Thursday, April 26, 2007

Campaign Briefs

Short on time right now, here's a few things to ponder.

DNC Chairman Dean wants debates without the media present.

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media.

During the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, a banker expressed frustration with candidates who only talk in sound bites and wondered how that could be changed. Howard Dean, once a presidential candidate, offered a simple solution.

"I suggest you have candidates in to meetings like this and bar the press," Dean said.

As critical as I can be of the media (and they do deserve it sometimes), this is not a good idea. If there is no one asking the tough questions and scrutinizing the answers, how could we ever learn anything about the candidates? If there was no media, how would any of us know what the candidates said during their little chat?

Once again, Howard talks from his posterior and very few seem to notice.

Giuliani says that if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, there will be a new 9/11. Or at least that's how the Politico interpreted his remarks.

Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

1. If a Dem is elected, it tells al-Qaida that we will be more vulnerable and that would be the right time to hit. Maybe this is true, maybe not. But it's not a good idea to broadcast this, so that it ends up on al-Jazeera and into the ears and minds of jihadis, for encouragement.

2. If a Republican is elected and we are hit, there goes any credibility ever earned. This can backfire greatly. To campaign on the premise that is, if Dems were in the White House it would happen and if the GOPwere it wouldn't, is foolish.

3. If the GOP wants to have credibility when they criticize the Dems for politicizing this issue, they too must not politicize it.

The best way to handle this is by not using fear to win. State your goals and promise to do everything you can to prevent it. But do not use it for political advantage in such a generalized fashion, or it may come back to bite you.


Always On Watch Two said...

Giuliani may be correct, but he shouldn't have stated his concerns in that manner.

Most Americans already suspect what Guiliani said, I think.

Greg said...

Guiliani didn't need to say that election of a Democrat to the White House makes us more vulnerable. It is sufficient to say that being on offense is the best way to prevent attack. John Kerry made clear in the last election that he thought defense was the best strategy, and that offense is backfiring. I expect the next Democratic nominee to take the same position.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

I cringed on the line from Guliani. It certainly smacks of a statement with jynx - or backfire power.

As for debates without the press - the underlying assumption is that the candidates debate for a purpose other than the oppotunity to grandstand and trounce your opponents before the public. Not to mention free press.

Nobody would show up.

Mustang said...

According to a recent article by Jonah Goldberg, a Paw Research Center survey found that 31% of Americans do not know who the Vice President of the United States is, less than half of our citizens know who Nancy Pelosi is, only 29% are aware of who Scooter Libby is, and only 15% can name Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader.

Based on these findings, which I think are appalling, it wouldn't make any difference if the DNC debates were held in America's living room because most people here remain blissfully ignorant, not only about who's doing what in our government, but of the issues that confront us, as well.

BTW, did you know that terrorist leaders favor Democrats over Republicans 5 to zero? That should tell us something about the future given that the Democrats are likely to win the White House in 2008. Meanwhile, as the enemy continues to follow our political campaigns with a great deal of interest, our own citizen has no clue.

Sad. Very sad.

Greg said...

mustang, on your last point, I think the recent interview of the reporter who has spent more time in Iraq than most any other reporter is particularly relevant.

Can't believe I actually agree with a NYT journalist on Iraq, but I agree with every single word he said here.

The video here cuts off before Mr. Burns said that the terrorists in Iraq see the political situation in Washington "moving in their favor."

Greg said...

Holy crap - right on cue. From LGF, Al Qaeda-Iraq speaks about US politics.

LASunsett said...

To all:

Thank you very much for your comments

It troubles me greatly that there are some people that really do not believe that there are people who would commit some pretty dastardly acts. In my mind, I fail to see how there could be an explanation that could adequately explain, precisely why the obvious is so greatly ignored.

In short, there are those that just do not think we are in that much danger. The reason? I suppose some are extremely naive. They do not have the capabilities to understand it. It has to be that, or they do not want to understand.

But as Mustang said, it's not surprising this is so. You cannot expect people that are more obsessed with who wins American Idol, Dancing With Stars, Ugly Betty, or some other popular TV show to know much about who is responsible for their very safety and security.

But it's not just that, it's other things too. I know some that read this blog, think I am a paranoid idiot. I am not.

I am informed.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

"...people that are more obsessed with who wins American Idol..."

Aww, now that Sanjaya is gone, it doesn't matter who wins.


LASunsett said...


//Aww, now that Sanjaya is gone, it doesn't matter who wins.//

He might as well have won it. Have you noticed he's been booked on everything? ;)