Looking Presidential

Currently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is thought of as the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in the Presidential race of 2016.
In class last week, my "team" strategized about how to help Ms Clinton capture the White House. While we weren't tasked with creating a television ad for her, I keep having visions of one.  It features....well, it features ME!  (Or people like me).

The Chris Christie team in class speculated that Secretary Clinton will be viewed by voters as too old for the job ("Over the Hill-ary").  On Election Day, 2016 she will be just a year away from her eighth decade, as will I.  So, to address such criticism, I recommend that one of her campaign's first ads  be designed to preempt the concerns of voters by showing strong, healthy, energetic contemporaries of the candidate engaged in robust activities such as skiing, house painting, gutter cleaning, running, driving a tractor, etc.  These people would take a break from their work (or play) in order to speak to the camera about feeling a kinship with Ms Clinton because of the similarity in their ages.  Maybe they could say, "70 is the new 50" or something like that.

Obviously, my comments here are a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think there's a kernel of something useful there, should Secretary Clinton win her party's nomination.  I'd be happy to pose on my extension ladder if they need me.

On another note, the haircut and "makeover" my team suggested for Hillary is easily accomplished, unlike the 200+ pound weight loss challenge which is faced by Governor Christie.  Seriously, Mr. Christie is not simply overweight; he is morbidly obese.  His weight puts him at greatly increased risk of premature death.  There is no way that his situation can be spun into a positive.  The fact that a high percentage of Americans struggle with their weight will not translate into votes for Mr. Christie.

If both these individuals require transformation in order to be embraced by voters, my money's on Ms Clinton, not Mr. Christie, to successfully accomplish it.
               

  

Targeting Donors

The assigned reading this week has caused me to think back to all the emails I received on behalf of the President during election season.  If I got any which sought my vote, I don't recall them.  I think they were all looking for campaign contributions.  I suppose it's possible that I was in the data base as someone whose vote could be counted on (though I don't think I directly reported that in any "official" way).  They surely would also have had access to a record of my past financial contributions.

I received multiple emails which sought to prompt an additional contribution by promising that my name would be entered in a drawing which could result in an opportunity to have dinner with the Obamas.  I deleted them.  I did respond to a couple of emails which claimed that Mr. Romney was raising (and spending) more money than the Dems.  I responded to emails which identified a looming deadline of some sort; "We must raise $X by midnight tomorrow in order to..."
I ignored the ones, purportedly from Ms Obama, which asked me to "sign Barack's birthday card" and, oh, by the way, donate more money while you're at it.

So, what did the Obama campaign learn about me from their "interactions" with me?  I hope they learned that a chance to dine and schmooze with famous or otherwise "important" people is not the way to my heart (or wallet).  They might have learned that I am willing to help out when there is some threat to my candidate, when the other team seems to have the advantage in some way.  I wonder if next election season I will be bombarded with doomsday scenarios.
I guess time will tell.

Non-Issues

Two of the important "non-issues" of the recent Presidential election brought to our attention are poverty and the expected vacancies on the Supreme Court.  The similarity I see between these is that both candidates saw the potential for getting into trouble with the populace for elucidating their stands on the issues.  Certainly, informed voters can guess that a Democratic President would appoint more progressive judges, a Republican more conservative ones.  But I think there was an unspoken agreement between the candidates and their parties to avoid discussion of the impact of a changing Court on issues such as abortion.  They wished to steer clear of alienating the voters whose allegiance might be easily shaken.

Similarly, voters know that a Democratic leader may be more willing to spend the country's money on assisting the poor among us.  But a discussion of poverty can get awfully "sticky" for both sides.  Nobody wants to be viewed as facilitating intergenerational transmission of poverty or welfare dependence.  On the other hand, while a Republican leader would be expected to reduce the size of government and keep  tighter control of the nation's funds, the candidate wouldn't want to be seen as insensitive or cruel by declining to help those genuinely in need.

It doesn't surprise me that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and their VP choices were reluctant to engage in a discussion of issues that are potentially inflammatory and divisive as well as difficult to "solve."  But, how can we explain the media's acquiescence in this decision?

What Happened on Tuesday?

Well, Barack Obama was re-elected President in pretty convincing fashion.  His victory surprised many, including challenger Mitt Romney.  The explanation for this incredulity has been described in recent days as the "GOP's media cocoon."  But there were pollsters, including Nate Silver, who accurately predicted the incumbent's win.

I was exclusively informed on election night by the staff of ABC's telecast, including Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.  (What can I say?  Yes, I'm an ABC devotee).  Starting the following morning, I gathered additional information about the results of last week's vote through reading articles online, watching analyses on TV, listening to the radio, and discussing the outcome with friends and acquaintances, chiefly the politically involved, lefty members of my book club.

The general explanation for Gov. Romney's loss is that the GOP has lost touch with who comprises the electorate.  That is, it has failed to notice important demographic changes and missed opportunities to capture the votes of Latinos/as and other people of color, young people and women, particularly unmarried women.  Today on "The View" a thoughtful(!) Newt Gingrich said, "I think we (the GOP) fundamentally misunderstood the American people."  He went on to explain that "The Republican doctrine of highly paid consultants spending millions of dollars in 30 second ads doesn't build a party."  He offered a strategy for the GOP going forward: "The Republican Party better rethink in 2013 how we're gonna deal with the country's issues and do it in a way that the average American looks up and says, 'You know, those are the folks I'm willing to trust with my future.'"

I'm not sure what I don't know about the election.  I think human beings intuitively tend to search for confirming evidence, seeking out and/or attending to information that "fits" with their own world views.  This is the place where the "media cocoon" lives for the Republicans.  I suppose some similar force is at work in my life, but this time the information I received was more accurate.

Congratulations...

....Senator-Elect Chris Murphy!  

This and That on Election Day

I started election day, as I do every day; tuning in to ABC's Good Morning, America.  Host (anchor?) George Stefanopoulos introduced the fabulous new set which is the backdrop for tonight's coverage of the Presidential election.
There was a discussion of the increasing role of social media in the 2012 election.  Elizabeth Vargas introduced the segment by saying, "Whether it's tweeting, Facebooking or...emailing, social media has shaped this election as never before."  Staffer Josh Elliot shared that one of the top Google searches of the day was regarding the "Redskins' Rule."  Apparently, when the Washington Redskins win their last home game before the Presidential election, the incumbent usually wins.  Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the Skins lost.  However, later in the day, the Huffington Post noted that when the Dow Jones closes higher on Election Day than it was on that year's Labor Day, The incumbent usually wins.  Score one for Barry.

Getting back to the burgeoning role of social media in elections...A few weeks ago on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," one of the guests wondered whether we would see real-time tweets as a crawl during future debates.  Currently, tweets are used this way during television "competition" shows, including "The Voice" and "Dancing with the Stars."  And what are Presidential debates, if not competition?  But, who would decide which tweets to feature, which to exclude?  It seems like a logistical nightmare, but we'll see what happens four years from now.

Effects of East Coast Storm on the Election

In the wake of yesterday's storm Sandy, there has been a lot of speculation about how the weather event would impact the Presidential election.  Even prior to the storm, The Week predicted that the bad weather would have major consequences.  Multiple sources agree that Sandy would reduce early voting and disrupt planned campaign events by both candidates.  The Week also sees the potential for President Obama to either "shine or stumble," depending upon how well (and how quickly) he responds to the needs of people and communities affected by the storm.  To that end, Mr. Obama scored big by earning the vociferous praise of Republican New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie.   Christie also indicated that he didn't want Governor Romney to accompany him in his inspection of New Jersey's devastated areas because he didn't want to politicize the misfortune of his state's citizens.  Oh snap.

On a Radio Free Europe site, Ron Synovitz writes that "Sandy could be (an) October surprise in (the) U.S. Presidential vote."  He takes note of the factors mentioned above and adds that a decrease in the number of opinion polls could have an influence on voting, at least on the part of people reactive to those data.  He also expresses concern about potential problems with the functioning of electronic voting machines (presumably if they are exposed to moisture).

Reuters discusses the dangers and opportunities open to each of the candidates in the days ahead as a consequence of the storm.  Depending on his response to the current crisis, Obama can emerge as either a hero who epitomizes strength of leadership or as ineffectual and callous, as it seemed George W. Bush was in managing the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.  Gov. Romney must be careful to avoid appearing insensitive to people's suffering by resuming campaigning too soon.  He also must avoid (once again) criticizing a sitting President in the midst of a crisis.

Agreeable Mr. Romney

While watching this year's third and final Presidential debate last night, I was repeatedly struck by how often Governor Romney agreed with The President. Obama took advantage of the situation, repeatedly emphasizing Romney's endorsements of the incumbent's policies and past actions.  At one point, while responding to Mr. Obama's comments about managing the crisis in Syria,  Mr. Romney very nearly parroted the President.  It was actually uncomfortable to watch.  I was not the only one who noticed.

Frederick Allen of Forbes felt that Romney was disadvantaged by having to repeatedly agree with the President's handling of various foreign policy matters.  Michael Crowley of Time's Swampland observed the Governor's "constant endorsements of Barack Obama's policies."  Bloomberg's Julie Hirschfield Davis and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan noted that the President kept Mr. Romney "on the defensive on foreign policy...as his Republican rival worked to criticize the incumbent's leadership while endorsing most major actions he has taken."  Jennifer Epstein of Politico starts her blog by saying that the candidates "spent most of Monday night disagreeing with one another during the...debate," but then spent the remainder of her article discussing all the examples of Romney's agreement with the President.  Both Epstein and Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Joshua Hersh share that former Fox news commentator Glenn Beck tweeted, "I'm glad to know Mitt agrees with Obama so much.  No, really.  Why vote?"

The general feeling seems to be that Romney failed to distinguish himself from the President in matters of foreign policy.  It's no wonder he tries, at every turn, to bring the focus back to the economy.

I can't...

I just can't.  I've read Nate Silver and many of the links his blogs provided.  I've read my classmates' blogs.  But it's almost time to leave for work and I can't create a cohesive, sensible post of my own.  The topic of figuring out how numbers speak to us (!) and the mention of "algorithms" make me break out in a cold sweat...and eat many more cookies than I should.

When I was at Trinity I took a statistics course.  Need I say it was a requirement for my major?  Anyway, to make myself feel a little better about it, I bought a calculator which had faux jewels instead of ordinary buttons on it.  To say that my professor was nonplussed is a BIG understatement.  No matter, my calculator and I passed the course and I'll bet Professor Russo still tells that story at cocktail parties.  Or not.

So, while I plan to engage in classroom conversation this evening about what we've all learned this week, I shall not be blogging about it.  Sorry.

Personal Experience with Poll Numbers

Okay, well before I get into poring over Nate Silver's 538 postings, I want to talk about a personal experience with poll numbers.  In 2010, I was working on Rep. Chris Murphy's campaign.  On the day before the election, I reported to Chris' New Britain office, as I did every Monday evening.  There was something different about the "energy" in the place.  People's faces were grim and there was a lot of whispering going on.  I asked a staffer what was up.  I was told that a poll (I think the Q, but I'm not sure) showed that Sam Caligiuri was up by 7%.  Now, that's more than the margin of error and was seen as very bad news by the Murphy team.

The next day, sporting my red "Team Murphy" tee shirt and carrying a campaign sign, I reported to a polling place to greet voters.  Murphy's mom, Cathy, was there too.  We engaged in small talk as we stood and smiled at those arriving to vote, all the while avoiding the "elephant in the room;" the poll numbers.  Finally, I decided to confront the issue.  In my most empathic voice, I said, "Well, if Chris loses, we just have to trust that it's for the best, that there's something better ahead for him."  Ms Murphy very graciously agreed.

Well, needless to say, Chris Murphy was elected.  I was too embarrassed to go to the victory celebration that night, fearing I'd encounter MOM!

The subtitle of my blog used to be, "A skeptic's take on the 2012 election," but I messed around with the template, lost that phrase, and can't figure out how to get it back.  Whatever.  But the above story does help explain why I'm skeptical of polls.  Let's see if Mr. Silver can change my mind.

Designing an Obama Campaign Ad

First of all, any campaign ad I'm involved with has to be, on the surface anyway, positive.  However, I'm aware that, by presenting my candidate as positive, I'm implying that his opponent is lacking in some way.  So be it.

My ad would feature people who have overcome poverty and/or disability because they were supported in some way by government programs which comprise the "safety net."  There could be a person who is the first in her family to exit poverty through educational grants.  Or someone who received treatment for a disabling condition (physical or mental) through Medicaid and is now an independent, contributing (tax paying!) member of society.  It would be good if the featured person is someone viewers would recognize.  The background music?  No question: "Lean on Me," though not Bill Withers' version, something more upbeat, say the one by the "Glee" cast or even the USC Trojans' attempt.  Nah, I'll go with the former, though the latter is fun to watch.

The point of the ad would be to get viewers feeling good about helping others, to celebrate the successes we, as a nation, can create if we are willing to assist those who are less fortunate.  There are those who, by characterizing the poor as lazy, unmotivated, and chronically dependent, excuse themselves from having to help.
I'd like my ad to begin to decrease their numbers.

The theme of my ad is well described by poet and activist Anitra L. Freeman, who benefitted from government assistance during the time her mental illness caused her to become homeless:

"Do you believe that human beings are interdependent on each other: that we are not only nobler, but wiser, when we help each other out over rough spots? Or do you believe that the human race is stronger when people who can not make it through rough spots on their own are allowed to die? Do you believe that each of us is the beneficiary of countless good things we did not create and gifts we did not earn: electricity, medical hygiene, computer technology, the printing press, to name a few? Or do you believe that you are entirely a "self-made person"? Do you believe that government is a social compact to keep us off each other's backs, or a social compact to care for each other?"

Songstress Disses Mitt

I didn't see last night's debate between VP Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan because I was at Brooklyn's Barclays Center with my sisters, attending a Barbra Streisand concert.  Barbra took questions from the audience and when she was asked about her reaction to Mitt Romney's plan to cut funding for Public Television, she responded,  "I love Big Bird and I hope no one tells Romney how to get to Sesame Street...or to Pennsylvania Avenue."

Ms Streisand had plenty more to say about the race for the White House and told those of us in the audience that if we cared about the environment, women's right to choose, and other progressive issues, then "you know who to vote for."  I know there are many who are offended by entertainers using their celebrity status to try to influence the outcomes of elections.  But last night's crowd seemed to celebrate Ms Streisand's comments--very enthusiastically.

Well, I'd better go watch that DVR'd debate.  There's a big baseball game on later tonight.

Audacious Diane

The six PM World news broadcast tonight featured a startlingly bold interview of President Obama by anchor Diane Sawyer.  It speaks for itself, of course, but I couldn't help but feel heartened by Mr. Obama's response to the tough questions.  I'm pretty sensitive to the facial expressions and body language of others and didn't detect even a hint of irritation or defensiveness on the part of the President.  I am predicting a greatly improved second debate for the incumbent.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/president-obama-debate-performance-bad-night-17446753

(Sorry, I guess viewers will have to put up with a short ad at the start)

Debate Distress

I haven't yet recovered from my disappointment regarding Mr. Obama's performance in the fist Presidential debate.  I worry about the seeming effect it has had on the polls.  I fret that he might overcorrect in the next debate and come across as aggressive and unpleasant, turning off the more genteel viewers.

More immediately, I am stressing about Thursday's Vice Presidential debate.
Tracey Schmitt, a Republican strategist told Politico that, "When he (Biden) is all guns blazing, he tends to misfire."  Well, yes.  While Vice President Biden is a seasoned politician, informed about the issues, he also has a history of goofing up.  There even exist multiple youtube videos on the subject, one called "The Best of Joe Biden's Gaffes; a Continuing Series."

Nevertheless, I trust that there are many people out there in the voting citizenry who feel as I do; that no matter how disappointing the showing a candidate makes in debates, it's mostly the party platform that matters.
Regardless of how well Romney and Ryan do in their television appearances, I do not forget their intentions to put vulnerable populations at risk through  punitive changes in the safety net.  I do not forget their lack of support for gay rights or their discriminatory positions on women's health issues.  Would I like Obama and Biden to make good showings in the debates to come?  Of course.  But even if they disappoint, they still get my vote.

Who Prepped the POTUS? (or Who Didn't?)

I watched the first Presidential Debate of 2012 with a sinking heart.  While Governor Romney presented as alert, engaged and sharp, my candidate appeared distracted and irritable.  Romney reliably looked in the direction of the President when speaking.  Obama looked down (taking notes?) or at the moderator, sometimes seeming to plead for Jim Lehrer to intervene in some way.

I have often found Presidential debates to be frustrating, as the candidates often fail to respond to the questions asked, but simply present "answers" which put forth their own agendas.  The candidates frequently hurl unflattering accusations at one another which are then denied by the opponent and repeated anew.   Arrrggghhh!  What are voters supposed to learn when nearly everything claimed is only partially accurate?

Mr. Lehrer clearly had trouble "controlling" the candidates.  I was distracted by trying to envision a better way of obtaining the cooperation of the debaters.  Would turning off their microphones after two minutes work?  What about if the moderator shouted, "Enough!" (or even, "Shut up!")?  A vaudeville type hook?

The summary statement of the President was especially troubling.  Mr. Obama had an opportunity to connect with the viewers by looking into the camera as he made his final "pitch."  He did so only fleetingly.  I'm sure that preparing for a debate of this magnitude is overwhelming, with facts to memorize and arguments to formulate.  But looking at the camera is an easy way to score points and he didn't do it.  I'll bet he does next time.

Charlie Gibson at Quinnipiac University

I love Charlie Gibson.  For years, I greeted each new day with a cup of coffee and Charlie on "Good Morning, America."  Mr. Gibson later anchored the ABC evening news.  I learned to trust him.  So, it was fun to find this video of Charlie addressing an audience, last week,  at Connecticut's very own Quinnipiac University.

Mr. Gibson shares his reasons for predicting that Barack Obama will be returned to office in November.  But, as much as I like the speaker, his conclusion seems to be based on the assumption that all those who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 will do so again this year.  And I'm not sure that's the case.  People who voted for change four years ago may vote for change again...and now that means Governor Romney.

The "Verification Industry"

According to MoJo's David Corn, fact-checking as a separate entity emerged in response to the press accepting the G.W. Bush administration's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  The assertion, of course, proved to be false and some members of the media subsequently looked for ways of vetting information before they published/distributed it.  Corn makes the point that in the Twitter age we can't rely on individual newspaper journalists to delve into the veracity of the issues they write about because they are "overwhelmed" by constantly emerging stories.  Fact-checkers might seem a good solution.

But Kevin Drum tells us that it's not as simple as that.  He states that "Politicians try to mislead voters all the time," but not usually by "flat-out lying."  He suggests a formula for assessing a speaker's intent to mislead.  I like Drum's idea, but I'm afraid it may be too nebulous to provide much help to truth-seekers.

Rush Limbaugh and others believe that bias exists in the fact-checking realm. Limbaugh claims that the "drive-by media" used "bogus fact-checkers" employing "misleading data" in an attempt to prove that Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was lying in his speech to the RNC.  The implications of this cannot be underestimated.  If politicians and influential political observers are successful in casting aspersions on the trustworthiness of fact-checkers, the American public will discount the information coming from the "verification industry."  Candidates' claims will go unexamined and, as Corn points out, such a scenario will most benefit "those politicians who lie with the greatest abandon."

Emerging Memes?

Though I'm still not entirely sure of the difference between memes and themes, I believe I've observed the emergence of a two new ones and the reinforcing of another.  In a New York Times article by Mark Landler, President Obama promotes the prevailing notion that Gov. Romney's comments at a Florida private fundraiser prove that Romney is "out of touch" with the life situations of many Americans.  It seems that keeping this notion alive has become part of the campaign strategy for the Obama camp.

In the same article, in response to a challenge from the anchors of the town hall-type meeting at which he was speaking, Obama accepted part of the responsibility for not achieving the immigration reform he had promised 4 years ago, but also blamed "partisan gridlock" in Congress and the courts.
The President followed up with, "You can't change Washington from the inside.  You can only change it from the outside," meaning that change will only come as a result of pressure put on legislators by the voting populace.

Romney seized on the President's remarks, asserting that, with the above comments Obama "Went from the president of change to the president who can't get change."

I guess I'm predicting that we will see an expansion of the claims by the Dems that Obama would have fulfilled more of his 2008 campaign promises had he not been hampered by GOP law makers and claims by the Romney camp that voters should remove Obama from office because he is ineffectual.

Provocative Reporting

Everyone knows that Mother Jones is a liberal publication.  Still, I wonder if David Corn went a bit too far in his September 17th online article.  The video which accompanied the text is troubling, for certain.  But Corn's interpretations of Romney's remarks and intent border on the inflammatory.

Corn and others have led people to believe that Romney's statement, "It's not my job to worry about (the 47% who pay no income taxes)" means that the Presidential candidate has no regard, no empathy for people who are struggling financially.  After viewing the video, I have a different interpretation.  I believe Romney was simply conceding that 47% of voters would vote for Obama and it didn't make sense to try to change their minds.

Near the end of the article Corn asserts that "(Romney) displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens."  I didn't hear disgust; insensitivity...yes, but not disgust.  People who read the article but didn't watch the video, or people who just heard/read about the article might have been manipulated into a judgement they might not otherwise have made.

It's worrisome to me when journalists are deliberately provocative in this way.
It puts their credibility in question.  Romney's remarks alone are enough to convince many undecided voters to reject him.

Barbra Blogs

I have long been a fan of Barbra Streisand, the singer and actress.  In fact, I will be attending her concert in New York City next month.  She and I share Brooklyn beginnings as well as political views.  Still, I was impressed anew when I read her coherent, concise blog about the Presidential election.

Have I taken the time to fact-check each of her assertions?  No.  But, man, she's persuasive!  She should have been invited to address the Democratic National Convention...in prime time!

Campaign Strategy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/17/stuart_stevens_romney_strategist_to_blame_for_campaign_missteps_staffers_tell_politico_.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/160337/the-points-romney-should-make-to-court-independents/

The above articles, as well as Colin's Hartford Courant column call attention to the importance of political strategy in winning elections.  It seems that a team is assembled to decide how to portray the candidate so s/he is most palatable to the greatest number of voters.  The plan is tweaked as necessary, largely in response to polls, as the election season progresses.

I imagine that the Presidential candidates of the 19th century, for example, had no such teams.  Perhaps candidates relied more heavily on their "personalities" and skills in communicating ideas via speeches to small groups in the towns and cities they visited.  Maybe voters back then, despite the dearth of media (except for newspapers) were better able than we to obtain an accurate picture of the candidate and his intentions because the team didn't get in the way.

Poor Chris Murphy

(N.B.  I did not deliberately choose a larger photo of Chris Murphy)


I'm pleased that our esteemed teacher wrote about the Murphy/McMahon Senate race and made some recommendations to "my" candidate.  I hope Chris and his team will take the recommendations to heart.

I especially like the suggestion that Murphy should begin to hammer home the information that Linda McMahon is a Republican.  Now, this may seem to be information that all voters already have.  But maybe it's not.  I have noticed, in recent years, that very few candidates mention their party affiliation on television ads.  On most lawn signs, if the party appears at all, it is in tiny letters at the bottom.  I have, in my garage or on my lawn, 7 lawn signs for various candidates.  The word "Democrat" is prominent on three of them, present in tiny letters on two, and absent from the remaining two.  In my car travel around Connecticut and, this weekend in New Hampshire, I observed very few signs on which the party of the candidate was evident.

So, yeah, making it clear to our "Blue state" voters that Linda McMahon is a Republican might be all the Murphy team needs to push him over the top.

Did I miss something?

The Pew Report we were advised to read provided information about the decline of newspaper and magazine readership and the growth of technology as a means for people to get their information.  Okay, I get that.  In reading the report, however, I didn't find any explanation for the shift.  Are people tired of the newspaper ink transferring to fingers and clothing?  Do they not want to pay for their news anymore?  It surprises me that there wasn't any exploration of the "whys" in the article.

On a personal note, I also felt that much of the report was rather inaccessible to a reader (that would be me) with limited exposure to technology and the inner workings of various media.  This is an example of the text of the Pew Report:
" Most newspapers are still profitable on an operating basis, the net margins—after interest, taxes and special charges—are razor-thin. And most papers achieved profitability largely through cutting.  (Cutting what?  Jobs?  Costs? The size of the paper itself?) The year also brought with it more papers embracing the idea of a pay wall.  (What is this?) The New York Times and roughly 150 other newspapers have instituted variations on the so-called metered model  (What is this?) that The New York Times uses."

I'm not sure I've been this befuddled in a classroom since, as an undergraduate, I had to read Michel Foucault.  I'm going to need the help of my classmates on this one.  Did I miss something?  Oh yeah.

The Libya Situation

It seems that John Avlon has captured two themes (memes?) which seem to be recurring in the wake of Tuesday's attack on the US Embassy in Libya.  One is that Gov. Romney is unfit for the nation's highest office because, as President Obama stated, "(Romney) shoots first and aims later."  The implication, of course, is that Romney's impulsivity would put the US and its citizens at risk.  The second theme, the one utilized by the Romney camp, is that President Obama is soft on our enemies when he should be strong and that he repeatedly apologizes to the world for the errors of the US.  As a result, the thinking goes, we are put at risk because we are perceived by our enemies as weak.

In Avlon's article Sarah Palin colorfully supports the latter view, stating, "We already know that president Obama likes to 'speak softly' to our enemies.  If he doesn't have a 'big stick' to carry, maybe it's time for him to grow one."
A Facebook "friend" of mine echoes the sentiment, asserting that, "To think that being nice to your enemies will win them over is flawed foreign policy."

But there are many who feel that Gov. Romney's criticism is inappropriate.  Avlon points out that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush declined to criticize the decisions of then-President Carter during the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, expressing their desires to support the sitting President (even though they both wanted his job).  Many in government today, including some Republicans, seem to agree that this is a time for Americans to stand united, not a time to attempt to exploit a tragedy.

Avlon cites an "old adage": "Partisanship ought to end at the water's edge."  Sounds like a good idea.