Category: political challengers

Categories
media and media people political challengers

The Donkey in the Room

One hates to beat a dead horse. Or a living one. But by coming back to media bias in the coverage of the Republican presidential campaign I’m not so much whipping a recalcitrant equine as stabling a kicking, braying ass.

The most recent debate was hosted by CBS and the National Journal, and took place in South Carolina. The demonstrated bias? Ron Paul got only 90 seconds of coverage.

Yup: ninety seconds out of the hour. CBS summarized Rep. Paul’s short contribution by calling him a “serious longshot,” judging the congressman’s minute-and-a-half as “an unqualified success.”

Yes, CBS’s post-debate coverage was mostly spin — over its own criteria. Of Rick Santorum, the network calmly stated that the also-ran “didn’t get as many questions as the more popular candidates in the polls, but when he did get a chance to talk, his remarks sounded thoughtful and measured.”

Yeah. CBS was in control of the questions and time allotments, but its prose coverage neatly states it as reportage, covering up its own very active role.

A more honest account? “Barring a bomb in the Green Room taking out most if not all of the other candidates, Rick Santorum doesn’t have a chance at the nomination. Thankfully, it’s up to us to divvy up coverage. Tough luck, Rick.”

And: “Despite your amazing ten-percent-plus support, Dr. Paul, we don’t want you saying too much. If we allowed it, you might get more popular.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people political challengers

The Interposeurs

Media people interpose themselves between current events and the news audience. They consider it their job to sort out “the issues” before news consumers even start thinking.

This is the source of media power.

Recent investigations into current media coverage of the GOP presidential race shows that the basic media bias may not be pro-liberal/anti-conservative, but, more generally, anti-libertarian. Ron Paul’s candidacy, though receiving an amazing amount of support from enthusiastic fans and generous donors (Rep. Paul has quite a kitty going into the campaign), has garnered (according to a recent Pew Research Center study) little news coverage to match his popular success: Less, even, than Santorum.

But is ideological bias at the root of the problem? After all, each candidate has a personality, and personality is obviously a big factor in show biz success. And politics, it has been said, is show biz for homely people. No wonder political coverage looks more like junior high and high school tribalism than a truly mature enterprise.

According to the irreverent H.L. Mencken, journalists like to play messiah. Thinking they can “save the day” every day, they tend to favor those politicians who treat the eternal rescue mission of government policy with a cheaply salable scenario. Paul, in identifying government more often as a problem than a solution, horns in on the public rescue biz.

Maybe this helps explain why “Ron Paul did markedly better in the blogosphere than in the press.” And why journalistic coverage swings more extremely than does blogosphere coverage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people political challengers

The Big Christie Problem

The demands of media are not the demands of the American people. Everyone knows this.

Basically, journalists favor big, juicy stories. They like colorful characters and charisma. And they like puffing up some — inflating reputations as if they were balloons waiting for hot air — only to puncture them later on.

That’s what’s behind the continual discussion of Sarah Palin, the non-candidate.

She’s a media person herself. She’s the media’s No. 1 non-candidate.

The media’s No. 2 non-candidate? Gov. Chris Christie.

I’m a big fan of Christie, and I had positive things to say about Sarah Palin, very early in the last election cycle. But the attention given to these two, during the current campaign, has been mostly objectionable. It shows more what’s wrong with media folks than with the current slate of Republican presidential candidates.

Christie’s pluses — a no-nonsense limited government perspective from a successful state executive — are shared by at least one other candidate, former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson . . . who has been barred from most debates and virtually ignored by the media.

So why the fixation on Christie?

He makes for good story. He’s big. He fills the screen. And he’s more glib and polished than Johnson, or Paul or Bachmann or Perry.

In a perfect world, journalists would leave candidate selection to the parties and the people.

This is not a perfect world.

This, too, is not breaking news. But then, this is not reportage, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers

Buccaneer Blitz

No one expected much of the “Pirate Party” in the recent Berlin election. It’s an upstart, and the program of the young men leading the renegade political group — which focuses on “Internet freedom” as well as (alas) “free public transit” — might not seem to be ideally suited for widespread advance in the target environment, electoral politics. The party only offered up 15 representatives for Sunday’s vote.

But it won every seat it attempted, gaining 8.9 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Free Democrats went down to ignominious defeat, garnering less than 2 percent. The establishment must be shuddering. If an allegedly pro-business party like the Free Dems get booted out of office by young men wearing Captain America t-shirts, and if the Green Party now becomes the dominate coalition party in the nation’s capital, what then?

Well, the Pirate Party does not appear to be a joke. The candidates are serious, even if they aren’t wearing the traditional suit-and-tie uniforms. They parlayed popular Internet activism into votes, and what they do might make a difference.

So, what are they up to?

They seek to defend Internet privacy of individuals while enforcing complete transparency in government. Proposing an online participatory system they call “liquid democracy,” they balk at the status quo in legislative method. There are alternatives, as one spokesman explained: “You can stand up, stand tall and write the laws yourself.”

If this be piracy, make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people political challengers

The Ron Paul Problem

Prior to the Iowa Straw Poll, its credibility and repute were proclaimed throughout the land. The Washington Post characterized it as “arguably the first major vote of the 2012 presidential contest.”

Then came Saturday’s results in Ames: Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul finished first and second, respectively, with Paul only 152 votes and less than a percentage point behind Bachmann, no other candidate coming anywhere close.

So, mainstream analysts now call it a three-way race — with Mr. Paul not one of the three!

A story in USA Today postponed mere mention of Congressman Paul till the 13th paragraph: “Candidates Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are also seeking the Republican presidential nomination.”

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” GOP strategist Mike Murphy laments that “If 75 people had changed their minds, [Ron Paul] would have won the Iowa straw poll, which would have kind of shaken up the race and it would have put the straw poll out of business forever.”

Out of business? Forever? What sort of electoral contest should or would be abolished if a certain candidate wins?

Murphy’s statement generated neither rebuttal nor even any notice from the folks on the program.

“One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct — on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt,” wrote Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney.

In other words, time to ignore him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers

Another Protected Incumbent

It’s an impasse worthy of Joseph Heller. The author of the comic novel Catch-22 provided us with the perfect term for a specific type of trap. In Heller’s story, you could only get out of the army if you were crazy — but if you asked to get out, that was proof of your sanity. Catch-22!

In Washington State, citizens may recall an elected official, but the recall effort must do two things: Prove to a court that the effort is not frivolous and abide by the state’s campaign finance laws.

Trouble is, for the court hearing you need an attorney. If your effort — like the current effort to recall controversial Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam — is popular enough to get pro bono work from a major law firm, too bad.

Bad? Well, the campaign finance regulation applies to attorneys, too — and, according to some bureaucrats, the campaign finance limit of $800 per person limits not merely citizen contributors, but volunteering lawyers as well. They may not contribute more than $800 worth of labor to the client!

So, a recall is technically possible. But practically, it is not.

Another typical pro-incumbency effect of campaign finance regulation.

In this case, the Institute for Justice has come to the rescue. They’ve sued: Farris et al. v. Seabrook et al. IJ has made it a mission to defend Americans thwarted by misguided campaign finance regulation.

Someone has to fight our Catch-22’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers property rights

Trump vs. Private Property

If real-estate magnate/pink-slip impresario Donald Trump can’t comb over his hair plausibly, how does he expect to convincingly coif his wheeler-dealer track record?

Over the past several months, Trump has been making disturbing noises about pursuing the GOP presidential nomination. Perhaps those encouraging him want the Republicans to remain almost as unpalatable to freedom-loving folk as the Democrats.

Trump has an atrocious track record when it comes to limited government and private property. Like many developers in collusion with bureaucrats and the tax man, he doesn’t hesitate to use eminent domain to steal what ain’t his. All in the name of the so-called  “public good,” of course, a catchall concept used to excuse almost any kind of ruthless predation.

Michelle Malkin reminds us that in the 1990s Trump  “waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City. . . . The real-estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limousine parking lot—Coking’s private property be damned.” Fortunately, the valiant Institute for Justice took up her cause. She prevailed.

Trump’s comments on the 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London are candid enough. The justices ruled that government officials could treat the Constitution as irrelevant with respect to property. Trump says he agrees  “100 percent “ with the Kelo decision.

That confession alone makes the idea of a President Donald Trump 100 percent repugnant.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Congressional Stagnation at an End?

With this last election, 87 percent of House incumbents who chose to run for re-election got re-elected.

That’s low by modern standards. In fact, it’s the lowest since 1970, which garnered 85 percent rates for incumbents.

But it’s high by older standards. Eric O’Keefe, of the Sam Adams Alliance, says that the re-election rate may be low today but remains higher “than every election of the 19th century.”

Something changed. Individual career politicians gained the upper hand.

On the brighter side, it’s worth noting that if you include “voluntary retirement” in current figures, the turnover rate was much higher. Forty-five open House seats saw 16 flips of party affiliation, all but one going from Democrat to Republican. This leads Doug Mataconis to figure the retention rate at 64 percent. (Still, in the 19th century, that same rate averaged to under 60 percent.)

Of course, many of our recent “voluntary retirees” may have seen the writing on the wall, preferring to bow out with more dignity than an electoral trouncing would allow.

Credit this to an exceptional frisson amongst the voting public, born of anger and disgust at the political class’s habitual over-spending and general foolishness.

It remains to be seen whether this acuity of citizen focus can alone spur continued turnover and real change. It seems unlikely, which is why I’ve long supported term limits.

But, whatever the source, real change is necessary. And the current turnover, welcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture political challengers video

Video of the Week: Attack Ads, Circa 1800

Every election you hear the same old mantra: Declining civility and nasty campaigning. And it’s getting worse!

Well, if you have some knowledge of history . . .

You might find a lot of interesting stuff from the video source, Reason TV.

Categories
political challengers term limits

The Goblins of November

Which is scarier, Halloween or the Tuesday after?

Silly question. Of course it’s Tuesday. Election Day.

The ghouls and goblins of Halloween are all dress-up; kids enjoying some play on the dark side, the better to go back into the light and . . . eat candy.

The ghouls and goblins of Election Day are dressed up, too. But the pretend element is that incumbent politicians aren’t the problem. (Or, as the contest heats up, that it’s some other incumbent’s fault.)

It’s all trick and no net treat, though, when their idea of “the good” incorporates all sorts of scams and schemes to take from some to give to others. Or better yet, to promise to give something later . . . long after they’ve retired. Then, those good intentions develop horns and tails and sulfuric stench.

It’s highly likely that U.S. Congress’s majority Democrats will receive many thwacks from challenging Republicans. This is to the good not because Republicans have proven themselves stalwart foes of politics-as-usual, but only because the devils I don’t know (the challengers) ought to be better than the devils we do know (the incumbents).

Why? The incumbents have learned the devil’s trade. The challengers have not necessarily succumbed to the temptations of that deviltry.

Yet.

Term limits, which cut down the time politicians spend in the path of temptation, might help purge some of the evil.

Unfortunately, term limits aren’t on most ballots next Tuesday. Only in Oklahoma.

Happy Halloween.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.