he's not been the life of the Party.

Your fellow citizens offer food for thought, Part 2

(Comments from Washingtonpost.com's politics blogs:)

On Hillary Clinton's claim that she encountered sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996.

The fact of the matter is, Bosnia WAS a war zone when she visited, she WAS the First Lady, and they would have employed extraordinary safety precautions because there WERE reports of sniper fire in the area, and she WOULD have been whisked from the high risk airport area to a safer place.
___________________________________

And then she jumped out of the plane without a parachute and threw a hand grenade at them and killed all the bad guys and was awarded a Medal of Honor by the president.
___________________________________

I think that we are all blaming the wrong person here. The gullibility of the American public swallowed the line from the wire services. Editors and reporters filtered information that was never questioned by the liberal or conservative elements in America.
___________________________________

You know, she is looking like karl rove in a pantsuit---not good.I'm a so sick and tired of her manipulations and out right lies during this political process. HRC will squander the good of the country all because of her enormous ego and self-denial. And now she is a "agent of change"-- lady, please.
___________________________________

Clinton has shown herself to be completely amateurish in using this Bosnia trip in her campaign, or else she is utterly deluded in thinking that shots actually were fired at her. Clinton ought to have known that people would pounce on her mis-characterizations, and she ought to have known that the First Lady's trip to a war-torn Bosnia would have a paper and video trail stretching into the sunset.
___________________________________

Actually, Hillary was using the little Bosnian girl, Chelsea and the President of Bosnia as "human shields" against the sniper fire.

WHAT FUN!!!

___________________________________

McCain also mislead the public, saying his visit to a Bagdad market was safe, when he was protected troops and helicopters as he spent 10 minutes buying a falafal.

Let the "gravitas-off" begin...

Senators struggling up the corporate ladder

Updated March 24

President number 44 will be unprecedented. Not because he might be African American. Not because she might be woman. Not because he might be the oldest president ever. Forty-four will be only the 16th senator to become president, and only the third senator to go straight from Congress to the White House.

Richard Nixon was our last senator-turned-president. He represented California in the Senate from 1950-53 before becoming Eisenhower's vice president. He didn't become president until 1969. Kennedy, who became president in 1961, was the last to hop directly from Independence and Constitution Avenues over to Pennsylvania.

Arguably, being a senator can instill a person with a wealth of knowledge on many of the biggest issues facing our nation. So why don't senators get elected president?

Three AU professors, Candice Nelson, academic director of the Campaign Management Institute, Brian Schaffner, professor of political science and Walter Oleszek of the Congressional Research Service offered their thoughts on why there haven’t been many high legislators in the White House.

Senators play Twister on a daily basis, having to spread themselves out to deal with several problems at once. All three professors began by pointing out that senators have taken firm stands on a wide variety of issues that could later be criticized. These votes were not always cast with the good of the entire country in mind, because each senator has a specific constituency.

Of course, multitasking and vote casting are their jobs, Nelson pointed out, but she said that fact doesn't make it any easier to defend themselves come election time. Every vote is potential fodder for the opposition.

"Just think of John Kerry being criticized for flip-flopping: 'I voted for it before I voted against it,'" said Oleszek.

Schaffner thinks this actually makes it a good time for Obama to be running for president. “He doesn't have a long list of Senate votes yet that he has to defend,” said Schaffner. “Clinton, on the other hand, has spent a lot of time defending the Iraq War vote.”

There is another small, nagging problem that senators can’t avoid: Americans don’t like Congress. “Approval of Congress tends to be lower than of any other branch,” said Schaffner. “When a senator touts his or her experience in that institution, the public may not necessarily view that as a good thing.”

What experience senators do have doesn’t seem to translate well to the executive branch in the eyes of many voters.

"A senator does not have executive experience, as governors do, because a senator is just one out of 100. That makes it hard to show what they have done," said Nelson.

"Voters seem to like this quality in candidates," Oleszek said of executive experience. "Senators only manage their offices, maybe a committee if they are chair, or their campaign organization."

“Mitt Romney actually made this point several times in the Republican primary, arguing that while he had been in charge of large businesses and an entire state government, John McCain had never been in charge of anything larger than his Senate staff,” said Schaffner.

There are also problems with the bipartisan atmosphere of Congress and the black-and-white, individual race a candidate must run to get elected president.

"Senators are in a legislative environment where compromises are essential if measures are to advance. They deal in grays in order to put together winning coalitions," said Oleszek.

In Congress, several lawmakers will be "winners" on an issue that goes through. On the campaign trail, there is only one winner.

Oleszek said the candidates need to paint in bright colors, because presidential campaigns deal in contrast politics. "Senators may have a hard time adjusting to this campaign requirement," he said.

The 2008 presidential elections will be unprecedented because the electorate will have to choose between two senators. But also interesting will be the nature of the national campaign. Will two senators going head to head cancel out these unique sets of baggage, or significantly highlight them?

Fortunately for the future leader of the free world, the news is not entirely bad.

“Senators tend to represent large diverse constituencies, which helps prepare them for running a national campaign,” said Schaffner. “Senators also have typically developed a large network of donors and their national experience may provide them with more gravitas relative to a governor.”

So in the words of comedian Stephen Colbert, the presidential election is promising to be a “gravitas-off.”

Where Have All the Issues Gone?

This week I’m pulling some interesting numbers from a Feb. 28 Pew poll on the candidates’ images. Polls can be overwhelming, and there are significant clusters of people who don’t believe in their accuracy, or simply consider them meaningless. What I find of interest, however, is the illustration of American fickleness that polls give us. Polls also give us things to lodge in the backs of our minds when reading news stories.

A majority of voters, 56 percent, say that Obama has not provided enough information about his policies and plans for the country. Only 28 percent of voters said the same for Clinton.

These are curious numbers. The Issues section of Obama’s website is very detailed. There are 20 specific issue sections that can be easily downloaded as the “Blueprint for Change.” For each of those 20 issues, Obama gives specific actions he would want to implement if elected. There are still plenty of vague statements and woe-is-America lines, but most of them are accompanied by details.

Clinton’s Issues section, on the other hand – which has 14 segments – is compiled of more ambiguous titles, so you aren’t entirely sure what you are going to get when you click on a heading. For example, “Restoring America’s Standing in the World,” leads you to some vague statements about peace and reform. Most sections give specific policy proposals, while the rest only offer her beliefs and references to past actions.

So, are they not talking, is the news not reporting, or are we not listening? Out of curiosity, although I don't know how relevant this is, I took a quick look back at Washington Post articles written about these candidates since Feb. 1st. I found specific (i.e. mentioned in headline) policy-related articles on the following:

For Obama: 6 stories on Iraq, 2 on foreign policy, 2 on the economy, 2 on NAFTA, 1 on Israel, 1 on parenting tips (ha), 1 on union aid, 1 on Cuba, 1 on bilingual education, 1 on the tax code and 1 on abortion.

For Clinton: 5 stories on Iraq, 4 on the economy, 2 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 2 on NAFTA, 1 on poverty, 1 on Cuba and 1 on immigration

Don’t forget, some of these stories are details from the debates or are rebuttals to attacks from other candidates, while others are transcripts of Q&A sessions; very few are straight issue news stories.

It’s a vicious cycle. If candidates talk too much about specific issues, voters might get bored, tune out or just forget what was said. But it seems that they can talk about other things too much, too. The question is, if half of the electorate thinks Obama doesn’t discuss policies enough, what would they say he IS talking about?

Political Children's Books for Democrats

Recently, Stumped Speech reviewed a highly irresponsible children’s book, Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed! Partisan not in the youthful values of sharing and honesty, but of low taxes and a hands-off government, the conservative book was disheartening to those who plan on raising their children to have open minds and to perhaps think for themselves.

Not to be outdone, a sister book was published in the same year by a relative unknown, Jeremy Zilber, called Why Mommy is a Democrat.

Unlike the liberal-bashing in Help! Mom!, this book takes a more positive tone, emphasizing why Democrats are good. Mommy is a squirrel with a healthy, happy young brood. Each page is a lesson in why one should be a Democrat: “Democrats makes sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does. Democrats make sure everyone plays by the rules, just like Mommy does.”

The gross over-generalizations are paired with dreamy color pencil drawings of the squirrel children playing games, going to the doctor and cleaning up after themselves, all under Democrat-momma-squirrel’s watchful eye.

The book would seem rather underwhelming and droll if it weren’t for what is going on outside the window of the squirrel family’s tree house. A homeless man wearing a baseball cap with an American flag on it encounters presumed Republicans acting counter to what Mommy and the good Democrats do.

On the page where we learn that Democrats make sure no one fights, just like Mommy does, we see the homeless man reading a newspaper with the huge headline, “WAR!” On the page where children can find out that Democrats make sure everyone is treated fairly, a fat, well-dressed couple stroll by the homeless man, ignoring him with upturned noses. The wealthy sir is trailing money and carrying a newspaper headline touting the latest tax refund.

While slightly less pervasive, the subliminal message is clearly present: Republicans are the evil antithesis of Democrats. (The children often play with donkey toys.) And of course, the overt message is that Democrats rule and Republicans drool, because Democrats are, you know, nice. They are warm and fuzzy, like Mom. 

While slightly more heartwarming as a bedtime read than the depressing story and scary drawings in Help! Mom!, Why Mommy is a Democrat is no less of a detriment to young minds, contributing only to their closing.

Fortunately, a movement large enough to get these two books noticed outside Rush Limbaugh has not yet sprung up. The question is, does the political mind warping of our children stop with simple literature? We already have religious-themed cartoons, so what next, The Justice League goes partisan? The name is already ripe for the political picking. I don't doubt that someone will snatch that up and attempt a re-branding.