FIRST A2K STRAW POLL White House 2008

maybe.

could also be be a case of don't judge a book by it's cover (or voice).

'fraid i can't ask ma what she meant since she left us last fall.

All the candidates, except for Mike Gravel, did extremely well in last night's debate. Each, except for Gravel, appeared very capable of being an excellent president.

If anyone stood out, it was Dennis Kusinich, who was very strong.

The New Republic's take on Fred Thompson and:

The curious appeal of phony populism.
Popular Mandate
by Noam Scheiber
Only at TNR Online | Post date 04.27.07 Discuss this article (30)
Printer friendly
E-mail this article


By the time Fred Thompson decides whether or not to join the presidential fray, you will have heard the story of his red pickup truck at least a dozen times. The truck in question is a 1990 Chevy, which the famed statesman-thespian rented during his maiden Senate campaign in 1994. The idea was that Thompson would dress up in blue jeans and shabby boots and drive himself to campaign events around the state. Upon arriving, he'd mount the bed of the truck and launch into a homespun riff on the virtues of citizen-legislators and the perils of Washington insider-ism. For good measure, he'd refer to himself in the third person as "Ol' Fred" and the Chevy as "this ol' baby."

There was no real reason to think the tack would work. In fact, Thompson's own campaign manager dismissed it as "gimmicky and hokey." Thompson, after all, had spent the previous two decades as a well-paid Washington lobbyist and sometime screen actor. He was about as close to being a salt-of-the-earth Southerner as Truman Capote, and it was a stretch to think average Tennesseans wouldn't pick up on the dissonance. And yet the gambit proved wildly, dismayingly successful. Thompson was down big when he initialed his car-rental agreement. He won the race with more than 60 percent of the vote.

It's tempting to credit Thompson's success at populist play-acting to his numerous tours in Hollywood. If ever there were a millionaire who could persuade voters of his regular-guy bona fides, it would be the man who, in The Hunt for Red October, lectured Alec Baldwin on how "the Russians don't take a dump ... without a plan." But Thompson is hardly the only Republican to have ridden phony-populism to elective office. In 2003, Haley Barbour, perhaps the most accomplished Washington lobbyist of his generation, pig-in-a-poked and dog-won't-hunted his way to the Mississippi governor's mansion. (One of Barbour's signature tricks was to have himself paged at Ole Miss football games.) And, of course, a certain Northeastern Brahmin reinvented himself as a brush-clearing country boy en route to winning the White House in 2000. These days, phonies win with such regularity in American politics that you've got to look beyond any particular candidate to find an explanation.







iberals, who go positively batty over such acts of political fraud, have no shortage of theories. The author Tom Frank laid out a popular one in What's the Matter with Kansas, arguing that the ersatz populists use hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage to divert attention from their plutocratic proclivities. There is clearly something to this, particularly in states like Kansas, where vast concentrations of economically marginal voters routinely elect tax-cutting social conservatives. Barbour, for his part, employed a variant of this diversionary strategy by using coded racial messages to court downscale whites. (Among other things, he frequently cited the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, a black state legislator named Barbara Blackmon, in his public comments, even though there's no such thing as a "ticket" in Mississippi politics; candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run in separate elections.) But the explanation only goes so far. Thompson actually ran for Senate as a pro-choicer, and George W. Bush went easy on the fire-and-brimstone in 2000, when compassion was the order of the day.

A rival explanation comes care of my colleague Jonathan Chait, who once proclaimed his hatred for Bush's "pseudo-populist twang" and views Bush (correctly) as a "pampered frat boy masquerading as" a "rough-hewn Texan." Chait mostly blames the press for enabling this scam. Republicans, according to him, realized long ago that political reporters are much more interested in making vague characterological pronouncements than reporting on matters of policy, or even relating concrete biographical details. The GOP exploited this quirk by placing character at the center of its campaign strategy. The party took care to surround its candidates with the right atmospherics and to impugn their opponents whenever possible. By contrast, Democrats believed themselves to be on the right side of most issues and so they never invested much in these efforts.

Again, there is much to be said for this analysis. Had every story written about the 1994 Tennessee Senate race begun, "High-priced Washington bag-man Fred Thompson, speaking from the red pickup truck he rented to shore up his populist credentials, announced yesterday that ..." the outcome might have been different. On the other hand, it's hard to believe the average Tennessee voter didn't know Thompson had long since ditched his back-country lifestyle for the more cosmopolitan climes of Washington and Hollywood. (His opponent certainly didn't hesitate to remind them.) Likewise, it's hard to believe voters didn't make the connection between the ranch-dwelling George Bush who ran for president in 2000 and the preppie establishmentarian George Bush who'd occupied the White House eight years earlier.

The flaw in both Frank and Chait's theories, I think, is the premise that voters want bona fide populists but are somehow ending up with fake ones instead. But what if voters want exactly what they're getting? What if they knowingly vote for fake populists because fake populism is a highly appealing proposition?

Liberals like Frank and Chait assume that what most Americans want from politics is a modest improvement in their lives: Affordable health care, retirement security, good schools for their children. Under this paradigm, voters should prefer a politician whose life experience has taught him how difficult it can be to get by without such staples. The fake populist is maddening because he professes to understand their concerns but has zero life experience (or at least recent life experience) that would make such understanding possible.

But suppose most working-class voters want something entirely different from what liberals assume. Suppose they don't want to be slightly better off than they are today. Suppose they want to be rich. And the way they evaluate candidates, who are frequently rich themselves, is by wondering: Is this the kind of rich person I'd like to be? Now ask yourself: If you were a working-class voter in Middle America, what kind of rich person would you want to be? Would you want to be the kind of rich person who eats at pricey French restaurants, plays classical guitar, and vacations among the cognescenti in Sun Valley, Idaho? Or would you want to be the kind of rich person who noshes on peanut butter and jelly, reads Sports Illustrated, and kicks back at a ranch in the middle of nowhere?

The difference between you and the first kind of rich person is a vast cultural chasm. The only difference between you and the second kind of rich person is a chunk of cash, albeit a hefty one. If you somehow became rich overnight, there's no way you'd be accepted among the first group, but you could easily imagine yourself as part of the second. And that's more or less what Fred Thompson and George W. Bush are suggesting when they throw on the ****-kickers and turn up the drawl. Sure, they're phonies. But if you were rich, you'd want to be the same kind of phony, not a John Kerry kind of phony. (Though, come to think of it, Kerry's actually pretty authentic as a rich guy.) Liberals see richness and hominess as contradictory. But, for many working-class voters, they're complements. They like their rich people homey, and their homey people rich.



ot long after winning his Senate seat in 1994, Thompson got in his rented red pickup and drove all the way to the entrance of the U.S. Capitol. By way of explanation, he told a reporter he'd hoped to unleash the "doggonedest traffic jam that Washington, D.C., has ever seen from all those staff members trying to get out of town." It might have sounded strange to hear this from a rich Washington lobbyist who'd recently owned an apartment only eight blocks from the White House. But that analysis misses the point. The kind of rich person willing to force the Washington establishment to admire the rear of his Chevy is, for many people, exactly their kind of rich person.

well yeah but his presentation is very presidential and that's all that matters to some anal retentive conservatives (he sounds good and looks nice)

Sadly, I agree completely. There is something wrong with our electorate, which seems to go by first impression or intuition, as opposed to looking at a person's intelligence, record, etc. BTW, how did the likes of Bush and Reagan get in?

well that explains the stardom of britney spears, doesn't it ?

Malcolm Gladwell has a whole chapter devoted to this in his book "Blink" -- it's called the William Harding error. (William Harding -- became a president because he looked + sounded presidential, did a lousy job.)

add to that the "scare them to death about something, anything" and watch 'em go.

pre 9/11, it was abortion and gay marriage. by 2004 it was "by making the wrong choice, we risk being hit again".

sadly, guiliani has already started up with that one.

Inform yourself.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009991

This is why I am worried about Obama. He looks good, speaks well but hasn't said anything but general topics. Nothing specific just like Reagan, Bush, Bush and Clinton. We have almost two years before the election. Let us not make up our minds until we have heard much more than general ideas from the people running for office.

No no no it's much more than general topics. His book, for example. Geez, the man formally entered the race a couple of months ago. I'd prefer that he put the time into getting something definite together that he can stand behind than putting together something slapdash. Meanwhile, his (375-page) book offers a whole lot of specific thoughts on specific topics.

i paraphrased, but don't don't you recognize the words from a 2004 cheney speech ? in regards to electing the democrat, john kerry ?

here's the quote from wapo;



washingtonpost.com

here's the one from giuliani, per your wapo source;



it's the same message. and frankly, it holds no water.

who was it that ran the white house on 9/11 ? who was it that used the pdb titled "bin laden determined to strike united states" as a cocktail coaster ? a republican, g.w. bush.

and who was it put in charge of the terrorism task force in early may of 2001, yet had not once convened that task force as of 9/11 2001 ? a republican, dick cheney.

who was it that had not updated an antiquated emergency radio system in new york city after 2 terms as mayor ? a republican, rudy giuliani.

This is from barackobama.com.

Strengthening America Overseas

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.


Plan to End the Iraq War
Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, Senator Obama has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Cleaning Up Washington's Culture of Corruption

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal. In a politically charged election year, Obama acknowledged that corruption was a problem that plagued both political parties. He subsequently enlisted the help of Republican allies to limit lobbyist influence, shine sunlight into the earmarks process and promote open government.


Meeting America's Energy Needs

Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.


Honoring Our Veterans
As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama is committed to helping the heroes who defend our nation today and the veterans who fought in years past. A grandson of a World War II veteran who went to college on the G.I. Bill, Senator Obama has reached out to Republicans and Democrats in order to honor our commitment to America's veterans.

Improving Our Schools

We are failing too many of our children in public schools. Right now, six million middle and high school students read at levels significantly below their grade level. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington has been narrowed: either we need to pour more money into the system, or we need to reform it with more tests and standards. Senator Obama has worked on bills that cut through this false choice and recognize that good schools will require both structural reform and resources.


Creating a Healthcare System that Works

The United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet more than 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority for Senator Obama.


Protecting Our Homeland

Five years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and 12 D's on the implementation of its recommendations. Senator Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.


Strengthening Families and Communities

Strong families raise successful children and keep communities together. While Senator Obama does not believe that we can simply legislate healthy families, good parenting skills or economic success, he does believe we can eliminate roadblocks that parents face and provide tools to help them succeed. A husband and father of two, Senator Obama has promoted strong families in the Senate.


Protecting the Right to Vote
There is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote. Before the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes and property requirements disenfranchised many Americans, especially minorities. More than 40 years later, there are still numerous obstacles to ensuring that every citizen has the ability to vote.

Reconciling Faith and Politics

In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

Guiliani is saying that the health-care proposals of some of the Dems amount to socialism. He proposes a voucher system. Unfortunately, the latter would retain all the paperwork and other general inefficiencies of the present system in the USA, and just add to its cost.

I'm thinking some still don't differentiate between great sounding campaign rhetoric and specifics.

Rhetoric: Every child should have access to adequate health care.

Specific: If elected I will ask for and fight for legislation mandating federally funded comprehensive health care for every child who is without health care.

Rhetoric: It is wrong for the most tax relief to go to the richest Americans.

Specific: If elected I will roll back the tax cuts given to the rich by the Bush administration and in fact will increase the tax rates on all person earning X $$$ or more.

Rhetoric: We must end the war in Iraq.

Specific: If elected, I hope that the first bill passed by Congress and the first bill signed in my administration will be to defund the war and bring our troops hope.

Rhetoric: Strong families raise successful children and keep communities together. While Senator Obama does not believe that we can simply legislate healthy families, good parenting skills or economic success, he does believe we can eliminate roadblocks that parents face and provide tools to help them succeed. A husband and father of two, Senator Obama has promoted strong families in the Senate.

Specific: If elected I will do (something specific)

Rhetoric (talk) is cheap, isn't it Foxfyre. What you write reminds of the principle that "what you reward, you get more of." If you reward irresponsibilility, you get more of it. Something Democrats might want to learn someday.

I think politicians need to start preaching something called "citizenship," and schools should start teaching it again. I am frankly tired of hearing what the government should do for everybody. Its time to observe what JFK said, do something for the country instead of the country doing something for us. I remember him saying that, but at the time I thought, hmmmm, sounds good, but he should have said to do something for yourself, and in so doing, you do something for the country.

You and I are usually on the same page on a lot of things, Okie, and we are at least in the same chapter on this one. But I think the Republicans have been just as irresponsible as the Democrats on several fronts and we all need to demand more of our elected representatives.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop29apr29,0,2726371.story?coll=la-home-headlines

As the piece notes (in some portions not included above) the situation for the republicans is pretty much certain to get only worse as the myriad investigations of the administration continue to bring corruption and deceits to the surface.

The repetitive singular-message/all tow the line on talking points strategy that proved so effective over the last decade cannot work any longer because there isn't a serious portion of that previous 'message' which the majority of americans do not now reject as discredited. Further repetition now (eg 'we'll stand down when they stand up' or 'the family is being dismantled' or 'we are making the world safer and better' or 'Saddam equals al quaeda, etc) only serves to underline the failures and deceits of the Bush administration and so much of what it represents.

Likewise, the strategy of making citizens fearful (recall Rove pre-election stating in a speech to republicans that their advantage was on defense and thus they would continue (was the implication) to focus on Iraq/terrorism/military/'hit them there so they don't hit us here'. That was a strategy that failed them in the election and everything has gotten much worse for that strategy and the republicans since then.

Which makes Giuliani's recent tact rather interesting. Why would he try to play that card? One can see it as an experiment...it is early, so if it doesn't work for him, he can change and pretend he doesn't really think that way. One can also see it as a sop to the extremist dead-enders in the republican universe. And one can also sympathize that Rudy doesn't have any other cards to play because the feather in his cap (9/11) is now as much albatross as feather and because "change" or "new and hopeful" are now the property of the dems and god knows how Rudy might manage to capture any part of that. And also, one can speculate (I do) that the authoritarian/militarist/bully thing which this administration has excelled at is inherent in Rudy as a person.

My estimation is that there's something like a 90% probability now that the dems will take the presidency and retain both houses. But then all the tough stuff begins. Fortunately, I think any of the leading prospects are as capable of the job as anyone else I might imagine taking on the task.

Sadly, undoing the vast damage that has been done, to international relations, to relations with the muslim world, to the staggering growth of militaristic-corporate involvement in government, and to the broad structure of government departments and operations (part of the partisan mechanics that Gingrich, Rove, DeLay, Norquist, Kristol and others quite effectively put into place in the service of a 30+year republican dominance) will be a monumental set of tasks.

One thing that I think will be necessary for repair domestically (and all else seems dependent upon that) will be a much deeper level of citizen awareness as to what has gone on and a much more profound and widespread rejection of it and of the people involved and of the ideologies behind it.

Advocate, is that supposed to make the point that Obama doesn't give specifics?

It's a website. That's what the candidates do, with the exception of Kucinich (even Mike Gravel keeps things general). They want the surfer to get a general idea of what the person stands for and not get overwhelmed.

This:



is patently false.

As a further on what I wrote above, here's something from William Buckley...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=