Herman Cain says 50% of America is stupid. Has this man never read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Apparently not. My immediate reaction to his comment was, "Gee, I wonder which 50% Herman Cain belongs to?"
Ditto for Newt Gingrich. Why on earth is he allowing Cain to stump for him in Georgia, or anywhere else for that matter? After Cain's campaign self-destructed, I would have thought he was surely damaged goods. But I guess birds of a feather stick together. Perhaps Gingrich could get Tiger Woods to stump for him, too.
Of course, Mitt Romney's not much smarter, getting Donald Trump to endorse his candidacy. Really, Mitt, you wear jeans and you ditch the jacket and tie, to promote a populist image -- and then you cosy up to another multi-millionnaire like yourself. Way to go, Mitt!
On a brighter note, an Iowa poll showed Ron Paul as beating out Barack Obama and the other Republican candidates. Too bad Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination.
No wonder things are looking better and better for Santorum...
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Santorum's Smooth Speech to a CPACked Audience
Wow... I'm a Canadian, can't vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses, much less the US general election in November. But I sure would have liked to be at the CPAC conference this past weekend.
I did catch Rick Santorum's speech live on CNN Friday morning, and was pleasantly surprised. He looked more presidential, lost the cowboy tie, aced his quote of the Declaration of Independence (no stumbling over the word "Creator" this time), and even managed to make a joke.
By the way, loved the joke just before Santorum's speech: A conservative, a moderate, and a liberal walked into a bar. The bartender said, "Hi, Mitt!" (I told that joke over dinner on Saturday night. They didn't get it. Their loss...)
Santorum was no doubt buoyed by a recent trifecta/hat trick of wins in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota. He definitely had the wind in his sails. (However, Mitt took Maine, despite Ron Paul skipping CPAC to focus his efforts in that state. CPAC also gave Romney its reluctant blessing over Santorum.)
P.S. - I didn't see Sarah Palin's speech but I read about it in the newspaper. (Yes, even here in Ottawa, Canada -- the other capital.) I think her line about Obama turning a shining city on a hill into a sinking ship was not the most appropriate metaphor. Couild the Tea Party be accused of jettisoning cargo overboard, like its namesake of the revolutionary era? Just a thought ...
I did catch Rick Santorum's speech live on CNN Friday morning, and was pleasantly surprised. He looked more presidential, lost the cowboy tie, aced his quote of the Declaration of Independence (no stumbling over the word "Creator" this time), and even managed to make a joke.
By the way, loved the joke just before Santorum's speech: A conservative, a moderate, and a liberal walked into a bar. The bartender said, "Hi, Mitt!" (I told that joke over dinner on Saturday night. They didn't get it. Their loss...)
Santorum was no doubt buoyed by a recent trifecta/hat trick of wins in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota. He definitely had the wind in his sails. (However, Mitt took Maine, despite Ron Paul skipping CPAC to focus his efforts in that state. CPAC also gave Romney its reluctant blessing over Santorum.)
P.S. - I didn't see Sarah Palin's speech but I read about it in the newspaper. (Yes, even here in Ottawa, Canada -- the other capital.) I think her line about Obama turning a shining city on a hill into a sinking ship was not the most appropriate metaphor. Couild the Tea Party be accused of jettisoning cargo overboard, like its namesake of the revolutionary era? Just a thought ...
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Yes, We (Republi) Can!
CNN's Political Ticker (February 9, 2012) suggests that conservatives -- that is, Republicans -- face an uphill struggle to win the White House. They are not "setting the Thames on fire", not kindling enough interest to get the vote out on election day in November. They are unable to state their message in a nutshell. (CNN's Political Ticker advocates no more than three sentences, as opposed to a 20-page document.) Their message has so far been negative and anti-Obama, instead of proposing a positive vision of their own.
I commented that three sentences seemed pretty simplistic. I wondered aloud whether political ideas must necessarily be conveyed in primer English, and if Americans were not perhaps smarter that.
Yet most of the Republican presidential candidates have, to some extent, captured their campaign themes in fairly succinct slogans and rhetorical devices.
Mitt Romney says this election is a battle for the soul of America. Newt Gingrich uses opposites, like pay checks versus food stamps. Rick Santorum's slogan speaks of the courage to fight for America.
(Mind you, Santorum seems to be something of a Miss Malaprop. After his "trifecta" win in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, he declared that the race was now a "no man's land". I assume he meant that no one candidate had it all sewn up or was destined to be crowned at the convention. But "no-man's land" is a term heavy with negative connotations, referring to a kind of demilitarized zone in wartime.)
Barack Obama was no slouch himself in 2008, when his "Yes, we can!" was chanted by enthusiastic crowds of supporters. "The Audacity of Hope" isn't too shabby, either, as a mission statement. Obama was carried to the White House on a tidal wave of hopes for reform and change in Washington. Unfortunately, the hopes were far too high to be met by any mortal human being, even the President of the United States.
We've come a long way since "A chicken in every pot" and "Happy days are here again", although Ronald Reagan's "It's morning in America" came pretty damn close. (And Reagan has been nicknamed The Great Communicator. Obviously, he said something Americans wanted to hear.)
CNN"s Political Ticker is right that candidates need to stand for, and not against, someone or something. Whether they can develop a positive vision that resonates with voters is one thing. Whether they can state that vision in three sentences is entirely something else.
I commented that three sentences seemed pretty simplistic. I wondered aloud whether political ideas must necessarily be conveyed in primer English, and if Americans were not perhaps smarter that.
Yet most of the Republican presidential candidates have, to some extent, captured their campaign themes in fairly succinct slogans and rhetorical devices.
Mitt Romney says this election is a battle for the soul of America. Newt Gingrich uses opposites, like pay checks versus food stamps. Rick Santorum's slogan speaks of the courage to fight for America.
(Mind you, Santorum seems to be something of a Miss Malaprop. After his "trifecta" win in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, he declared that the race was now a "no man's land". I assume he meant that no one candidate had it all sewn up or was destined to be crowned at the convention. But "no-man's land" is a term heavy with negative connotations, referring to a kind of demilitarized zone in wartime.)
Barack Obama was no slouch himself in 2008, when his "Yes, we can!" was chanted by enthusiastic crowds of supporters. "The Audacity of Hope" isn't too shabby, either, as a mission statement. Obama was carried to the White House on a tidal wave of hopes for reform and change in Washington. Unfortunately, the hopes were far too high to be met by any mortal human being, even the President of the United States.
We've come a long way since "A chicken in every pot" and "Happy days are here again", although Ronald Reagan's "It's morning in America" came pretty damn close. (And Reagan has been nicknamed The Great Communicator. Obviously, he said something Americans wanted to hear.)
CNN"s Political Ticker is right that candidates need to stand for, and not against, someone or something. Whether they can develop a positive vision that resonates with voters is one thing. Whether they can state that vision in three sentences is entirely something else.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Intrusive Coverage: Media Meddling in the Republican Race
As a Canadian, I had two main reactions to Rick Santorum's "trifecta" in the Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota caucuses. (Here in Canada, we'd use a well-known hockey term, and say that he scored a hat trick.) In particular, I was horrified by the media's role in giving his campaign a much-needed nudge.
Are the Media Shaping the Narrative?
CNN is my information source of choice, but I must admit I have some qualms and reservations about its methods of gathering and sharing information.
CNN is obsessed with technology, pushing buttons and resizing images in a manner eerily reminiscent of Tom Cruise in Minority Report. CNN show countless pie charts, breaking the electorate down into various different segments (including religion, which would be verboten here in Canada). CNN is also fond of exit polls as a finger-in-the-wind indicator of how events will play out.
In Canada, public opinion research firms are not above "push polling", that is, asking survey questions worded to elicit a predetermined answer. I can't help wondering whether media coverage of the Republican primaries and caucuses is similarly shaping the narrative.
We've already seen the trial by public opinion of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich for their private failings and transgressions. This media moralizing had a direct impact on their respective campaigns. Cain fizzled and faded. Gingrich went into attack-dog mode and garnered public sympathy (in some quarters, at least), which probably helped him in South Carolina.
CNN was clearly spoiling for a story last night (February 7, 2012) and kept raising the specter of an upset. When the numbers came in from Missouri and Minnesota, favouring Rick Santorum, CNN couldn't wait to post the first trickle of results from Colorado, which indicated a similar win for Santorum in that state.
Figures less than 20 translated into percentages ... It was kind of pitiful to watch, actually.
Lights, Camera, Distraction!
That brings me to my second major concern about CNN's coverage. What was with the roving reporter in Colorado -- Stillwater or Castle Rock, I can't remember which -- roaming around and butting into the proceedings in the caucus room itself? I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, he would have been unceremoniously escorted from the premises, if not told outright to take a hike and get lost.
But no, this guy blithely asked those attending the caucus how they intended to vote, and looked over the shoulders of those counting the ballots. Where I come from, that's a no-no on both scores.
Both the reporter and Wolf Blitzer waxed lyrical about how this was "democracy in action". Excuse me, but I thought the secret ballot was the rule in conducting election procedures. The privacy of the voting booth and the polling station, free of political influence -- and, I might add, media meddling -- is a right hard won over the course of history.
To violate that right of privacy is, in my view, "democracy in traction". Shame on CNN for poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Are the Media Shaping the Narrative?
CNN is my information source of choice, but I must admit I have some qualms and reservations about its methods of gathering and sharing information.
CNN is obsessed with technology, pushing buttons and resizing images in a manner eerily reminiscent of Tom Cruise in Minority Report. CNN show countless pie charts, breaking the electorate down into various different segments (including religion, which would be verboten here in Canada). CNN is also fond of exit polls as a finger-in-the-wind indicator of how events will play out.
In Canada, public opinion research firms are not above "push polling", that is, asking survey questions worded to elicit a predetermined answer. I can't help wondering whether media coverage of the Republican primaries and caucuses is similarly shaping the narrative.
We've already seen the trial by public opinion of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich for their private failings and transgressions. This media moralizing had a direct impact on their respective campaigns. Cain fizzled and faded. Gingrich went into attack-dog mode and garnered public sympathy (in some quarters, at least), which probably helped him in South Carolina.
CNN was clearly spoiling for a story last night (February 7, 2012) and kept raising the specter of an upset. When the numbers came in from Missouri and Minnesota, favouring Rick Santorum, CNN couldn't wait to post the first trickle of results from Colorado, which indicated a similar win for Santorum in that state.
Figures less than 20 translated into percentages ... It was kind of pitiful to watch, actually.
Lights, Camera, Distraction!
That brings me to my second major concern about CNN's coverage. What was with the roving reporter in Colorado -- Stillwater or Castle Rock, I can't remember which -- roaming around and butting into the proceedings in the caucus room itself? I'm pretty sure that, in Canada, he would have been unceremoniously escorted from the premises, if not told outright to take a hike and get lost.
But no, this guy blithely asked those attending the caucus how they intended to vote, and looked over the shoulders of those counting the ballots. Where I come from, that's a no-no on both scores.
Both the reporter and Wolf Blitzer waxed lyrical about how this was "democracy in action". Excuse me, but I thought the secret ballot was the rule in conducting election procedures. The privacy of the voting booth and the polling station, free of political influence -- and, I might add, media meddling -- is a right hard won over the course of history.
To violate that right of privacy is, in my view, "democracy in traction". Shame on CNN for poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)