Wednesday, October 27, 2004
HAVE YOU VOTED?
Yeah, I know your ballot is “secret,” but I want to know who got your ballot and why. We sent a camera crew to the Washington County courthouse to ask early voters leaving the building to take part in a little “straw poll.” Got some interesting results, perhaps I’ll post the video here. We ran the story last week. Oddly enough, everything broke down along the lines we’ve seen in statewide polls. Simply jet me an e-mail, and I’ll post (anonymous) responses here.
Yeah, I know your ballot is “secret,” but I want to know who got your ballot and why. We sent a camera crew to the Washington County courthouse to ask early voters leaving the building to take part in a little “straw poll.” Got some interesting results, perhaps I’ll post the video here. We ran the story last week. Oddly enough, everything broke down along the lines we’ve seen in statewide polls. Simply jet me an e-mail, and I’ll post (anonymous) responses here.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
WHAT TO DO AFTER THE ELECTION…
Citiscapes Metro Monthly Magazine, Politics Column
-- Don Elkins
Welcome to November.
Maybe you’re feeling at odds for something to do after more than a year of presidential campaigning. After all, where do you get your fix for those almost daily poll numbers, those witty barbs and attacks between the candidates, the excitement leading up to the big debates?
You’ve cast your ballot, done your best, now you have to live with the results. Maybe your candidate won, maybe he or she did not.
But what will all we political junkies find for fun now there are no more “jib-jab” dancing animated politicians on-line and no more of those really nasty political ads clogging the airwaves?
We’ll miss the colorful (red-white-blue) campaign signs on every lawn.
We’ll miss the bumper stickers and buttons.
We’ll miss the ice-cream socials.
We’ll miss the heated arguments between friends about the issues, amendments, campaign stunts and in general, we’ll miss the outrage on which most political fiends so thrive. So, in the interest of helping you wean yourself off the steady diet of political combat to which you’ve become so accustomed, here are a few suggestions on how to make the transition easier.
For those of you not suffering the political addiction, just read solution number 14 and realize you’ll only have a few precious months to avoid the next round of political gamesmanship.
Milk it, enjoy it, it’s getting shorter every four years.
Citiscapes Metro Monthly Magazine, Politics Column
-- Don Elkins
Welcome to November.
Maybe you’re feeling at odds for something to do after more than a year of presidential campaigning. After all, where do you get your fix for those almost daily poll numbers, those witty barbs and attacks between the candidates, the excitement leading up to the big debates?
You’ve cast your ballot, done your best, now you have to live with the results. Maybe your candidate won, maybe he or she did not.
But what will all we political junkies find for fun now there are no more “jib-jab” dancing animated politicians on-line and no more of those really nasty political ads clogging the airwaves?
We’ll miss the colorful (red-white-blue) campaign signs on every lawn.
We’ll miss the bumper stickers and buttons.
We’ll miss the ice-cream socials.
We’ll miss the heated arguments between friends about the issues, amendments, campaign stunts and in general, we’ll miss the outrage on which most political fiends so thrive. So, in the interest of helping you wean yourself off the steady diet of political combat to which you’ve become so accustomed, here are a few suggestions on how to make the transition easier.
1) Watch C-SPAN. After all, if you watch the cable all-the-time political channel, you’ll hardly know the election has ended, and you’ll have more than enough opportunity to watch and re-watch those amazing debates and news conferences, even after the ballot tally. This is a lot like using nicorette to quit smoking. Oh yes, you must also force yourself to watch that morning call-in program and all the book reviews and author speeches to get the full effect.Again, some of these are drastic moves. If you don’t know whether you have a political coverage addiction, you can try one simple test. Ask yourself this question: when the political fight reached its apex, when most of your sane friends and relatives admitted they’d become sick of all the politics on TV and in public, when they admitted seeing another campaign ad would provoke nausea – did you honestly still not feel saturated? The answer to that will let you know if it’s time to apply one of these Band-Aid solutions to your withdrawal.
2) Get involved with “Political Animals” or another civic group. You’ll have to hunt the “animals” down or ask someone involved, but the group does meet from time to time to hear the occasional stump speech from our elected leaders.
3) Read the Op-ed section of both local and national newspapers – hey, the real fight often continues there long after the balloting stops. You’ll get a regular dose of political combat in black and white daily.
4) Listen to AM Talk Radio. The political battle rarely ends there, but it’s mostly for conservatives.
5) Watch CNN’s “Crossfire.” Not always that edifying, but from time to time, Novak, Begala, Carlson and Carville can cook up a real storm even outside an election cycle. In lieu of that, watch Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” with Brit Hume.
6) Barring that, take up the ouija board, and see if the spirits give you any guidance on who will win the 2008 election.
7) Get a hobby – build model airplanes, crochet, take up weight lifting, boxing or karate to take out those politically aggressive impulses still running strong. (If you crochet, really do it as aggressively as possible, wearing a helmet and pads.)
8) Someone suggested, “get a manicure.” I’m not sure what that means.
9) Have you looked at your house and yard lately? We know it’s just about winter, but you could at least turn off the television and rake up those leaves. Clean out the garage, do the laundry, and for the truly politically challenged among you – take a bold step and try to wash that sink full of dishes.
10) Seek professional counseling or therapy.
11) Start a long-running game of poker with friends.
12) Make an easy segueway into pro-basketball season, where your tension and anger will find an easy outlet.
13) Consider a 12-step program.
14) Quit cold turkey. How about spending some quality time with your family, wife, kids, friends and talking about something other than politics for a change, for the love of St. Pete? This is my personal favorite, and ordered by my boss who holds the highest title – “wife.”
15) Don’t worry about it – the next campaign for the White House started November 3rd anyway. You’ll have plenty to follow in about six months because our Chief Executives have started to campaign year-round anyway. You don’t have to quit, just slow down for awhile.
For those of you not suffering the political addiction, just read solution number 14 and realize you’ll only have a few precious months to avoid the next round of political gamesmanship.
Milk it, enjoy it, it’s getting shorter every four years.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
THE ROUNDUP...
I had a fun time yesterday, even though my voice is just about gone. If you'd like to listen, I'll have the last two weeks shows rotating through at the "Listen Here" box in the right column.
My thanks to everyone who listened, and everyone who called in, and yes -- that includes the woman who called me at the very last minute to remind me I'm a "pompous ass." Madam, my apologies, but KFAY is a family station, so I cut you off. You only wanted to yell, and the only person who does a lot of that happens to be me, your one an only "p-a." Get your own show, or next time, call earlier and don't let the "ass" thing out on the air so darned quickly. Long-time Howard Stern crank-callers know the routine, you just didn't do it right. Yeah, and if I'd had more time and you hadn't called one minute before the end of the show, I would have allowed you to drone on with your boring observation. Only my wife calls me a pompous ass and gets to explain it at length, thank you, and she wouldn't necessarily do it on-the-air either. I mean really, just how far do I let all of you call me and flatter and compliment me? Sometimes, ya just gotta draw the line....Anyway, thanks for giving me a great tag line for my station promos. Ah, the joy of talk radio...my thanks also to the caller who talked to me directly after the show -- sir, your call made up for the "ass" comment and now I no longer need therapy.
Thanks as well to Independent candidate Dale Morfey. We may not agree on much, but he was a civil guy and we had an interesting conversation. I commend him on his willingness to at least play a larger part in the civic process, and the guy can talk. Not too shabby for a commercial graphic designer, and one who (at least in his expectations) has a firm handle on reality.
Oh yeah, Glen -- if you ever get a chance, drop by so we can take a picture and let everyone get a good look at our most faithful listener. I always enjoy our talks.
I had a fun time yesterday, even though my voice is just about gone. If you'd like to listen, I'll have the last two weeks shows rotating through at the "Listen Here" box in the right column.
My thanks to everyone who listened, and everyone who called in, and yes -- that includes the woman who called me at the very last minute to remind me I'm a "pompous ass." Madam, my apologies, but KFAY is a family station, so I cut you off. You only wanted to yell, and the only person who does a lot of that happens to be me, your one an only "p-a." Get your own show, or next time, call earlier and don't let the "ass" thing out on the air so darned quickly. Long-time Howard Stern crank-callers know the routine, you just didn't do it right. Yeah, and if I'd had more time and you hadn't called one minute before the end of the show, I would have allowed you to drone on with your boring observation. Only my wife calls me a pompous ass and gets to explain it at length, thank you, and she wouldn't necessarily do it on-the-air either. I mean really, just how far do I let all of you call me and flatter and compliment me? Sometimes, ya just gotta draw the line....Anyway, thanks for giving me a great tag line for my station promos. Ah, the joy of talk radio...my thanks also to the caller who talked to me directly after the show -- sir, your call made up for the "ass" comment and now I no longer need therapy.
Thanks as well to Independent candidate Dale Morfey. We may not agree on much, but he was a civil guy and we had an interesting conversation. I commend him on his willingness to at least play a larger part in the civic process, and the guy can talk. Not too shabby for a commercial graphic designer, and one who (at least in his expectations) has a firm handle on reality.
Oh yeah, Glen -- if you ever get a chance, drop by so we can take a picture and let everyone get a good look at our most faithful listener. I always enjoy our talks.
IT HAD TO BE SAID...
CNN's Crossfire actually had a fantastic show Friday. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart appeared to push is new book, "America" and ended up in a three way slugfest with hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. Now, that's TV worth watching! At one point, Carlson tried to toss it to a commercial break and at the same time diss Stewart. Here's the transcript
CNN's Crossfire actually had a fantastic show Friday. Comedy Central's Jon Stewart appeared to push is new book, "America" and ended up in a three way slugfest with hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. Now, that's TV worth watching! At one point, Carlson tried to toss it to a commercial break and at the same time diss Stewart. Here's the transcript
Begala: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won? John Stewart: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't... John Stewart: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder. But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly. John Stewart: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record. But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record. Tucker Carlson: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion. Tucker Carlson: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans... John Stewart: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.MTV has a good article about it, and what the heck? I've included the video for you here.
THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL
Sinclair Broadcasting fails to pass the "fairness doctrine."
Friday, October 15th "In Focus" column, Northwest Arkansas Times
--Don Elkins
A question for you.
How would you feel if your local television station decided to pull regular programming one evening to show Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 9/11?" without commercial interruption, calling the movie "news?"
Would that thrill you? Would it send you into convulsions?
Would you write or call the station? Would you boycott advertisers? Would it matter to you in the least?
You most likely won’t see that happen in Northwest Arkansas or the River Valley.
You also won’t see the exact opposite happen, like television viewers in Oklahoma City, or in any place where Baltimore’s Sinclair Broadcasting owns one of its 62 stations.
That company has decided to air a "documentary" film critical of John Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his anti-war comments after a couple of days before the Nov. 2 election.
A former Washington Times reporter has written and put together "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" a film that includes Pennsylvania veterans and their wives complaining that John Kerry’s anti-war activities prolonged the war.
The company doesn’t plan to run any ads during the presentation and has told the FCC the documentary amounts to "news."
Democrats filed a complaint saying Sinclair has essentially decided to grant the president an in-kind form of political ad.
The FCC decided to dismiss that complaint, regardless of some very public comments by an FCC board member about the Sinclair decision.
Again, the more partisan among you either will either cheer this or feel compelled to cry foul.
But there’s more to the story than just a lurid headline, and by explaining this, I’m effectively cutting out any chances I’d ever have of working for a Sinclair-owned television station, which isn’t actually a problem from my point of view, and not because of the political problem apparent with the company’s poorly thought-out decision to stir the political "pot."
I wouldn’t drag myself down by working for them (to be honest, they haven’t offered anything... I’m still waiting by the phone patiently.)
Sinclair doesn’t believe in fair reporting of political issues and doesn’t believe in putting any effort into local news of any kind.
You haven’t see that yet here, and with any luck, you won’t anytime soon.
Most of what you seen in your local television news here gets put together here and honestly attempts to examine local stories and local issues with a cast and crew of local personnel.
Sinclair does a couple of things differently.
They put together a newscast from a central location in the eastern United States that gets piped to all the affiliates.
If you watch a Sinclair station, you’ll see that national broadcast, and you may see some weather put together to look as if the forecaster actually lives in your town.
Perhaps that’s just the result of consolidation. But the company has taken a consistently one-sided view of public politics, with owners donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to one political party, to one set of political candidates. Sinclair’s vice president of corporate relations has another job. He acts as a conservative television commentator, and his views air on all the Sinclair stations — none of those stations has a choice. Mark Hyman goes on air with his blather and opinion even if the company decides to do something like canceling an episode of "Nightline" when Ted Koppel decided to spend the entire program reciting the names of all those who have died in Iraq. Hyman’s company called the Nightline broadcast "propaganda" and drew an angry letter from Arizona Sen. John McCain in response.
McCain chastised Sinclair for less-than-patriotic and less -than-respectful behavior in that instance.
So, if Hyman expresses his opinion, what of it? Shouldn’t Sinclair have the right to show any program it wants? Shouldn’t pundits on that network have the right to express opinions?
Certainly, but what makes Sinclair more frightening than NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox has a lot to do with the lack of variety the company offers a large segment of the American population.
We no longer have a "fairness doctrine" in place where broadcasters have to offer equal time to opposing views, and hence we have radio stations clogged with Limbaughs and Becks.
But even CBS produced a Bernard Goldberg.
Even Fox has its Colmes, not just its Hannity.
Most of the other networks at least make an attempt at providing something to all the viewers, not just a select few.
Sinclair does none of this.
You won’t get to hear another opinion, and that’s not just not right, it’s downright dishonest and unethical.
I like to howl about Fox News, but they are "fair and balanced" in comparison to Sinclair.
And again, we have a deregulated industry and company giving a handful of journalists and a single viewpoint occupying a lot of media real estate.
That does not serve the viewers, it doesn’t serve the electorate and it doesn’t do Sinclair or President Bush any good, regardless of what any of us might think.
Sinclair Broadcasting fails to pass the "fairness doctrine."
Friday, October 15th "In Focus" column, Northwest Arkansas Times
--Don Elkins
A question for you.
How would you feel if your local television station decided to pull regular programming one evening to show Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 9/11?" without commercial interruption, calling the movie "news?"
Would that thrill you? Would it send you into convulsions?
Would you write or call the station? Would you boycott advertisers? Would it matter to you in the least?
You most likely won’t see that happen in Northwest Arkansas or the River Valley.
You also won’t see the exact opposite happen, like television viewers in Oklahoma City, or in any place where Baltimore’s Sinclair Broadcasting owns one of its 62 stations.
That company has decided to air a "documentary" film critical of John Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his anti-war comments after a couple of days before the Nov. 2 election.
A former Washington Times reporter has written and put together "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" a film that includes Pennsylvania veterans and their wives complaining that John Kerry’s anti-war activities prolonged the war.
The company doesn’t plan to run any ads during the presentation and has told the FCC the documentary amounts to "news."
Democrats filed a complaint saying Sinclair has essentially decided to grant the president an in-kind form of political ad.
The FCC decided to dismiss that complaint, regardless of some very public comments by an FCC board member about the Sinclair decision.
Again, the more partisan among you either will either cheer this or feel compelled to cry foul.
But there’s more to the story than just a lurid headline, and by explaining this, I’m effectively cutting out any chances I’d ever have of working for a Sinclair-owned television station, which isn’t actually a problem from my point of view, and not because of the political problem apparent with the company’s poorly thought-out decision to stir the political "pot."
I wouldn’t drag myself down by working for them (to be honest, they haven’t offered anything... I’m still waiting by the phone patiently.)
Sinclair doesn’t believe in fair reporting of political issues and doesn’t believe in putting any effort into local news of any kind.
You haven’t see that yet here, and with any luck, you won’t anytime soon.
Most of what you seen in your local television news here gets put together here and honestly attempts to examine local stories and local issues with a cast and crew of local personnel.
Sinclair does a couple of things differently.
They put together a newscast from a central location in the eastern United States that gets piped to all the affiliates.
If you watch a Sinclair station, you’ll see that national broadcast, and you may see some weather put together to look as if the forecaster actually lives in your town.
Perhaps that’s just the result of consolidation. But the company has taken a consistently one-sided view of public politics, with owners donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to one political party, to one set of political candidates. Sinclair’s vice president of corporate relations has another job. He acts as a conservative television commentator, and his views air on all the Sinclair stations — none of those stations has a choice. Mark Hyman goes on air with his blather and opinion even if the company decides to do something like canceling an episode of "Nightline" when Ted Koppel decided to spend the entire program reciting the names of all those who have died in Iraq. Hyman’s company called the Nightline broadcast "propaganda" and drew an angry letter from Arizona Sen. John McCain in response.
McCain chastised Sinclair for less-than-patriotic and less -than-respectful behavior in that instance.
So, if Hyman expresses his opinion, what of it? Shouldn’t Sinclair have the right to show any program it wants? Shouldn’t pundits on that network have the right to express opinions?
Certainly, but what makes Sinclair more frightening than NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox has a lot to do with the lack of variety the company offers a large segment of the American population.
We no longer have a "fairness doctrine" in place where broadcasters have to offer equal time to opposing views, and hence we have radio stations clogged with Limbaughs and Becks.
But even CBS produced a Bernard Goldberg.
Even Fox has its Colmes, not just its Hannity.
Most of the other networks at least make an attempt at providing something to all the viewers, not just a select few.
Sinclair does none of this.
You won’t get to hear another opinion, and that’s not just not right, it’s downright dishonest and unethical.
I like to howl about Fox News, but they are "fair and balanced" in comparison to Sinclair.
And again, we have a deregulated industry and company giving a handful of journalists and a single viewpoint occupying a lot of media real estate.
That does not serve the viewers, it doesn’t serve the electorate and it doesn’t do Sinclair or President Bush any good, regardless of what any of us might think.
ON SECOND THOUGHT...
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2004, Arkansas News Bureau
-- David J. Sanders
This occasionally happens as a columnist: You have something written and then you see something at the last minute that catches your eye and you feel compelled to take a new direction. Some may call this a lack of focus. I think it means the column I was working on wasn't very good. The gist of the column I had intended to write for this space was that Bush did better in the second debate, but Kerry showed up, too - advantage Kerry. What caught my eye was a story by the Arkansas News Bureau about a poll it had commissioned to measure the name identification and approval ratings of Gov. Mike Huckabee and the men most often mentioned as his possible successors - Attorney General Mike Beebe and 4th District Congressman Mike Ross, both Democrats, and Homeland Security Deputy Asa Hutchinson and Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller, both Republicans. I'll get to the governor, but first to those who might want to be governor.
The general consensus in the political circle is that the 2006 gubernatorial race will feature Beebe and Rockefeller. It has come out that Ross' flirtations with running for governor are more aimed at landing some plum appointment in Congress. Hutchinson, if afforded the opportunity, will take a higher profile role in a second Bush Administration. I'm told he hasn't ruled out the race. So where do these potential candidates stand? Beebe scored 51 percent on name recognition, a 39 percent favorability rating and a 6 percent unfavorable rating. Rockefeller registered 72 percent on name recognition, a 53 percent favorability rating and a 14 percent unfavorable rating. It is hard to read too much into the numbers of the two front-runners, but there were a few things to take away. The poll showed that 49 percent of respondents didn't know Beebe. Despite serving nearly two years as AG and several television public service advertisements later, he still has a lot of work to do in order to raise his profile. Rockefeller's strongest area of the state was not the 3rd District (43 percent favorable), where Republican are beloved, but the 2nd district (63 percent favorable). In fact his highest "unfavorable" rating (17 percent) and "mixed" rating (11 percent) registered in the 3rd District. Rockefeller is widely viewed as a moderate by most of the GOP faithful.
This perception could be a problem if a solid conservative challenged him in a gubernatorial primary, which would be fought in the 3rd District. Ross scored 47 percent in overall name recognition, a 33 percent favorability rating and 11 percent unfavorable rating. He only scored a 48 percent favorable rating the 4th District, which he represents in the Congress. Ross would probably have registered a higher number had he faced strong GOP opposition, where he would have been forced to spend money on a campaign. Hutchinson registered a 75 percent in name recognition, a 51 percent favorability rating and a 20 percent unfavorable rating. He has been out of the state for a while now, but still maintains a decent level of support statewide. One would expect Huckabee to have high name ID, and with 96 percent he did. What was somewhat surprising is that the governor's approval or favorable rating registered at a high 63 percent. Some observers around the state Capitol predicted that the governor's willingness to tackle the school consolidation issue would harm him. Not the case. It is impressive that a guy can be governor as long as he has - eight years - while tackling tough issues and still maintain such a high rating. I suspect that the governor's tireless efforts highlighting wellness and healthy living have scored him some points. He should have significant clout heading into January's legislative session.
Privately, the governor's people say not to hope for much, but perhaps he can generate some goodwill with some of the new members that will converge on Little Rock. The poll is a subtle reminder that if we don't get enough politics in the current election cycle, the gubernatorial election two years away may provide the kind of competitive race that gets the adrenalin pumping.
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2004, Arkansas News Bureau
-- David J. Sanders
This occasionally happens as a columnist: You have something written and then you see something at the last minute that catches your eye and you feel compelled to take a new direction. Some may call this a lack of focus. I think it means the column I was working on wasn't very good. The gist of the column I had intended to write for this space was that Bush did better in the second debate, but Kerry showed up, too - advantage Kerry. What caught my eye was a story by the Arkansas News Bureau about a poll it had commissioned to measure the name identification and approval ratings of Gov. Mike Huckabee and the men most often mentioned as his possible successors - Attorney General Mike Beebe and 4th District Congressman Mike Ross, both Democrats, and Homeland Security Deputy Asa Hutchinson and Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller, both Republicans. I'll get to the governor, but first to those who might want to be governor.
The general consensus in the political circle is that the 2006 gubernatorial race will feature Beebe and Rockefeller. It has come out that Ross' flirtations with running for governor are more aimed at landing some plum appointment in Congress. Hutchinson, if afforded the opportunity, will take a higher profile role in a second Bush Administration. I'm told he hasn't ruled out the race. So where do these potential candidates stand? Beebe scored 51 percent on name recognition, a 39 percent favorability rating and a 6 percent unfavorable rating. Rockefeller registered 72 percent on name recognition, a 53 percent favorability rating and a 14 percent unfavorable rating. It is hard to read too much into the numbers of the two front-runners, but there were a few things to take away. The poll showed that 49 percent of respondents didn't know Beebe. Despite serving nearly two years as AG and several television public service advertisements later, he still has a lot of work to do in order to raise his profile. Rockefeller's strongest area of the state was not the 3rd District (43 percent favorable), where Republican are beloved, but the 2nd district (63 percent favorable). In fact his highest "unfavorable" rating (17 percent) and "mixed" rating (11 percent) registered in the 3rd District. Rockefeller is widely viewed as a moderate by most of the GOP faithful.
This perception could be a problem if a solid conservative challenged him in a gubernatorial primary, which would be fought in the 3rd District. Ross scored 47 percent in overall name recognition, a 33 percent favorability rating and 11 percent unfavorable rating. He only scored a 48 percent favorable rating the 4th District, which he represents in the Congress. Ross would probably have registered a higher number had he faced strong GOP opposition, where he would have been forced to spend money on a campaign. Hutchinson registered a 75 percent in name recognition, a 51 percent favorability rating and a 20 percent unfavorable rating. He has been out of the state for a while now, but still maintains a decent level of support statewide. One would expect Huckabee to have high name ID, and with 96 percent he did. What was somewhat surprising is that the governor's approval or favorable rating registered at a high 63 percent. Some observers around the state Capitol predicted that the governor's willingness to tackle the school consolidation issue would harm him. Not the case. It is impressive that a guy can be governor as long as he has - eight years - while tackling tough issues and still maintain such a high rating. I suspect that the governor's tireless efforts highlighting wellness and healthy living have scored him some points. He should have significant clout heading into January's legislative session.
Privately, the governor's people say not to hope for much, but perhaps he can generate some goodwill with some of the new members that will converge on Little Rock. The poll is a subtle reminder that if we don't get enough politics in the current election cycle, the gubernatorial election two years away may provide the kind of competitive race that gets the adrenalin pumping.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
DEBATE NUMBER TWO -- THE OUTCOME
A fantastic face-off last night at Washington University in St. Louis. This one goes to JOhn Kerry again based on several factors. First and foremost, the snap polls from Gallup and from about ten online sources (with the exception of one newspaper in Colorado -- the FoxNews poll also gives it to the president but by a small margin) give it overwhelmingly to Bush, and don't start whining that Democrats have skewed the online polls. If you got a note from Terry McAuliffe asking you to go to the online polls and vote, you'll have to be assured that Republican strategist and campaign manager Ken Mehlman also sent out a similar note, having learned a lesson from the Miami debate. If you'd like to get a complete run down of the snap and online polls, visit the Political Strategy website where you'll find all the numbers.
Personally, I again both listened on the radio and watched the broadcast and fault Mr. Bush for a number of things. First of all, to steal an observation from MSNBC's Keith Olberman, who called the debate point-by-point like a boxing match, I gave up on Mr. Bush when he started to omit verbs from his responses and just started using nouns with little reason or rhyme. As a staunchly Republican friend of mine said, "we don't need to hear what he said, we know what he means." Alas, having learned my reporting chops in Chicago, where the first Mayor Daley once berated reporters for writing what the mayor said, and not what he meant, that doesn't cut it, and gives me a sure sign Mr. Bush's handlers need to change strategy. I worried when the President began citing the Dred Scott case in one of his responses -- I wasn't sure he'd remember what it was.
Again, this one won't convince anyone in the Republican base to change a vote (or at least not significant numbers) but it does give the Democrats reason to hope, and if you believe the latest polls, has put Kerry far past the President in the swing states of both Pennsylvania and Michigan this evening.
If Kerry is a "closer" as pollster John Zogby would have us believe, then he has definitely started to go into high gear and has started to show what that means. Right now, he's doing the same thing to the President he did to William Weld in Massachusetts, to wit, taking a popular candidate, beating on the man and coming from behind -- something Mr. Bush should be all too familiar with from the 2000 election cycle.
I'll venture a guess that this will shake out to be considered another strong win for Kerry over the next couple of news cycles, much like what we saw in Miami.
Here's the score:
A fantastic face-off last night at Washington University in St. Louis. This one goes to JOhn Kerry again based on several factors. First and foremost, the snap polls from Gallup and from about ten online sources (with the exception of one newspaper in Colorado -- the FoxNews poll also gives it to the president but by a small margin) give it overwhelmingly to Bush, and don't start whining that Democrats have skewed the online polls. If you got a note from Terry McAuliffe asking you to go to the online polls and vote, you'll have to be assured that Republican strategist and campaign manager Ken Mehlman also sent out a similar note, having learned a lesson from the Miami debate. If you'd like to get a complete run down of the snap and online polls, visit the Political Strategy website where you'll find all the numbers.
Personally, I again both listened on the radio and watched the broadcast and fault Mr. Bush for a number of things. First of all, to steal an observation from MSNBC's Keith Olberman, who called the debate point-by-point like a boxing match, I gave up on Mr. Bush when he started to omit verbs from his responses and just started using nouns with little reason or rhyme. As a staunchly Republican friend of mine said, "we don't need to hear what he said, we know what he means." Alas, having learned my reporting chops in Chicago, where the first Mayor Daley once berated reporters for writing what the mayor said, and not what he meant, that doesn't cut it, and gives me a sure sign Mr. Bush's handlers need to change strategy. I worried when the President began citing the Dred Scott case in one of his responses -- I wasn't sure he'd remember what it was.
Again, this one won't convince anyone in the Republican base to change a vote (or at least not significant numbers) but it does give the Democrats reason to hope, and if you believe the latest polls, has put Kerry far past the President in the swing states of both Pennsylvania and Michigan this evening.
If Kerry is a "closer" as pollster John Zogby would have us believe, then he has definitely started to go into high gear and has started to show what that means. Right now, he's doing the same thing to the President he did to William Weld in Massachusetts, to wit, taking a popular candidate, beating on the man and coming from behind -- something Mr. Bush should be all too familiar with from the 2000 election cycle.
I'll venture a guess that this will shake out to be considered another strong win for Kerry over the next couple of news cycles, much like what we saw in Miami.
Here's the score:
Miami -- winner Kerry Ohio -- tie between Cheney and Edwards St. Louis -- winner Kerry October 13 -- TBD
Sunday, October 03, 2004
NOW PLAYING
Our thanks to those of you who played along last night. We had the Republicans for Kerry back for a return engagement, and we had Glen Hooks (sp?) with the Sierra Club in Little Rock. Last night's show is playing on our live broadcast -- just click the black box to your right. Rest assured, we will get this up and running again for next week's multi-media experience.
OUCH, THAT HURTS...
Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post about shock and awe from the President's advisors. Here's some of what Balz reported:
Ah well, time now for Tuesdays following match, between the VP's. Ought to be more TV worth watching.
Our thanks to those of you who played along last night. We had the Republicans for Kerry back for a return engagement, and we had Glen Hooks (sp?) with the Sierra Club in Little Rock. Last night's show is playing on our live broadcast -- just click the black box to your right. Rest assured, we will get this up and running again for next week's multi-media experience.
OUCH, THAT HURTS...
Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post about shock and awe from the President's advisors. Here's some of what Balz reported:
Bush advisers were described as stunned by how negative the reviews were of the president's performance, which many of them regarded as not his best but not so bad. Bush was portrayed as upbeat while acknowledging to supporters that he knew he could have done better. His aides indicated they plan some retooling before Friday's debate, but they maintained a sense of outward confidence.What was there to be shocked about? They know he doesn't do well with this sort of thing. Perhaps they were shocked at how well John Kerry did.
Ah well, time now for Tuesdays following match, between the VP's. Ought to be more TV worth watching.
Friday, October 01, 2004
DEBATE GOES TO KERRY
I listened to it first on radio, then tuned it in on cable. I watched the debate, talked a bi-partisan group of watchers, which included some real independents who were riveted by the action...the conclusion of those assembled? Kerry won this debate hands-down. Because the substance of the debate could have both sides arguing for hours, let's talk about the style (remember Kennedy-Nixon in 1960?) -- Kerry came across as direct, clear and unmuddled. His decades of training showed nicely, but not nicely enough to make him act too polished. He also benefitted from network decisions not to sign onto the two party agreement on the debates. The cutaway shots of Bush did a real number on him, as did his usual elocution and his long pauses. Comedy Central managed to take that last, very long pause and make it look exceptionally bad for Mr. Bush.
No doubt about it -- Russert, Fineman, Matthews all handed the night to the challenger, something his campaign needs about now. It'll be interested to take a look at the next round of polling to see if tonight had any long term effect on the numbers. If the President performs as poorly in the next round, he should just write off number three. As reader Glenn wrote in one of the comment boxes:
I listened to it first on radio, then tuned it in on cable. I watched the debate, talked a bi-partisan group of watchers, which included some real independents who were riveted by the action...the conclusion of those assembled? Kerry won this debate hands-down. Because the substance of the debate could have both sides arguing for hours, let's talk about the style (remember Kennedy-Nixon in 1960?) -- Kerry came across as direct, clear and unmuddled. His decades of training showed nicely, but not nicely enough to make him act too polished. He also benefitted from network decisions not to sign onto the two party agreement on the debates. The cutaway shots of Bush did a real number on him, as did his usual elocution and his long pauses. Comedy Central managed to take that last, very long pause and make it look exceptionally bad for Mr. Bush.
No doubt about it -- Russert, Fineman, Matthews all handed the night to the challenger, something his campaign needs about now. It'll be interested to take a look at the next round of polling to see if tonight had any long term effect on the numbers. If the President performs as poorly in the next round, he should just write off number three. As reader Glenn wrote in one of the comment boxes:
My goodness....watching the debate was like witnessing a horrible accident take place in real time. Why didn't Pres. Bush prepare?