Recently NBC's "Saturday Night Live" has been receiving increased ratings due to the coming 2008 Presidential Election. Without a doubt, the most dynamic addition to the SNL cast of parodies this year has been Tina Fey's immitation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. It can be easily argued that leading up to the Vice-Presidential Debate there were very low expectations of Sarah Palin. While the reason behind those low expectations has its origin in her performance in early interviews, the problem was exacerbated by Tina Fey's SNL impersonation of Sarah Palin.
The first skit where she unveils her Palin impersonation was a joint interview where SNL compares Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. The fodder for this skit came from an interview that Governor Palin did on ABC with Charlie Gibson. This interview and her early interview with Katie Couric on NBC gave Fey plenty of material to use in making the unflattering impersonation.
How much of an effect did this impersonation have on the general public's mood? The answer to that question depends upon many factors. If you have an initial pre-disposition, you are likely to view it from that perspective and react either positively or negatively based on that predisposition. If you are one of the ever popular and highly sought after "undecided" voters, then it likely had a highly prejudicial effect on you. Palin was painted as being simpleminded and unsophisticated. She was parrodied for giving what seemd to be simplistic, even dangerous, answers to tough questions such as the economy and foreign policy.
While you can debate whether these impressions of Sarah Palin had a positive or negative impact on the Republican campaign, what cannot be debated is the amount of viewership generated by these impressions. According to the Neilson ratings, SNL took in 40% mor viewers than the same time the previous year. Good or bad, people are watching but what effect is it having?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
William Akers
A lot has been made recently of William Akers and his connection to the Barak Obama campaign. Who is this individual, why is he important and what does it mean? These are all interesting, and complicated questions. While some are quick to come to conclusions, those conclusions are likely filled with inaccuracies that don't tell us the whole story.
To get quickly to the point. William Akers was once part of a radical left-wing group called the Weathermen or Weather Underground. Their name came from the lyrics of a Bob Dylan song. In the song Subteranean Homesick Blues, Dylan croons, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." This group split off of the activist group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1969 approximately during the "Days of Rage" in Chicago. The goals the Weathermen were much more radical and violent than SDS. One of their chief goals was to bring about the end of the Vietnam War, a war they believed to be an illegal military action against the sovereign nation of Vietnam.
To accomplish their goals, the Weathermen engaged in a series of bombings, issing a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States Government. The bombings attributed to the Weathermen include:
1. 1970 Bombing of the home of NewYork State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh. The reason given was that he was presiding over a case involving a group of Black Panthers indicted in another bombing in New York.
2. June 9th 1970 they bombed a New York City Police Station in protest of the killing Soledad Brother George Jackson who had been killed during a prison escape attempt.
3. On May 19, 1972, they bombed the Pentagon by placing a bomb in the women’s bathroom in the Air Force wing. The bomb caused tens of thousands of dollars in damages and devastated classified information on computer tapes due to flooding.
4. On March 1, 1971, the Weathermen exploded a bomb at the Capitol building on the ground floor. They placed the bomb as a demonstration against U.S. involvement in Laos.
None of thee bombs caused the loss of human life and in the case of many of them, warnings were issued in advance in order to keep casualties to a minimum. But while this was the case for most of the bombs, it was not their original intent. It was only after the Greenwich Village bomb exploded on accident, killing several members of the Weathermen. After this bombing, the Weathermen changed their tactics to limit casualties.
Does this make a difference? That is up to you to decide. It seems to be reasonably clear that, while Ayers and the Weathermen did wage a violent war against the US Government over its military action in Vietnam, they did not target civilians opting instead to target only political institutions. Ayers is quoted as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and that "we (the weathermen) didnt do enough." to stop the war in Vietnam.
To many this unrepentant attitude causes them to write Ayers off as a terrorist. While opinions of Ayers and his involvement in the Weathermen vary widely, the real point during this 2008 election campaign is his connection to Barak Obama. According to Barak Obama, his connectionto William Ayers is limited to the fact htat they live in the same neighborhood and they have served on the boards of some charities together.
During the Democratic Party primary debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, moderator George Stephanopolous asked Obama, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Obama responded as follows: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (see here.)
Obama has denounced Ayers actions of the 1970's in a statement on his website."Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous." (Here)
Basically the isssue comes down to this: If you believe that any association with someone who could be called a domestic terrorist disqualifies you to be president, then, of course, this is a moot point. But I believe most people are not so quick to make that judgement. Is Ayers a domestic terrorist?
Well, that depends upon how you define a domestic terrorist. Is a terrorist someone uses bombs and violence to communicate their message or is it someone who uses bombs and violence indiscriminately to attack both civilian and political targets indiscriminately? If it is the latter then Ayers is not a terrorist and if it is the former then he is a terrorist...but then again so is the US Army. People who support Obama are likely to say that Obama denounced the actions of William Ayers and that Obama cannot beheld responsible for the actions of someone else, especially since he was 8 years old a the time these acts were taking place. Those who do not support Obama will say that this is a questionable association and it reflects poorly on someone who will be required to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Even more so, they say that even if the Ayers connection is weak, it is part of a trend of other questionable connections, including Tony Rezko and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Whether you believe that these types of associations are enough to disqualify someone for the Office of President is up to you to decide.
To get quickly to the point. William Akers was once part of a radical left-wing group called the Weathermen or Weather Underground. Their name came from the lyrics of a Bob Dylan song. In the song Subteranean Homesick Blues, Dylan croons, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." This group split off of the activist group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1969 approximately during the "Days of Rage" in Chicago. The goals the Weathermen were much more radical and violent than SDS. One of their chief goals was to bring about the end of the Vietnam War, a war they believed to be an illegal military action against the sovereign nation of Vietnam.
To accomplish their goals, the Weathermen engaged in a series of bombings, issing a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States Government. The bombings attributed to the Weathermen include:
1. 1970 Bombing of the home of NewYork State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh. The reason given was that he was presiding over a case involving a group of Black Panthers indicted in another bombing in New York.
2. June 9th 1970 they bombed a New York City Police Station in protest of the killing Soledad Brother George Jackson who had been killed during a prison escape attempt.
3. On May 19, 1972, they bombed the Pentagon by placing a bomb in the women’s bathroom in the Air Force wing. The bomb caused tens of thousands of dollars in damages and devastated classified information on computer tapes due to flooding.
4. On March 1, 1971, the Weathermen exploded a bomb at the Capitol building on the ground floor. They placed the bomb as a demonstration against U.S. involvement in Laos.
None of thee bombs caused the loss of human life and in the case of many of them, warnings were issued in advance in order to keep casualties to a minimum. But while this was the case for most of the bombs, it was not their original intent. It was only after the Greenwich Village bomb exploded on accident, killing several members of the Weathermen. After this bombing, the Weathermen changed their tactics to limit casualties.
Does this make a difference? That is up to you to decide. It seems to be reasonably clear that, while Ayers and the Weathermen did wage a violent war against the US Government over its military action in Vietnam, they did not target civilians opting instead to target only political institutions. Ayers is quoted as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and that "we (the weathermen) didnt do enough." to stop the war in Vietnam.
To many this unrepentant attitude causes them to write Ayers off as a terrorist. While opinions of Ayers and his involvement in the Weathermen vary widely, the real point during this 2008 election campaign is his connection to Barak Obama. According to Barak Obama, his connectionto William Ayers is limited to the fact htat they live in the same neighborhood and they have served on the boards of some charities together.
During the Democratic Party primary debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, moderator George Stephanopolous asked Obama, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Obama responded as follows: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (see here.)
Obama has denounced Ayers actions of the 1970's in a statement on his website."Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous." (Here)
Basically the isssue comes down to this: If you believe that any association with someone who could be called a domestic terrorist disqualifies you to be president, then, of course, this is a moot point. But I believe most people are not so quick to make that judgement. Is Ayers a domestic terrorist?
Well, that depends upon how you define a domestic terrorist. Is a terrorist someone uses bombs and violence to communicate their message or is it someone who uses bombs and violence indiscriminately to attack both civilian and political targets indiscriminately? If it is the latter then Ayers is not a terrorist and if it is the former then he is a terrorist...but then again so is the US Army. People who support Obama are likely to say that Obama denounced the actions of William Ayers and that Obama cannot beheld responsible for the actions of someone else, especially since he was 8 years old a the time these acts were taking place. Those who do not support Obama will say that this is a questionable association and it reflects poorly on someone who will be required to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Even more so, they say that even if the Ayers connection is weak, it is part of a trend of other questionable connections, including Tony Rezko and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Whether you believe that these types of associations are enough to disqualify someone for the Office of President is up to you to decide.
Slinging mud just gets everyone dirty
During this 2008 campaign, the candidates have waged a relatively clean campaign opting to focus more on the issues (or dodging the issues) rather than focusing on the faults of the other candidate. To be fair, each side has brought character issues forward and tried to pin the other as questionable in character, judgement, and experience.
But recently, the McCain campaign has ramped up their efforts to attack the Obama Campaign. In the past few days, McCain's Vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin has announced in rallies that Obama "pals around with terrorists", a jab at Obama's relationship with Mr. William Akers. This reference is in relation to Akers' founding of Weather Undeground during the late 60s and early 70s.
Weather Underground was a group dedicated to the use of violence to communicate their belief that the Vietnam War was an illegal military action. To do this they bombed the US Capitol and the Pentagon. They did not inflict any casualties in these attacks other than on their own members.
The problem with these, and other similar attacks, is that they tend to have the opposite effect. The McCain camp would love to get the discussion off of the economy and onto anything else. But unless any of these negative ads begin to stick onto the opponent, then the public will begin to resent the negative message from the campaign.
During the second Presidential debate, everytime EITHER of the candidates went negative, the opinion polls went down. It did not matter what the issue was, all that mattered was that the message was negative and it did not resonate with the voters.
The only way that negative ads work is when you are able to "make the mud stick." Perhaps it means that you have to repeat the message long enough until people begin to ask for the answers themselves. Perhaps it comes when you find something with a grain of truth and are able to raise enough questions of credibility.
And Obama is not immune to this impulse. In response to the Ayers attacks, Obama released a commercial highlighting McCain's involvement in the "Keating Five" during the Savings and Loan failures during the late 1980s. These ads have been unsuccessful so far in swaying public opinion either way.
During the 1992 election, George, H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid to a newcomer, William Jefferson Clinton. In the end, Bush chose to run a character campain with ads that attacked the character of Clinton while Clinton chose to run a campaign based on the economic needs of the American people. The effects of these two different campaign styles became apparent during the 1992 Presidential town hall debate. In this debate, the Ponytail Man chastized President Bush for running a character campaign when the real issue for many people was the state of the economy.
Slinging mud seems to be a tried and true campaign tactic, but just remember that everyone gets dirty in the process.
But recently, the McCain campaign has ramped up their efforts to attack the Obama Campaign. In the past few days, McCain's Vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin has announced in rallies that Obama "pals around with terrorists", a jab at Obama's relationship with Mr. William Akers. This reference is in relation to Akers' founding of Weather Undeground during the late 60s and early 70s.
Weather Underground was a group dedicated to the use of violence to communicate their belief that the Vietnam War was an illegal military action. To do this they bombed the US Capitol and the Pentagon. They did not inflict any casualties in these attacks other than on their own members.
The problem with these, and other similar attacks, is that they tend to have the opposite effect. The McCain camp would love to get the discussion off of the economy and onto anything else. But unless any of these negative ads begin to stick onto the opponent, then the public will begin to resent the negative message from the campaign.
During the second Presidential debate, everytime EITHER of the candidates went negative, the opinion polls went down. It did not matter what the issue was, all that mattered was that the message was negative and it did not resonate with the voters.
The only way that negative ads work is when you are able to "make the mud stick." Perhaps it means that you have to repeat the message long enough until people begin to ask for the answers themselves. Perhaps it comes when you find something with a grain of truth and are able to raise enough questions of credibility.
And Obama is not immune to this impulse. In response to the Ayers attacks, Obama released a commercial highlighting McCain's involvement in the "Keating Five" during the Savings and Loan failures during the late 1980s. These ads have been unsuccessful so far in swaying public opinion either way.
During the 1992 election, George, H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid to a newcomer, William Jefferson Clinton. In the end, Bush chose to run a character campain with ads that attacked the character of Clinton while Clinton chose to run a campaign based on the economic needs of the American people. The effects of these two different campaign styles became apparent during the 1992 Presidential town hall debate. In this debate, the Ponytail Man chastized President Bush for running a character campaign when the real issue for many people was the state of the economy.
Slinging mud seems to be a tried and true campaign tactic, but just remember that everyone gets dirty in the process.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)