I’ve written before about Rudy’s penchant for bullying and his contempt for civil liberty. And New Yorkers have long known that Rudy is, well, abrasive.
Here’s a favorite moment of mine from the Mayor’s radio show:
Gravel-voiced Joe from Dutchess County asked in 1999 why the mayor did not attack President Clinton at a fund-raising dinner. When the program returned after a commercial break it sounded as if Joe still was on the line. It was the mayor, imitating Joe’s dese-dem-dere voice.
”This is, uh, Joe from, ahhh, Dutchess County. I unnerstan’ youse went too easy the other night because people applauded or they didn’t applaud for ya or sumthin’–I don’t remember.” Mr. Giuliani giggled. Then he speculated that maybe Joe was a long-term resident of a state prison.
”I think you should go back to making license plates, Joe.”
But Rudy’s contempt for the public is endearing when compared to his pugnacious plans for our country’s foreign policy. The team America’s Mayor has assembled to advise him on foreign affairs is downright frightening. Take a look at this TPMtv segment on Rudy’s minions. It looks like if Rudy becomes the President, he’s going to treat the rest of the world like a bunch of ferrets:
This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
Today Bill Richardson released new TV ads that will air in Iowa starting tomorrow. The ads, which are funny and poignant, highlight Richardson's qualifications by staging a "Job Interview" (that's the name of the ad) for the position of US President.
"We wanted to do something original in a Presidential campaign - and that was to use humor to communicate Governor Richardson's vast record of achievement in public service, foreign affairs and as Governor of New Mexico," said campaign manager Dave Contarino in a released statement. The ad is below:
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
Hotline On Call has a poll that shows Americans are just as likely to vote for a homosexual as they are to vote for a 72 year old for President. The poll also shows that Americans are significantly more uncomfortable casting their ballots for a Mormon or for someone on their third marriage than they are about voting for a African-American or a woman. This is not good news for Republicans. However, they can take hope from the fact that the poll doesn’t do anything to ascertain how Americans feel about voting for the children of millworkers.
But this age bias spells trouble for McCain. McCain hasn’t looked well in recent television appearances and considering that the rest of the major Republican contenders all look relatively youthful, it will not present a good contrast when McCain makes joint appearances with other candidates at debates and forums.
In other news, Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas and possible Presidential candidate, introduced a bill to legalize growing hemp in the United States. The bill’s co-sponsors include senior Democrats like George Miller and Barney Frank as well as Dennis Kucinich. Paul also recently introduced a bill that would have the United States withdraw from the UN. However, Kucinich did not co-sponsor that bill.
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
I saw it on CNN (cable), so I don’t know whether it’s only running in Iowa or what, but it’s an ad for Operation Home Front, and for all I know it’s being run as a PSA. Regardless, it definitely helps McCain more than it helps Operation Home Front, and it’s alarming to see him up on TV in Iowa already.
A big thanks to Chris over at Political Forecast for highlighting our favorite candidate Eric Palmer’s new television ad. In 1992 they used to say that a vote for Clinton was a 2 for 1 deal. I’d say that this year a vote for Palmer is a 6 for 1 deal. Heck, they may be young, but I think those kids know more about what Iowa needs than Danny Carroll.
I can imagine Danny’s negative response ads already.
Black silhouette appears on screen amidst sounds of nails on a chalkboard.
Action movie announcer voice- Candidate Eric Palmer says he wants to get “strict about homework” with Iowa’s families. But it is theoretically possible that his children have forgotten to complete an assignment in full. Tell Eric Palmer that he should watch his own litter before he goes into your home and starts burying your pups in pencils and paper. Tell Eric Palmer that Iowa needs more than homework–it needs fun. And tell Eric Palmer that while homework may be good for his family, he needs to stop imposing his values on hardworking, humble Iowans. On November 7th, teach Eric Palmer a lesson.”
Can we expect anything less from the Republican Party? The swift-dopes are accusing Boswell of scraping children’s knees…
You’ve probably noticed that our blogging has been pretty light in the past week or so, as we’ve been focused on preparing for on campus satellite voting. Well, yesterday was the big day, and I think it went very well.
Four hundred and nineteen people cast ballots in the Forum South Lounge, including 50 new voter registrations. In 2002, only 95 people participated in satellite voting, with only 200 students voting at all. We’ve already doubled turnout on campus, and we’ve still got a month to go. Our 25+ volunteers, some of whom even wore fake mustaches in solidarity with ‘stached campus favorite Eric Palmer, should be very proud of themselves.
We did experience some hurdles in the morning, as there was confusion amongst the county auditor’s volunteers about whether students needed to reregister to their dorms instead of using the post office as their address, as it has always been done. This would have meant reregistering the entire campus, including the hundreds of first-years who registered since August. By mid-morning the problem was cleared up, and the wait to vote got cut quite a bit, to our relief.
I think a lot of us were also frustrated by the reaction of some of our peers to our GOTV strategy. By definition, any successful GOTV effort looks a little harassing. Grinnell has a (loveable) tendency to be a bubble for liberal idealists, and so the idea that number of votes is the bottom line determining who governs our country is a little hard to swallow for many. A high-gear GOTV campaign is also pretty startling to our usually quiet campus. The truth is, it’s worth it to annoy five people to get to the one who doesn’t know there’s an election going on. I hope when the dust settles, our peers will be forgiving of our incessant door knocking, calling, flyering, and well, harassment. When we have a Democratic House giving Bush a run for his money, Chet advocating for education and women’s rights in the governor’s mansion, and Eric Palmer raising the minimum wage in the State House, it’ll all be worth it, I promise.
All told, a valiant effort. Thanks to everyone who put in hours and hours of volunteering, and to everyone who voted. We’ve made a great start, and now it’s time to gear up for the dash to the November finish line.
Well the Nussle hustle rhetoric is kind of silly, but apparently the powers at be have seen signs that it is sticking (or will stick), because they keep repeating it. In a somewhat surprising move, they have released an ad specifically for the web (not uncommon in other states, but …) on Nussle’s abortion hussle. Perhaps they made it thinking they might run it on TV and then decided against it? I don’t know.
Incidentally, Nussle’s ads are all up on YouTube, but I haven’t found any of Culver’s. It’d be cool if they started uploading them, because then more people would probably watch them (and bloggers could embed them in posts).
Update: The Culver camp informs me that there are, in fact, three Culver ads on YouTube. My bad for missing those.
