Most of what the content on The Huffington Post. Same for the shows on MSNBC, except for when Keith Olbermann does sports highlights. But this article on the Hufftington post by MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan is a great summary for why bailouts, stimulus packages, and other forms of what he calls “corporate communism” are bad and shortsighted:
If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.
Their basic message is good because it makes the health care debate more personal for each individual. The health care debate takes on a different meaning when the discussion isn’t about insuring everybody but about the fines and jail time you could serve for not having health insurance.
Speaking of which, when not trying to drop Mark Warner’s name, Deeds continued his attempts to re-frame McDonnell as a reactionary with this commercial (which is likely not seeing as much airtime in more rural pars of Virginia but has been hitting the DC market):
Unfortunately for Deeds, all this ad really does is remind people that McDonnell is pro-life. Trying to turn the race into a referendum on abortion is probably not a winning strategy – and not the strategy he had probably intended, either.
This use of technology made me think about the applications to political efforts – and reminded me a little bit of the portable DVD players used by Rep.Patrick McHenry when he ran for Congress in 2004. Way back then, door-to-door volunteers delivered video messages from McHenry to voters. In 2010, those volunteers might be armed with a personal video message, voter history, precinct walking sheets, polling locations,and megabytes of other information which is constantly being updated – literally in the palms of their hands.
Just as all the technology in the world won’t win a campaign without a good message, the Wizards can’t rely on gadgets to crack the 20-win barrier. But given last year’s results, it can’t hurt.
For those of us in the Washington, D.C. media market who spend our evenings enjoying local news followed by the power hour of Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy, this Creigh Deeds commercial is very familiar:
It is, obviously, an attempt to throw Bob McDonnell’s 20-year-old words back at him – and since Deeds’s other strategy is a crippling inability to give straight answers, the strategy is sound. This commercial is almost laughably bad, though – and not just for the forced lines, stereotypical feminists, awkward pauses, or the final line – “Why did you vote that way?” – being blurted like a Valley Girl’s question about when the mall opens.
It’s clearly geared toward working women in Northern Virginia, but if all professional women in Northern Virginia were as angry as the women in this commercial appear, there would probably be a lot more men walking around maimed. The actors are confrontational – which wouldn’t be a problem if the commercial was being watched by McDonnell.
Unless an independent voter already shares their rage, chances are this commercial will not convince them. A more persuasive – and effective – method of conveying righteous indignation would have been to show these women with families, or to feature younger professionals in their early 20’s. That would have helped independent audiences to connect with the women. Their demeanor was way off, as well: media trainers will always suggest you smile whenever you are on camera, because it will help viewers identify with you more. It’s difficult to identify with someone who is shouting at you.
The Deeds campaign could also have used humor intentionally: “Bob McDonnell’s thesis – A Caveman Could Do It.” Thay’ve put together a pretty funny commercial as it is – but I don’t think that was the intended effect.
Apple has rejected a proposed iPhone application because it is, as ReadWriteWeb reports, “politically charged.” The app in question helps advocates for nationalized, single-payer health insurance organize and make an impact – or it would, if anyone could download it.
There are plenty of people who would disagree with the app’s goal. But, as with any speech, the answer is to respond in kind – perhaps to create another app that helps people organize and speak out for a patient-driven health care system.
Apple has every right to reject any app it wants. That may not be the best business decision, though. Part of the iPhone’s appeal is it’s ability to be the Swiss army knife of mobile devices through the various applications. By rejecting political applications, Apple is cutting out a large segment of potential users. (And incidentally, the Obama campaign released a similar app about a year ago to help mobilize voters and volunteers.)
If this move was an attempt to avoid political controversy, Apple couldn’t have gotten it more wrong.
It is somewhat amazing that a political outsider, such as Whitman, can’t easily and fearlessly answer for a lack of showing up at the polls. Instead, stuck behind the concept that it isn’t ok to skip an election, she called the voting records errors and told reporters to “go find” the proof of her claim.
But not voting is not a crime – in fact, it’s a fairly regular occurrence for many and an honest response could have spoken to those who feel disillusioned with government. “I didn’t vote because I didn’t feel like there was a reason to,” she could have said. “Like many Californians, I felt left behind by politics as usual. Finally I decided, enough is enough – I can’t sit by and let the career politicians hijack the government that’s supposed to represent me.”
And she could go on – the first draft writes itself.
This strategy does have a major flaw: owning up to being a non-voter may help a candidate appeal to a large demographic, but they are precious little help in elections… after all, they don’t vote.
Mashable is one of the best blogs out there talking about all the next big things. Their post today on the imminent announcement of the NBA’s social media policy is a great example of why expert advice about online media should be taken with a grain of salt. In reading the tea leaves on what limitations the NBA might create on its players use of social media and networks, Adam Ostrow calls the NFL’s policies unnecessarily stringent:
The NFL recently reinforced its reputation as the “No Fun League” by banning all social media activity by players, their representatives, and team personnel both during and 90 minutes before and after games.
Actually, that restriction isn’t so bad. Considering that there are extremely intricate guidelines about sharing information – especially on injury reports – a careless update on Facebook or Twitter can inadvertently tip a team’s hand.
There’s always a case to be made for maximizing your communications avenues. But given recentplayerconduct, the NFL offers a good example of when it may be a good idea to sacrifice a little transparency for message control.
The San Francisco Chronicle’s headline over a story about the California Republican state convention was correct: “California GOP Sees Hope On the Horizon.” But they missed what may be the most important quote about the prospect of Republican prospects in all 50 states:
California Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth urged party members to reach out to supporters of the anti-tax, anti-government tea parties that have been held across the country over the past several months.
“Here’s the challenge: They’re angry at everyone,” Hollingsworth said. “We have to make sure to earn their trust. These folks have to realize that their natural home is the Republican Party.”
During a recent friendly debate, a liberal friend told me the Republicans should ignore the tea-party types. “Those people are going to vote for Republicans anyway,” he reasoned. Hollingsworth isn’t so sure, though – and he has it right.
Hollingsworth’s decision to take nothing granted is reminiscent of an old political legend. Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the U.S. House and one of the most powerful politicians in the country, allegedly ran into an old acquaintance on Election Day one year. This acquaintance, a little old lady who had known the Speaker for decades, mentioned that she had not voted for him; when the incredulous O’Neill asked why, she supposedly answered, “because you never asked me.”
The latest controversy surrounding ACORN came about because of an excellent viral YouTube video. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles made a point others had made (that ACORN is corrupt) but did so in a funny, entertaining way.
Jim Eltringham 