Category Archives: Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

Here we are, living in the United States, apparently one of the most powerful and free nations on earth, about to pick the person who is going to lead the Executive Branch of the national government in a time of uncertainty and crisis. You’d think such times would merit a serious, and careful campaign by all sides, as people are asked to make a decision that will have significant impact both now, and in the future.
And here’s the debate so far, and what we can look forward to, if history, and the personalities involved, are any indication of what we can expect to hear every morning on the news:
PING!: President Bush said today that Sen. John Kerry was a flake, a Communist, and wants to reduce the military to a kazoo band and a pack of Cub Scouts with slingshots.
PONG!: Sen. John Kerry, responded to the latest attack ad campaign by calling Bush the worst president since Hoover, and labeled his poor grammar “appalling in time of world crisis.”
PING!: A nasty surrogate of President Bush, in a meth-induced right wing frenzy, likened Kerry to Stalin and Lenin, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone not voting for the President was a non-American hippie freak. The Bush campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.
PONG!: A nasty surrogate of Sen. Kerry , in a similar frenzy, likened Bush to Hitler and Satan’s Spawn, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone voting for the President was a non-American nazi freak. The Kerry campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.
Ok, perhaps I’ve exaggerated. A little.
However, this is what we can expect, and what we’re getting already, now that the we’ve got our nominee on the Democratic side, and the vitriol can begin. Already President Bush is putting out some of the most misleading ads and attacks, backed up by the money he’s got. Sen. Kerry is responding, as he promised (“Bring it on!” – remember that?) but doesn’t have the money to mount a full response, so he has to spend time on the trail speaking up. Every day some little droid writes up the day’s talking points/vitriolic rhetoric, with the nastier ones saved for surrogates, and someone has a response.
Now, I’m not one of those people who whines “negative campaigning” for the sake of saying “ooh it’s too mean, boo hoo” and then goes home to watch The Apprentice, Survivor, Big Brother, or any one of a number of nastier things on TV or the movies.
There’s nothing negative about bringing up an opponent’s past and asking for a closer examination. For example if someone says he or she is a strong conservative family values candidate, but in their own life gambles excessively and cheats on their spouse, it’s not slander to point this fact out. Armed with this knowledge, people can decide if it’s relevant or not. It isn’t pleasant to talk about, and disclosing such information isn’t meant to be happy, but facts in context are relevant and should be discussed. There are dozens of other scenarios, this is but one.
Unfortunately, the kind of name calling , nasty insinuations, the “might be” slur, and the the “you’re unpatriotic if you don’t vote our way” crap I can’t stand are the standard so far, and it is going to get old very fast.
The news media is going to get bored and whip out a custom copy of Mad Libs to write their stories. We won’t really get an accounting from either candidate on their past, good and bad, that would tell us whether they should be in the White House. We deserve better and it’s high time for Americans of all political stripes to demand better from their party’s standard bearer.
Also if Sen. Kerry hopes to win this election, he can’t allow himself to play a standard point-counterpoint, hit-for-hit campaign, and allow the landscape to be defined by a bunch of bogus soundbites concocted by Karl Rove. He will never have the money to match Bush and Rove dollar for dollar to buy the ads needed, and the soundbite “noise” will get in the way of talking to voters about what he’ll do if he is elected in 2004.
Now I’m not suggesting that Kerry and his campaign aren’t good at what they do – they are great! – but what I am suggesting is that they’re going to have to think out of the box to get around the wall of bullshit and money the Bush team is going to have at their disposal (not to mention he is an incumbent with all the power that entails!)
I’ll admit – I’ve never run a presidential campaign before and I’m sure that if Robert Shrum were to read this he’d call me up and tell me just how full of crap I am. Indeed. After all how many presidents did I elect all by myself? Zero. But I also know that when you’re up against the overwhelming odds of a poweful incumbent who has more money in his change purse than you do in your bank account, you will lose if you play their game.
That’s why you need to pick up your money and go to another table and pick a game you have a chance instead. If I’m losing at roulette, I leave with my pocket change and go play craps instead where I have half a chance (although some would argue that the way I play craps I have NO chance but that’s another story…)
Kerry needs to leave the table with his money and play another game. Pole vault over Bush’s pompous and hollow rhetoric with something that gets people excited, that makes them laugh, but also make them think. Take people by surprise and make them want to stand out in the rain on election day getting those extra voters out. People with considerably less than Kerry, both politically and personally, have pulled off such wins and he can do it too.
Here’s a few past campaigns to take a look at and consider. Now as always, keep in mind that copying past advertising word-for-word never works – we’ve seen that done to death in both politics and in commercial advertising. What does work is the observation of how others thought outside conventional boundaries, and then consider how one might do so themselves successfully. Enjoy the history lesson!
A trip via the Wayback Machine finds us with some case studies. You can find out more at your local library, or online at Google.com
1990: Paul Wellstone vs. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, MN: In 1990, a relatively unknown college professor, Paul Wellstone, got the nod to run against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz, who had enormous financial and political resources at his disposal. Given no chance to win by the Democratic Establishment in Washington, and little hope by even his own supporters (at first), Wellstone, it seemed was doomed to be a footnote to history.
Wellstone’s team realized this quickly and rather than wallow in self-pity or throw up a few scattershot humdrum ads, they instead played off a pop culture phenomena of the time to launch a very memorable ad campaign. A new film, Roger and Me had been released to wide acclaim, and a humorous 2 minute ad starring Wellstone in “Looking for Rudy”, mimicking Moore’s film, was made.
The ad only ran a few times – but the humor combined with constant replays on national television news programs, began an effective redefinition of the race. Without a lot of money what little message out there had to be memorable – and it worked. Combined with Wellstone’s humor and campaign organization, he ended up being the only Democratic challenger to win a US Senate seat that year. Wellstone’s media consultant would go on to make the ads that helped Gov. Jesse Ventura win election in 1998.
1992: Russ Feingold vs. Sen. Bob Kasten, WI: Two years later, a similar race evolved between a little-known state legislator, Russ Feingold and incumbent Bob Kasten, another powerful incumbent with a ton of money. Again, up against such odds, Feingold ran an ad campaign played up his commitment to the voters of Wisconsin (painted on his garage door, no less) and dismissed the usual negative blather with an entertaining ad putting such nonsense in the context of Elvis sightings in the National Enquirer.
These and other informative and unusual ads communicated his platform of economic and political reform far better than if he ran conventional tit-for-tat advertising responding to each nasty missive from the incumbent. He continues to serve in the US Senate today.
1994: Ron Sims vs. Sen. Slade Gorton, WA: Ron Sims, an energetic and thoughtful Seattle politician, challenged longtime Washington politician Slade Gorton in what would be an uphill battle similar to Wellstone and Feingold’s races in previous years. Sims was a dynamic speaker with a powerful life story, coupled with a knowledge of public policy rarely matched in state politics. Sims’ challenge was bold, and had the potential to be another upset win.
Unfortunately, his campaign fell short, primarily because he was hit relentlessly with advertising attacking his record, much of it distorted and untrue. Outspent by the incumbent, Sims did not have the resources to run the ads needed to counter the charges.
His advisors elected to engage in a traditional “ping-pong” style combination of attacks, responses and scattered positive pieces. Without the money needed to fund such a campaign effectively, much of Sims’ message was lost amidst the crush of Republican advertising that returned control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in 50 years.
To be fair, Sims was the only challenger to do reasonably well in a year when many well-funded people lost (including House Speaker Tom Foley), and it may have been impossible for him to win no matter what he did And, it is not as if his advisors were incompetent – they were and continue to be, some of the best in the business. However, their bid was a longshot to begin with, and they had nothing to lose by trying something a little more “out there.”
It’s not unlike fighting the British in the Revolution. Do you march around in red coats in a straight (and much shorter) line like the British do, or do you wear darker clothing and hide behind trees and outwit your opponent?
Sims went on to win two terms as King County Executive, the second most powerful position in Washington politics. He is now running for Governor this year.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Memorandum
To: Ralph “Nadering Nabob of Negativism” Nader
From: Schädelmann.com
Date: Right Now
Subject: Time To Take A Blowtorch and a Pair of Pliers To Your Sorry Ass
Mr. Nader, it’s come to my attention you have chosen to run for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2004. That’s great. I am sure you’re full of all kinds of bile and vinegar, and have plenty of insult-laden attacks on Democrats worthy of a Rove. Woo hoo.
You still have the nerve to blather you were “right” in 2000. Even your past supporters have told you not to run, and rational people agree that your basic thesis – that electing Gore or Bush would make no difference – has been blown to smithereens by four years of war, corruption, and corporate rule under President Bush. If you honestly think we’d be in the same situation today with a President Gore, you’re either insane or stupid. Pick one.
Don’t get me wrong. If you want to run again, that’s fine with me. I’m all for free speech and if you want to sound like the egomaniacal fool that you are, go forth and rant. The 1st Amendment still protects stupid speech (unless you’re Justin Timberlake…but I digress) and the Republic is not threatened by you this time, despite what some may think.
However, I’m going to exercise my free speech rights and demand you be held accountable for your shadowy past and answer for your missteps just as we should with Sen. John Kerry and President Bush. To paraphrase a popular film by Mr. Tarantino – it’s time to take a blowtorch and a pair of pliers to your ass. You may have gotten a free pass from the corporate-think Washington Insiders at the DNC, but no more. Since they seem to have an almost congenital inability to put up a fight, I’m sparking up the torch right now.
I’ve read and heard your negative, angry, bitter ranting, aiming your hatred at people like Gov. Howard Dean, who built in mere months what your sorry ass has tried to do for decades – build a national movement organized for change based on small donations raised through honest means. I’ve heard you say a lot as an activist and a candidate about how money corrupts politics. Interestingly enough, your own fundraising schemes provide little alternative to our current corrupt process.
What’s the Nader way of doing business? Run a record-club like scam on college campuses (AKA the PIRGs) to get the money you need. I’ve seen these operations up close as a former canvasser for CalPIRG, and the shady fundraising, along with some of the lousiest work conditions this side of Bangalore, aren’t pretty. Any job that makes staff pay for office supplies out of their pocket while raking in millions is no progressive workplace.
I’m not the only one who has seen behind the curtain and Ralph, it ain’t pretty. Too many others have come forward as well with their allegations, and your witty rejoinder is to attack them personally, or avoid talking about the issue altogether. Not exactly full and frank disclosure, is it?
It’s bad enough your fundraising operations are so shadowy, but even more troubling is your long record of union busting activities at your various organizations. At a time when organized labor is taking it on the chin from all sides, the last thing we need is an avowed enemy of labor organizing proclaiming them to be the true friend of working men and women in this country. The fact that you still refuse to fully explain how and why you take money and support from hiding behind a web of corporate-style organizations that’s not the case. Mr. Nader, you make activism into a business that profits you and you alone. Worse, you’ve gotten a pass from the media for investing said funds into consumer friendly operations like Halliburton Corporation, no friend of the environment or the taxpayer. Not this time, though. You can’t keep hypocritically demanding the government and other candidates put out a full and frank disclosure of their interests but only do so yourself after years of denial and evasion. Feel that heat? That’s the blowtorch cutting it really close right about now.
The corruption and lying would be bas enough, but your egomaniacal lack of support of up and coming progressive leaders like San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez is really astonishing. When the election was getting close, Mayor Newsom had President Clinton and Vice President Gore helping him out as an up and coming Democrat. When an up and coming Green Party politico needed help, you were AWOL. I’m sure you have some bullshit excuse, but it won’t wash with me, and it certainly doesn’t wash with the Greens.
Filmmaker Michael Moore found time to give support and a contribution to Matt’s campaign – it’s strange that a self-appointed Green Party leader couldn’t do the same. You might have been of some use in an election that mattered – but I think you were too busy screaming insults and witty barbs at the Democrats to pay attention. (That’s the pliers making their appearance about now).
So go forth and run, Ralph. Your bid won’t generate nearly the enthusiasm or the support it did just a few years ago, and the fact is, you won’t be on enough ballots to make much of a difference anyway. Rational and free-thinking people know that this election’s too important to screw around with a self-appointed cult leader whose main contribution to American politics of late has been nasty and rude comments about the personalities of Democratic politicians, while offering no record of accomplishments since you took on the Chevy Corvair.
Not any more. If the Democrats and the media won’t do their job, I will do it for them. I have plenty of pairs of pliers and a good blowtorch, and have no problems using both, and more, this time around Ralph. Consider yourself warned. The Nader-ing Nabob of Negativity ends now and Schädelmann.com plans to lead the charge.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Reading the news this morning I have but one question for President Bush: “Why sir, do you mock me so?”
What do I mean? Well, President Bush has this weird habit of saying things I like that make good headlines. Just when I think perhaps I’ve misjudged, or at least underestimated Our Fearless Leader, I read the fine print and then I feel conned.
For example, Today the White House announced more of President Bush’s ongoing plans for outer space, today stating that America will build a new spacecraft to go to the moon, build a moonbase, and eventually send someone to Mars.
Now, on the surface this sounds really cool. Building a moon-base (albeit years past the Space: 1999 deadline), going to Mars, all that sounds great. But then I read the details – and I realize that this isn’t a manned mission to Mars – this is going to be a Corporate Mission to Mars, with Halliburton, Bechtel and the Gang who pay for the re-election effort in 2004 in charge. Judging by their performance rebuilding a small Third World country (Iraq) I can only imagine how much we’ll be paying for fuel, let alone a whole new spaceship and moonbase.
Plus there are endless questions about how this initiative will get funded, if at all, given the bloated debt a small war in Iraq has already cost us. If it is costing a trillion dollars or more to pay for Iraq, how much money will it cost to occupy the moon? And once the realities of paying for this bold, well written speech come to pass, how likely is it we’re going to actually go to the moon?
Reality sets in. President Bush has burned me again. A great headline, a great talking point, a debatable “issue” that will most likely disappear post-election 2004. If we actually get to the point of funding such an initiative, it’ll be scaled back to the point of ineffectiveness (similar to what President Nixon did in the early 1970s, giving us the half-assed Space Shuttle program in the first place). Corporations will get lots of money for “feasibility studies.” Nothing will happen.
Take another example: President Bush’s “bold” immigration proposal. It sounds great: finally addressing the swiss cheese that is immigration reality in this country, and dealing with the fact that most people who are here illegally are here to work at jobs provided by US employers. It seems to provide some sanity to the debate. And of course Mr. Rove has made sure that Latino voters read all about it.
Then the fine print: There really is no plan – just an outline with many loopholes and open ended pieces which if altered by Congress or the President can take what at first glance is a reasonable proposal, and distort it into something really nasty, or unworkable.
Of course, that’s not anyone’s concern today – we have Mr. Rove’s soundbites to “debate” as “issues” and once the election is over, we can toss these bite-sized factoids out the window, and President Bush can do whatever he feels like, free of any worry about the fallout.
Especially irritating is the ultimate mission of such an initiative – to “link up U.S. employers with willing foreign workers” – aka cheap workers – not the well-being of said individuals, or the well-being of states who have to contend with a large foreign population such as California or Texas. It’s more about making sure no one gets carted off to jail for hiring illegal immigrants and making sure wages are low for everyone (including U.S. Citizens), not about ensuring a workable situation for the people involved.
It’s almost a bait-and-switch, but the switch is so nebulous, and so hard to pin on the actual President himself, it’s easy for him to deny there was a switch in the first place – just “unforeseen new obstacles.” It’s a neat trick, something I would have never thought Bush was smart enough to pull off, but this more of Rove’s fingerprints than Bush or Bush the Elder’s.
The list goes on and on. Bush supports hydrogen fuels for future use by the US – great! We can finally tell the oil companies and the OPEC nations to go to hell and save what’s left of the environment with something cheap and clean. Then I read it’s to be derived from petroleum products, not sea water or other sources, thus defeating the purpose and advantage o such a plan. Fooled again.
The big one of course was that whole Iraq war thing we had sometime last year. The headline was great – save the world from WMDs and make the world safe for democracy at home and abroad. Sounds great – then you find out it’s more about securing oil reserves and spending money on donors to the Presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004.
Is it even physically possible for this President to propose a policy that’s altruistic, for the people, and not connected to a future benefit for Halliburton, et al? Hmm.
And people wonder why Howard Dean speaks so passionately about why we need to replace the president, and wonder how his supporters can be so irritated at the president…I only wonder why it is more Washington Democrats and “Democratic” political insiders don’t.
PS: Friday’s column will be posted late as I’ll be on the road to the California Democratic Party convention in San Jose. The kind folks at the CDP have given me a press pass so I plan on writing short updates throughout the weekend as I get access to the Web. If I get access to a digital camera, I’ll be posting pictures as well!
� 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com