Thursday, October 23, 2008

We've Got Questions

The Following Column appeared in The Freeport Focus on September 24, 2008:

We've Got Questions … Do They Have Answers?

By

Roland Tolliver

"In many ways what they've done is created a world for real presidential debates in which the candidates have an opportunity, to a larger audience, not to engage each other, but to give another version of their stump speech." --John Wells



We'll take the opportunity today to play moderator for this week's debate between the presidential candidates for the two major political parties. Our condolences to the obscure Party candidates, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, Tom Millican, and Chuck Baldwin who were not invited, but they invite you to read their position papers on the major issues at their respective web sites, if you can find them. So, let's present the questions and maybe someday we'll be able to hear the "real" answers.

We flipped a coin and Senator Obama called heads. Yes, heads it is and Senator Obama has chosen to receive … the first question.

Moderator: Senator Obama, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to sit here "thisclose" to you. I love your campaign and all that you stand for, but as a non-biased news anchor, I am compelled to ask you some tough questions. Our first question is, "What is it like meeting Oprah? I mean, OMG, she is the one we all strive to be like."

Senator Obama: Well, Mr. Moderator, it is truly an honor to be here and we represent change that you can believe in. I met Oprah at church with Reverend Wright where I never heard anything about hating America or subjected my family to any such vitriol. We would meet for coffee and cookies and talk about shopping at the local Jewel.

Moderator: Thank you, Senator, for your insightful and awe-inspiring answer. What is your favorite cookie, by the way?

Senator Obama: White chocolate with macadamia nuts or a good oatmeal raisin.

Moderator: Thank you for being here, Senator McCain. Let's start with a simple question. "What can you tell us about Charles Keating and the problems that bedeviled the savings and loan industry?"

Senator McCain: Charles Keating. Charles Keating! You ask him about Oprah and cookies and I get Charles Keating. Did you know that I spent five and a half years as a POW in Hanoi? Why didn't you ask him about the $126, 349 he received from Fannie Mae in the past four years? His staff has consulted with the deposed chairman of this pseudo government organization and you ask me about the savings and loan industry? I am the real change agent here.

Moderator: Senator McCain, please just answer the questions. This isn't Fox. Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews wrote the questions, so you know they are fair. Senator Obama, how did you and Michelle meet? You are such a lovely couple and your girls are just adorable.

Senator Obama: Thank you, sir. Michelle and I were working at a Chicago law firm and she was my advisor. We went to see Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" on our first date. I told her she was the 'right thing' for me. Now we're a happy family and this campaign is like our third child.

Moderator: That is so sweet, Senator. Senator McCain, how do you account for not knowing how many houses you have?

Senator McCain: How did he meet Michelle? Did you know that they were married by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who the Senator no longer acknowledges? How many houses do I have? Ask my esteemed colleague how he managed to have real estate shenanigans with Mr. Tony Rezko, who is now in jail awaiting trial for illegal campaign fundraising activities. How much money did he raise for the Senator?

Moderator: Senator McCain, you are not sticking with the topics, you have one more chance. Senator Obama, may I call you Barack?

Senator Obama: Yes, sir, you may.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Presiden…, I mean, Barack. My final question of the night for you is, "If you could meet anyone in the world, who would it be?"

Senator Obama: As I intuited in my book, "Dreams Of My Father", a New York Times bestseller, by the way, I would have liked to have gone to Kenya to meet my father, whom I never really knew. I was raised by my loving grandparents in Kansas and I'm just a small town kid at heart. Otherwise, I'd like to meet Osama bin Laden and say, 'shame on you' for what you did to this country and to tell him that he ruined my name, because people keep confusing his and mine, like Senator Kennedy when he introduced me to the Senate.

Moderator: Yes, a good tongue lashing ought to teach that bin Laden character that we mean business! Mister, I mean, Senator McCain, you have supported the war in Iraq since the beginning, while Senator Obama was against it, even though he wasn't actually in the Senate when it started. How do you justify America not just packing it up and calling it a day?

Senator McCain: He wants bin Laden to apologize? Get real, will you? Just like his friend William Ayers apologized? Ha! What kind of debate is this, anyways? You know darn well that I'll follow that terrorist to the gates of hell. I may be old enough to be my opponent's father, but I'm tougher than nails. I actually had to eat nails once when I was in Viet Nam. I needed the iron from the rust on them.

Moderator: That's enough, Senator McCain. I am going to turn this one over now to the pundits who will tell Americans what they think and how the people should think. They all believe that the typical American voter doesn't know how to think for themselves and they have a lot of airtime to fill. Bye, Barack. Are we still on for coffee tomorrow morning? Give my best to Michelle and the girls.

Heard off camera: Hey, you're still on the air! They'll think that we're supporting one candidate over the other. Turn off your mike, will ya?!

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

House Call for the Spin Doctor

The following column appeared in The Freeport Focus on September 18, 2008.

House Call for the Spin Doctor

By

Roland Tolliver

“The political spin in Washington is revolting, just revolting. It’s a callous political game.”

--Rob Bishop

Two weeks ago I would have given odds that Senator Barack Obama would be the winner of the general presidential election the first Tuesday of November. A few years ago I coined a term, “politainment”, in which the new word was defined as being the melding of politics and entertainment. It has become ubiquitous in our society that the issues are only marginally brought forth, but the perception of a candidate’s personality is front and center when campaigning. This is primarily related to national politics where the “big money” is spent on television advertising and the faces of the candidates’ are ever-present.

When one goes back to 1960 for our general presidential elections there is a distinct pattern of the “better looking” candidate winning the elections. For those of you who recall the first presidential debates in 1960, those who were listening on the radio were sure that Vice-President Richard M. Nixon had won with more salient points, but as we know Senator John F. Kennedy won the general election. Many ceded that his election victory was sealed during that debate, which was also televised. He was photogenic, eloquent with his speech, and was not sweating like a pig (one without lipstick) during the debate. Nixon on the other hand lacked Kennedy’s charm and was sweating like a pig (his makeup was probably running, too). This was the start of the “politainment” period in American politics.

Each subsequent election has seen similar national predilection for the candidate that was perceived to have more camera appeal, though one could argue that Nixon vs. Humphrey or Nixon vs. McGovern was a “visual” wash and it could also account for the “hanging chad” closeness of the Bush vs. Gore election. One could argue those, but I won’t. Suffice it to say that the more photogenic candidates are typically the general election winners for president.

That leads us to this year. Here we have Senator Barack Obama, the thin, handsome, gifted speaker of a candidate, who came out like gangbusters during the primaries, only to almost lose what seemed like an insurmountable lead, but hung on for his party’s nomination. On the other side of the coin, we have the more “seasoned” candidate, Senator John McCain, who seems stauncher, less talented at conveying his message from a podium, and a trifle rougher around the edges.

America is always on the lookout for something new and exciting to come along. We give our television shows a few weeks to “wow” us and if it doesn’t grab enough ratings fast enough, the shows are yanked off of the air. We tend to be the same way about our politicians running for national office. We give them the opportunity to smooth talk us into believing that they are all about change or hope or reform or whatever buzz word is commissioned by the campaign managers and people pulling the candidates’ strings and then we try to decide who we like the best, or who we like the least.

This campaign season, however, has seen a wrench thrown into the boiler. While the one candidate has the GQ looks and suave demeanor going for him, he also has a long-winded, perennial politician without a hint of “change” in his profile as a running mate. The other candidate, who has served his country for fifty-some years, is trying to project an image of change, which alone he could not achieve. He has, however, changed the perspective of the race by asking a fresh new face to the national scene to be his running mate. Where one candidate says he is about change and didn’t back it up when he had a chance to make a distinction with a running mate, instead of highlighting his own shortcomings with his choice, the other made it clear that it is he who will be running the country if he wins, and that the vice-presidential nominee is there to support his leadership.

The fact that she is just as photogenic, if not more so, than the Democratic presidential nominee, is where the wrench comes in. America has not typically had an election season where a presidential candidate has spent so much time and energy in comparing himself to the vice-presidential candidate for the other party. Where experience is lacking, quite frankly in all of the candidates, the quality of leadership should fill in that void. So, the question becomes not who has the experience to lead, but who has the ability to lead, to make the tough decisions, and with whom to consult in order to make those decisions.

The next fifty days or so will be a blur to most of us. We will see political attack ads. We will hear enough spin to make our heads spin and we will in typical fashion most often hear only what we want to hear. The majority of Americans have already decided who they will vote for. The messages that will be sent over the next weeks will be geared at swaying those that are sitting on the proverbial fence. Many will vacillate depending on their personal stance on certain issues and how they perceive that the candidates match up with their positions. Others will see who appears to show the qualities they deem necessary for the leader of our country.

What many will not do, will be to see beyond the political spin, to dig deeper into a candidate’s qualifications and to make an informed decision. Many will look at the candidates’ appearances on the television screen, listen to the pundits, and vote based on the presentation of the packaging of the candidates. The polls will be like watching to see how well a movie is doing at the box office or a television show in the ratings. Many will jump on a bandwagon depending on any given day’s results. This is the type of political entertainment that has been perpetuated since 1960 and now has grown with the advent of 24/7 news coverage into the “politainment” monster that everyone knows, but few want to recognize.

Politics shouldn’t be about which candidate comes across best on television. It should be about who is best suited to lead our country. Alas, that seems to be a forgotten factor.