The following is the column that appeared in The Journal-Standard on Christmas Day, 2006. The letter to Santa from Governor Blagojevich was left out of the online and printed editions, as I was told that the editor didn't feel it was appropriate at the time because "no charges" had been filed against the governor. The editor is long gone, as is the subsequent one and many of the columnists, freelance writers and writers from that Christmas Day two years ago. I guess there is no room for political insight or prognostication in certain publications.
Dear Santa
by
Roland Tolliver
For somehow, not only at Christmas, but all the long year through, the joy that you give to others is the joy that comes back to you. —John Greenleaf Whittier
Merry Christmas Morning to You!
I have intercepted some letters that were directed to Santa, but due to the public figures involved in writing these, the letters were to be made available to all. So, here is a sampling...
Dear Santa Dude,
I always, like, loved to hear that Dorothy sing in "The Wizard of Oz," but my favorite character was that Scarecrow guy. It may be because I could, like, relate to him. So, Santa, could you, like, um, bring me a brain for Christmas?
Love,
Britney Spears
Dear Britney,
Why don’t you wait outside with Paris, Nicole, and Lindsay tonight? I’ll see if I can get a four-for-one special. Like, totally, cool, eh!
Love,
Santa Dude
Dear Santa,
I seem to have lost my way. I never should have listened to my friend Tony Rezko. It seems that I put my own power and greed ahead of the people that I was elected to serve. I was going to ask for forgiveness or maybe some way of making restitution, but what I really want is some more hair gel. Thanks.
Yours in Power,
Governor Rod
Dear Governor Rod,
I think that there are quite a few things you could use before I stuff your stocking with hair products. Maybe I could provide you with common sense, a calculator that tells you the real numbers and damage you are doing to your state, and what it means to raid the working people’s hard-earned money. Instead, I’ll just hold off the feds and that indictment for a while longer. Okay?
Wishing I Were the Prosecutor,
Santa
Dear Santa,
I really need your help. I have been in office for six years and now I’m really at an all-time low. The voters chose Democrats to lead both the Senate and the House of Representatives. My poll numbers are slipping lower than Jessica Simpson’s IQ and now Rummy has left me. Would you please give me a clue as to how we can end this mess in Iraq? Thank you.
Respectfully,
President George W. Bush
Dear Mr. President,
There are some things that even Santa has a hard time getting someone for Christmas. I hope that Mr. Gates (not Bill, but the other one, Robert) will aid you in this endeavor. Let’s face it, though, you can’t keep hiding your head in the sand. Our men and women deserve to know what the real plan is. They’re the ones stuck every day in the sands of Iraq. Mrs. Claus and I would like to see them come home safely. Our best to Laura and the twins. By the way, have they been naughty or nice this year?
Wondering Where the Answers Are,
Santa
Dear Mr. Claus,
Perhaps you have heard of me. I have written two best selling books. They loved me in New Hampshire and even in New York. I am gaining momentum with a capital "MO"! I am eloquent, suave and debonair with a flair for the spoken language. I may have made a mistake in doing real estate business with a Mr. Anthony Rezko, but I got a great deal on my mansion. Mr. Claus, sir, what I am most in need of, however, is having done something of substance in my political career, besides, become the golden child of the Democratic Party. Will you help me?
I Could Be Great in ‘08,
Senator Barack Obama
Dear Mr. Obama,
Thank you for writing. The elves have been very busy this year building platforms. Perhaps, they could help you when they’re done. It would be good to have a foundation of substance on which to build your campaign. Let’s see, you did try to make amends with Senator McCain from Arizona and you once visited that nice little town of Freeport in northwest Illinois. And you... and you... well, good luck on that, sir. I wish you the best in your quest, but be wary of Illinois politics. It not only makes for strange bedfellows, but they can turn on their own in a hurry. Say hi to Hillary if she’s still speaking to you.
In a Non-Partisan Way,
Santa
That’s all the space we have folks. May you and your families have a very Merry and Blessed Christmas Day! Till next year....
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Watching the DNC
Watching the DNC
Or How to OD on the Democratic National Commercial
By
Roland Tolliver
“Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much.” --Every Speaker featured on Primetime Television’s version of the long infomercial known as the DNC.
We put our friend and pundit in front of C-Span for four straight days to get his interpretation of the Democratic National Convention this past week. Our man of the hour, the pugnacious prognosticator of the press, Al Bebach, spent considerable time not only deciphering the double-speak and diatribe (don’t worry, in all fairness, he’ll report on the Republican National Commercial, er, Convention, if it is held next week), but reading “between the lines” or tells you what was not said, or at least omitted from the highlight reels.
AB: Should I start with the big speech?
Me: You mean, Senator Obama’s?
AB: No, you silly man. I meant the one by the woman in the tangerine travelling pant suit.
Me: Sure. Go ahead. What did she say?
AB: It wasn’t what she said. It was what she left out. “I’m here tonight as a proud mother, a proud Democrat … as a proud senator from New York … a proud American … and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”
Me: So. What’s the problem?
AB: Don’t you think it was a little, well, rude of her not to mention being a proud wife? Bill is sitting there mouthing his little, “I love yous” and she doesn’t even acknowledge him.
Me: Maybe she was getting back at him for that Monica Lewinsky thing in the White House?
AB: Perhaps, but that had to be embarrassing for the former President. Then she brings up her support of Senator John McCain when she said, “Know the way. Know the how. Know McCain!” and then the whole crowd started shouting, “Know McCain!” I mean, wasn’t she at the DNC?
Me: I think she said, “No way. No how. No McCain.”
AB: That’s what you think. I had a chance to see a draft of the speech and I think she was subliminally trying to support McCain. She plans on taking her 18 million voters with her and going home to … now where did she say she’s from? New York, Illinois, Arkansas, Washington, D.C.?
Me: What else do you have?
AB: My favorite line was about the most important job being taking care of our families and to “help every child live up to his or her God-given potential … ”
Me: That sounds like a good idea to me.
AB: The most important line must have been cut from the telecast, though.
Me: And that was …?
AB: … except the ones that we never want to give the chance to be born … Every human life deserves a chance to reach his or her potential, but there is no chance if there is no birth. What is God-given about that?
Me: I see your point. How about any of the others? What about Joe Biden?
AB: Let’s see. “Barack and I took very different journeys to this very destination, but we share a common story …” What he left out was that he’s shared a common story with others before.
Me: What do you mean?
AB: Don’t you recall how he used the story of British Labor Party Leader, Neil Kinnock, even plagiarizing his words as his own during a speech at the Iowa State Fair during the 1988 presidential campaign? He did the same thing when he was in college, but it was only “stressless scholarship” then, whatever that means?!
Me: So, he’s told a few lies. That shouldn’t disqualify him as a politician.
AB: Touché, sir. Touché! Then there was his line “My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families.” He, like Hillary, keeps leaving out the caveat, except the family members that don’t get a chance to live in the first place.
Me: I’m getting the impression that you are pro-life, Mr. Bebach.
AB: Well, Mr. Biden and the rest of the speakers are definitely on the opposite side of the fence on that subject.
Me: That is a major part of the Democratic platform. It does seem to go against the grain of the faith that Mr. Biden was alluding to, doesn’t it? How about Bill Clinton’s speech? Any insights?
AB: I think he said it all pretty much in his second sentence, “Now, in the end, my candidate didn’t win.”
Me: I didn’t think it was the end, but isn’t it the beginning of the final stage of this race?
AB: Yeah, of course. What was in his mind’s teleprompter went something like, ‘Now I don’t get to go back to the White House. Man, I had some fun there, but if Obama doesn’t win the general election, then McCain will be really old, and Hillary can run again and … why did I get the primary process changed … why did we let Barack Obama speak at the DNC four years ago? Why? Why? Why? … and …’
Me: And, what?
AB: I don’t know. He went on so long that I fell asleep and when I woke up there was a sustained applause when I think he said something about concluding his speech.
Me: And then there was the spectacle of the final night and the historic nomination of this country’s first African-American for a major party candidate for President.
AB: Yes, there was. And it was a truly momentous occasion in our country’s history. But then he, like Hillary, managed to commend a variety of occupations, but with a plan for national health care, both failed to mention the people who will be providing this health care.
Me: The clinics at Wal Marts and Walgreens?
AB: No, though it may come to that. I’m talking about doctors. I guess they don’t fall into the category of “ordinary men and women” who “found the courage to keep it (the American dream) alive.”
Me: I suppose it is just reward enough to keep people alive.
AB: Yeah, I’m sure that’ll fit nicely on a placard. I have to admit that Senator Obama has a way with words, but he sure uses the words “I will” a lot. He seems to forget about a Congress that has to be dealt with, though he’s only actually spent about 150 days there since he was elected as an Illinois state senator, and there is the issue of actually winning the election first. Then he keeps referring to shows like “Eight is Enough.” I wonder if Dick Van Patten will have a place in Obama’s cabinet?
Me: I’m exhausted just listening to you. How did you stay awake to see all of those speeches?
AB: It was the politicians and speakers abilities to keep offering everyone in America so much hype!
Me: I think they were saying, “hope.”
AB: You don’t know much about politics, do you?
Dr. Roland Tolliver is a contributing writer for the Freeport Focus.
Or How to OD on the Democratic National Commercial
By
Roland Tolliver
“Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all very, very much.” --Every Speaker featured on Primetime Television’s version of the long infomercial known as the DNC.
We put our friend and pundit in front of C-Span for four straight days to get his interpretation of the Democratic National Convention this past week. Our man of the hour, the pugnacious prognosticator of the press, Al Bebach, spent considerable time not only deciphering the double-speak and diatribe (don’t worry, in all fairness, he’ll report on the Republican National Commercial, er, Convention, if it is held next week), but reading “between the lines” or tells you what was not said, or at least omitted from the highlight reels.
AB: Should I start with the big speech?
Me: You mean, Senator Obama’s?
AB: No, you silly man. I meant the one by the woman in the tangerine travelling pant suit.
Me: Sure. Go ahead. What did she say?
AB: It wasn’t what she said. It was what she left out. “I’m here tonight as a proud mother, a proud Democrat … as a proud senator from New York … a proud American … and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.”
Me: So. What’s the problem?
AB: Don’t you think it was a little, well, rude of her not to mention being a proud wife? Bill is sitting there mouthing his little, “I love yous” and she doesn’t even acknowledge him.
Me: Maybe she was getting back at him for that Monica Lewinsky thing in the White House?
AB: Perhaps, but that had to be embarrassing for the former President. Then she brings up her support of Senator John McCain when she said, “Know the way. Know the how. Know McCain!” and then the whole crowd started shouting, “Know McCain!” I mean, wasn’t she at the DNC?
Me: I think she said, “No way. No how. No McCain.”
AB: That’s what you think. I had a chance to see a draft of the speech and I think she was subliminally trying to support McCain. She plans on taking her 18 million voters with her and going home to … now where did she say she’s from? New York, Illinois, Arkansas, Washington, D.C.?
Me: What else do you have?
AB: My favorite line was about the most important job being taking care of our families and to “help every child live up to his or her God-given potential … ”
Me: That sounds like a good idea to me.
AB: The most important line must have been cut from the telecast, though.
Me: And that was …?
AB: … except the ones that we never want to give the chance to be born … Every human life deserves a chance to reach his or her potential, but there is no chance if there is no birth. What is God-given about that?
Me: I see your point. How about any of the others? What about Joe Biden?
AB: Let’s see. “Barack and I took very different journeys to this very destination, but we share a common story …” What he left out was that he’s shared a common story with others before.
Me: What do you mean?
AB: Don’t you recall how he used the story of British Labor Party Leader, Neil Kinnock, even plagiarizing his words as his own during a speech at the Iowa State Fair during the 1988 presidential campaign? He did the same thing when he was in college, but it was only “stressless scholarship” then, whatever that means?!
Me: So, he’s told a few lies. That shouldn’t disqualify him as a politician.
AB: Touché, sir. Touché! Then there was his line “My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families.” He, like Hillary, keeps leaving out the caveat, except the family members that don’t get a chance to live in the first place.
Me: I’m getting the impression that you are pro-life, Mr. Bebach.
AB: Well, Mr. Biden and the rest of the speakers are definitely on the opposite side of the fence on that subject.
Me: That is a major part of the Democratic platform. It does seem to go against the grain of the faith that Mr. Biden was alluding to, doesn’t it? How about Bill Clinton’s speech? Any insights?
AB: I think he said it all pretty much in his second sentence, “Now, in the end, my candidate didn’t win.”
Me: I didn’t think it was the end, but isn’t it the beginning of the final stage of this race?
AB: Yeah, of course. What was in his mind’s teleprompter went something like, ‘Now I don’t get to go back to the White House. Man, I had some fun there, but if Obama doesn’t win the general election, then McCain will be really old, and Hillary can run again and … why did I get the primary process changed … why did we let Barack Obama speak at the DNC four years ago? Why? Why? Why? … and …’
Me: And, what?
AB: I don’t know. He went on so long that I fell asleep and when I woke up there was a sustained applause when I think he said something about concluding his speech.
Me: And then there was the spectacle of the final night and the historic nomination of this country’s first African-American for a major party candidate for President.
AB: Yes, there was. And it was a truly momentous occasion in our country’s history. But then he, like Hillary, managed to commend a variety of occupations, but with a plan for national health care, both failed to mention the people who will be providing this health care.
Me: The clinics at Wal Marts and Walgreens?
AB: No, though it may come to that. I’m talking about doctors. I guess they don’t fall into the category of “ordinary men and women” who “found the courage to keep it (the American dream) alive.”
Me: I suppose it is just reward enough to keep people alive.
AB: Yeah, I’m sure that’ll fit nicely on a placard. I have to admit that Senator Obama has a way with words, but he sure uses the words “I will” a lot. He seems to forget about a Congress that has to be dealt with, though he’s only actually spent about 150 days there since he was elected as an Illinois state senator, and there is the issue of actually winning the election first. Then he keeps referring to shows like “Eight is Enough.” I wonder if Dick Van Patten will have a place in Obama’s cabinet?
Me: I’m exhausted just listening to you. How did you stay awake to see all of those speeches?
AB: It was the politicians and speakers abilities to keep offering everyone in America so much hype!
Me: I think they were saying, “hope.”
AB: You don’t know much about politics, do you?
Dr. Roland Tolliver is a contributing writer for the Freeport Focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)