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.

Watching the RNC

Last week's column in The Freeport Focus is presented here for a "fair and balanced" account of the other national convention.

Watching the RNC

Or Being Embedded with C-SPAN

By

Roland Tolliver


“Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.” --Every speaker at the RNC after their introductions.

Our media maverick, Al Bebach, spent the last week embedded with C-SPAN, otherwise known as Continuous Sarah Palin Action News, this past week during the Republican National Convention. He is a little blurry-eyed after his back-to-back convention attack, but he was willing to share his thoughts with us again this week. (If you missed last week’s convention coverage, it may be viewed at http://pretzelcity.blogspot.com/).

Roland: Tell me, Al, how was this convention compared to the DNC in Denver?

Al Bebach (AB): I didn’t see as many celebrities. There was Pat Boone and Jon Voight, but no Arnold or Clint. Nothing like the DNC with Oprah, P. Diddy, or a host of Hollywood’s biggest stars, who were all clamoring to touch the hem of Barack Obama’s garment.

Roland: How was the mood of this convention?

AB: Much more businesslike for the first couple of days. There was a rush of enthusiasm for Wednesday night, though. Everyone was waiting for the main speech of the convention.

Roland: Do you mean Mike Huckabee’s or Fred Thompson’s?

AB: No, you silly goof. I’m talking about Sarah “Barracuda” Palin.

Roland: What did she have to say to the adoring crowd?

AB: I didn’t follow the words at first, so I had to watch it a second time on You Tube.

Roland: Why didn’t you watch her speech the first time?

AB: Because I spent the entire time just watching her. She’s like Lois Lane, I was just waiting for her to take off her glasses and let down her hair. If Obama should be on GQ, Sarah will end up on Vanity Fair or something like that. McCain looked like a doting grandfather when they were on stage together.

Roland: What about the content of the speeches, though. Any unusual revelations like you noticed last week?

AB: Let’s see. There was Mike Huckabee who told a long story about students not having desks. I guess that was relevant for children’s left behinds.

Roland: I believe that is “No Child Left Behind” and he was talking about our veterans’ earning the right for us to have a free education.

AB: You don’t really know Huckabee’s sense of humor, do you? Then Fred Thompson spoke of alligators and swamps. I think he was referring to King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Probably some off-handed reference to Sarah Palin’s dad, Michael, and his friends from Monty Python. I loved the Knights who say “Ni!” “Bring me a shrubbery!”

Roland: Michael Palin is British and is not Sarah’s dad. That would be funny, though, come to think of it. How did her speech go over?

AB: She was definitely the star of the convention. I don’t know that she laid any new policy information on the line, but she laid into the media and told us she did say no thanks to Simon and Garfunkel.

Roland: Simon and Garfunkel?

AB: Sure, she said, “Thanks, but no thanks for the Bridge Over Troubled Waters.”
Roland: That was the Bridge to Nowhere and she did support it at first when Senator “I’ll Fight My Indictment” Ted Stevens tried to get the appropriations for his state.

AB: Whatever. She was dynamic, eloquent and did I say, good looking?

Roland: Yes, you did, but what does that have to do with anything? If she was a man, you wouldn’t even bring it up, would you?

AB: You obviously missed last week’s column. Barack is the Rock Star and Sarah is now the Rock Goddess, though she wouldn’t like that title. You know? No false gods before me and all that. She made the main speaker seem shaky and unsure of himself by comparison.

Roland: You mean, Sarah Palin.

AB: No, Rudy Giuliani.

Roland: I was surprised that it took him almost to the end of his speech to mention 9/11. I realize that this week mark’s the anniversary of that most tragic day in American history, but surely he must have done something besides that in his life.

AB: You mean besides enjoying finding attractive women to marry?

Roland: Yes, besides that. What about the women who spoke other than Sarah Palin? Cindy McCain and Laura Bush were there, weren’t they?

AB: Yes. Cindy McCain had on an outfit complete with full accoutrements to the cost of over $300,000. Laura Bush ensemble was a mere $4000 or so.

Roland: Does that mean anything?

AB: The differences should tell you something. One comes from money and isn’t afraid to let it be known, no matter how many houses they have. The other one has served her country admirably and would probably like to return to a home on the range.

Roland: That brings us to the final night and the most anticipated event of the night.

AB: Obama being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly?

Roland: Ha! Ha! No, I’m talking about Senator McCain’s acceptance speech. Did he hit a “home run”?

AB: Let’s just say that he has served his country and that age shouldn’t matter as much as the American media makes it out to be of significance. On the other hand, he should probably be like most successful mates in a relationship and let Sarah do the talking from now on.

Roland: Thanks, Al. I can’t wait to hear your input over the next sixty days leading up to the election.

AB: It has felt like sixty months since this year’s election process started. I’m going to bed and hibernate until Christmas. Wake me when it’s all over.

Roland Tolliver is a freelance writer and contributor to The Freeport Focus and Village Voices. You may read additional writings and view photos from the Sesquicentennial celebrations at http://www.pretzelcity.blogspot.com/.

The Quiet Morning Sky

I lay in bed yesterday morning and heard the planes flying overhead. There is a distinct pattern of flight from points west to O'Hare Airport that goes directly over Freeport around 6:00 a.m.. I could set my alarm to the early morning drone of the jets. Yesterday marked the seventh anniversary of the day the jets quit flying for several ominously eerie days. The nation was at a standstill while the impact of the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 were felt throughout our country and the world. It was the day the skies stood still.

All of the articles about "Where were you?" have been written to commemorate the date. The politicians put away their animosities for a one day truce. The memorials were held and the names of the victims were read and the bells tolled for those who gave their lives that day. Taps were played from the roof of the Pentagon and the sad refrains from the bagpipes echoed through the courtyard.

Local ceremonies were held throughout the country and law enforcement officers and fire department personnel were asked for their views on the tragedy and how it has affected our nation over the past seven years. Schools held moments of silence or stood at attention for "Taps" or the national anthem. Some said prayers for the victims and their families. Others went about their day, as if it were just another day.

I looked at the sky and wondered how something like that could happen and could it or would it happen again? Are there enough safety precautions now at our nation's airports, rail stations, and bus terminals? How much difference does it make if we take our shoes off or are strip-searched? Do we feel safer for ourselves and for our children? How much lip service has been given and how much actual action to ensure our country's protection has been taken?

There are plenty of reasons to question the war in Iraq and how it actually has affected the fact that there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. There were legitimate reasons to go to Afghanistan and yet, Osama Bin Laden has still not been located. We've lost more soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq than died on 9/11 and we wonder to what end.

We are coming to an election and the "change" that is being touted is not really about true change in the way things are done, but in a change of the face of leadership. Will it matter much whether it is McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden if there is no change in the Congress? Once either one gets into office, the first term is about not screwing up too badly in the first two years, so that the next two years can be spent trying to stay in office with the next election.

Whether lipstick on a pig is an issue or who is the real agent of change really matters are left to public opinion, but it is really about having a vision for our country and the ability to convey that message to the citizens who are the ones whose lives are affected. Take away the TelePrompters and you still have human beings with doubts, human faults, and an occasional idea that takes us beyond the rhetoric and into a real sense of desire to accomplish something. Bring it to the level of everyday citizens and they might even find that their message resonates into community action.

We remember. We live. We go on. We move on. And in another year, we'll remember again. We should remember each and every day, though, about the days the skies stood still and our lives were changed. Forever.

Guitar Hero or Rock Star: The Candidates' Version

The great debate is on. I was no where near being in the money in my GOP vice-presidential nominees. I, along with millions of other Americans, said, "Who?" when her name was being bantered about prior to the official announcement. Then I heard her speak at the nomination announcement and along with millions more, said, "Wow!" I really don't know much about her policies besides what has been written by the medial or has been presented by some of the "talking heads" but I couldn't help but be impressed by the strength of her speech. I know that a speech does not make a candidate, but no one can deny that eloquence of speech has not helped Obama. There is always more to a candidate than their comfort behind a microphone or in front of an audience. Of course, there is often less than meet's the eye as well once the teleprompter is no longer on.

There are those that can make a book come alive with the spoken word, but who cannot utter an intelligent thought on their own. There are others that are better when thinking on their feet or persuading people to believe in them or their ideals. Much in this way the two party's tickets are much alike, though in reverse order. Senator Obama's speaking ability is a given, when he is reading from a prepared text, so far, Governor Palin has proven just as adept in this format. If you've ever had the chance to see John McCain in an informal setting, he can be charming and disarmingly humorous and a quick thinker. Joe Biden, while long-winded and often evasive with his rhetoric, nonetheless, does better in a debate-style setting, than in front of a group of people. Witness the dryness of McCain's and Biden's speeches at the RNC and DNC respectively. Palin and Obama each drew around 40 million viewers for their speeches and clearly stirred up their respective audiences and core constituents.

How will all of this play out on the national stage? What will the debates prove? None of the candidates have been specific about policies. None of them have done much more than tout promises that will be all but impossible to implement or to pay for. None of them have the ability to circumvent a congress that is hellbent on maintaining their levels of power at whatever cost to the American public and Jill or John Q. Taxpayer.

All of the "I wills" in the world do not translate into effective action. None of the "crossing the aisles" will amount to anything if the other party is not willing to sacrifice or commit themselves to a global vision of a nation in need of healing. The infomecials known as the conventions are good show, but lacking in substance. Gentlemen and lady, state your positions!