A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

99% Fact-Free
October 12, 2007
How to spot political ads powered only by hot air.

Summary
In this article we examine two examples of what we call "fact-free" advertising, which we see in abundance. These ads seek to associate the candidate with a string of positive words and images but are void of specifics. Voters should beware.

We have chosen an example from Republican Mitt Romney that is full of words such as "families," "values," "patriotic," "strength" and "innovation." Who could be against any of those? Romney is also squarely against "waste in the federal government," but who isn't? And what does he consider "waste?" He doesn't say.

Our example from Democratic candidate John Edwards also pushes the "strength" and "patriotism" buttons, showing that vacuous words are a bipartisan tactic. Edwards also speaks loftily of making America "the country of the 21st century," whatever that means. He says he'd "lift families out of poverty" and "strengthen the middle class" but doesn't say how, or define what he means by "middle class." He says, "We know what needs to be done," but doesn't say what that is.

Analysis
These ads are examples of what propaganda experts called "glittering generalities." They are both appealing and vague, involving the listener emotionally while allowing the speaker to remain uncommitted. We'd call them misleading, except that they really don't make any factual statements.

The ads do contain what experts call "signaling," giving viewers a general impression that Romney would spend more on the military and Edwards would spend more to help the poor, for example. But for specifics, citizens must look elsewhere. The ads rely on evocative images, stirring music and value-loaded but undefined words to appeal to the heart, not the head.

Strong Words
The Romney ad is called "Strength," and it uses the word "strong" or "strength" five times in the space of 60 seconds. The Edwards ad is called "Strength of America," and it uses that phrase twice in 30 seconds.

Such positive-sounding terms can mean whatever the listener wants them to mean. The idea of a "strong military," for instance, is deeply appealing to people who are anxious about national security ("strong" in this case would mean "protective"). It could also appeal to those who believe that the U.S. should be proactive in its military efforts ("strong" would mean "aggressive"). But voters' interpretations of military strength may not match up with Romney's. Generic, attractive language allows listeners to project their concerns and beliefs onto the candidate - perhaps inaccurately.

Romney's ad also shows him lauding "a strong economy" and "strong families and values." But what exactly would he do to make them strong? He doesn't say.

For his part, Edwards says "the strength of America" lies in "the American people," to whom he addresses his appeal. But this ad says nothing about how Edwards proposes to "lift families out of poverty" or "strengthen the middle class."

Detecting a Vacuum
What's really being advocated in these pricey TV spots? When Romney calls for a strong economy, ask: "What candidate is calling for a weak economy?" Or a weak family, weak values or a weak military, for that matter? When Edwards says he wants to "strengthen the middle class," ask: "What candidate wants to weaken the middle class?" And how, exactly, would all these things be "strengthened?" These ads and others like them advocate in such broad generalities that they advocate nothing in particular.

These fluff pieces use plenty of undefined terms. What precisely is meant by "middle class," for example? Both sides talk about protecting or benefiting the middle class, because that's how most voters think of themselves. But it's rare for either side to define what "middle class" means. Is a person making $100,000 a year "middle class" or not? When a politician promises to "strengthen the middle class," listeners find it personally relevant and emotionally appealing, but that promise carries no weight - both "strengthen" and "middle class" could mean just about anything.

Edwards says he'd "lift families out of poverty," but how? With welfare payments? By creating jobs?

"Not Completely Empty"
Even hot air has its uses. "These ads do have a lot of meaningless rhetoric but are not completely empty," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor who teaches courses in political communication at the University of Pennsylvania. "Actually these two ads signal two different sets of priorities. Ask how you would react if Edwards spoke of a 'strong military' or Romney said he'd 'lift families out of poverty.' Romney uses traditional Republican language to signal that he would spend more on defense. Edwards speaks of 'the middle class' to signal that although his policies will address poverty he will focus on middle class needs as well." Prof. Jamieson is director of FactCheck.org's parent organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

Also, candidates do not run on bluster alone. Both Romney and Edwards lay out specific plans elsewhere. To strengthen the military, for example, Romney proposes to add at least 100,000 troops to U.S. military forces and to make unspecified "investments" in military "equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense." And to fight poverty, Edwards favors raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50 per hour (currently $5.85 and scheduled to rise to $7.25 in 2009) and tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (which provided an estimated $43 billion last year to 22 million low-income workers). But you won't learn those specifics from these fact-free ads. Once you do, you may or may not agree with the specific means the candidates propose to reach their admirable goals.

We're neither criticizing nor endorsing Romney or Edwards, nor anything they are proposing. Our point here is that a great deal of political rhetoric relies on language calculated to be both pleasing and empty. Cautious voters are wise to remember that candidates rely on them to fill in the blanks, sometimes interpreting their ill-defined language as specific promises they never made. If the candidates don't define their terms, citizens shouldn't try to do it for them. Their ideas about "strength" or "patriotism" may not match the candidate's. Remember to read the fine print, and avoid making judgments based only on fine-sounding words that could mean anything.

-by Brooks Jackson and Jessica Henig

Romney Ad: "Strength"
Romney: The right course for America, in a world where evil still exists, is not acquiescence and weakness. It's assertiveness and strength. We believe in a strong military. We believe in a strong economy. We believe in strong families and values. There is not one challenge that America faces that we can't overcome with the innovation, energy and passion which has always been at the heart of America. It is time to cut out the mountains of waste and inefficiency and duplication in the federal government. I've done that in business, I've done it in the Olympics, I've done it in Massachusetts, and frankly I can't wait to get my hands on Washington. Now is the time, this is the place, for us to lead a great coalition of strength. For our families, for our future, for America. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

Edwards Ad: "Strength of America"
Edwards: Will we make America the country of the 21st century? That depends on all of us. It's not that we don't know what needs to be done. To lift families out of poverty, to strengthen the middle class in this country. We know what needs to be done. The strength of America is not just in the Oval Office, the strength of America is in this room right now. It is the American people, and it's time for the President of the United States to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. I'm John Edwards and I approve this message.

Option two taken.

blatham wrote:

Option two taken.

I think you know that is a distortion of the truth. As I noted, your conditional hypothesis was itself flawed - the majority approval is alteady present. I responded with my actual reaction to that fact.

A disreputible trick. You impose a conditional left/right finding on an hypothesis that makes both responses equally irrelevant - and complain about the result.

Rice Worried by Putin's Broad Powers

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 13, 2007
Filed at 9:58 a.m. ET

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin's concentration of power is stifling his country's transition to democracy, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

''I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and doubts about the Duma,'' said, referring to the Russian parliament.

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Option two taken.

I think you know that is a distortion of the truth. As I noted, your conditional hypothesis was itself flawed - the majority approval is alteady present. I responded with my actual reaction to that fact.

A disreputible trick. You impose a conditional left/right finding on an hypothesis that makes both responses equally irrelevant - and complain about the result.

Did your father ever tell you that you make things difficult for yourself? You could simply (and with superior integrity to what you have been doing on this point) acknowledge the point that biblical literalism is a species of intellectual barbarism which does not serve the purpose of increasing knowledge but in fact works in an opposite direction. It's what you think so it would be better to just say so. You wouldn't wish to see more of it arise within either the Muslim communities or the Christian communities so it would be better to just say so.

biblical literalism is a species of intellectual barbarism which does not serve the purpose of increasing knowledge but in fact works in an opposite direction.

Someone using the account of blatham wrote:

biblical literalism is a species of intellectual barbarism which does not serve the purpose of increasing knowledge but in fact works in an opposite direction.

It's nice to hear from you, Lola. Don't let Bernie catch you using his account, and happy birthday to ya! (At least someone said today is your birthday. I thought it was dlowan, but now I can't find any post where she wrote that.)

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Option two taken.

I think you know that is a distortion of the truth. As I noted, your conditional hypothesis was itself flawed - the majority approval is alteady present. I responded with my actual reaction to that fact.

A disreputible trick. You impose a conditional left/right finding on an hypothesis that makes both responses equally irrelevant - and complain about the result.

Did your father ever tell you that you make things difficult for yourself? You could simply (and with superior integrity to what you have been doing on this point) acknowledge the point that biblical literalism is a species of intellectual barbarism which does not serve the purpose of increasing knowledge but in fact works in an opposite direction. It's what you think so it would be better to just say so. You wouldn't wish to see more of it arise within either the Muslim communities or the Christian communities so it would be better to just say so.

What is the subject here? Environmentalism or literal interpretation of the Old Testament? Your last question - to which I offered a fullsome response - was about environmentalism. The fact is that in answering it I gave you a fairly complete picture of my views on both. This shrill insistence on a yes/no response to your continuingly elastic questions is merely childish bullying - unlike and unworthy of you.

My essential point was those who insist on inflicting all such narrow views on others of a more independent and sceptical mind are narrow-minded prigs. The worst of them are those who insist on the eternal veracity and universal applicapility of one but not the other. They are, in addition blind hypocrites.

Into which of these two categories do you fit? A simple yes or no answer please.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

<snipped>

Cycloptichorn

You are a nice, likeable guy, but you have a lot to learn.

TPMtv: Meet the Four Horsemen of Rudy's Apocalypse
Maybe you love Rudy or maybe you hate him. But whatever you may think of him, check out his foreign policy team, because that's the key to knowing what to expect from a Rudy presidency. Especially for candidates with little or no foreign policy experience of their own, the folks advising the candidate are key. And Rudy's team is made up, more or less, of all the guys who were too nuts or too extreme to make the cut with George W. Bush. If you really, really want to go to war with Iran as soon as possible, vote Rudy. We run down the highlights and key bios in today's episode of TPMtv ...

nimh

Re another thread of yours from a while back...

Bush's approval now at 24%

nimh

Re another thread of yours from a while back...

Bush's approval now at 24%

HUCKABEE SPEAKS IN TONGUES.

Huckabee came out swinging, which many assumed would happen, but it was an even far more aggressive, direct speech than I expected. While he didn't mention other candidates by name, he was clearly challenging their credibility with evangelical Christians. "I come to you not as one that comes to you, but as one that comes from you," he said. And later: "It's important that people sing from the hearts and don't just lip-sync the lyrics." The candidate they back should "speak in the mother tongue," he said, going on to cite numerous Biblical stories and verses to reaffirm his own ability to do so. David, Goliath, Elijah, Galilee, Jesus putting mud in the eyes of a blind man - he pounded out a sound-bite-sized recap of the Bible just to make it clear that he's still very much a Southern Baptist minister.

He's clearly making a case for evangelicals to endorse him for president, and possibly for them to run him as the third-party candidate should any of the other three win the nomination.

"I don't want expediency or electability to replace our vales. We live or die by those values," he said. "I want to make it very clear that I do not spell with 'G-O-D,' 'G-O-P.' Our party may be important, but our principles are even more important."

He also hit on the right subject areas - abortion, gay marriage, immigration, appointment of federal judges -- and was the only candidate to drop the word "Islamofascism" into his speech this weekend. He also got in some plugs for the need for energy independence and the reviving the American industrial sector to liberate us from China. And he wasn't shy about advocating the kinds of constitutional amendments these voters would like to see happen in regards to marriage and abortion:

"People say we don't want to amend the Constitution. Well, it was made to be amended ... I don't want to see people who are less willing to change the Constitution than they are to change the holy word of God."

The general buzz here is that Huckabee will win this afternoon's straw poll, which would be a big boost for his campaign. But far more important are the side meetings James Dobson and other leaders are conducting about the prospect of running a third-party candidate -- possibly Huckabee -- should an undesirable candidate win the nomination.