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.