Santorum Drops Out

Rick Santorum dropped out of his presidential campaign today. He did not give specifics as to why he decided to drop out, but it is most likely due to Romeny's dominance in across the nation. Santorum stated that he will still give any aid to the Republican Party that he can, of course that mean backing Romney when he wins the candidacy.

The issue of money is brought up in this article, which suggests that Santorum has far less money than Romney. Money has become a huge player in presidential elections, maybe too much of a player. The Super PAC, Restore our Future, has backed Romney by putting millions and millions of dollars toward campaign adds that targeted Santorum. The amount of money that is being put into these campaigns is unbelievable. This leads to the question; is the best candidate being chosen by the country or are the supporting factors behind the candidate putting millions behind that candidate in order for that person to win? Most likely the candidate with the most money or the most financial backing will win the elections or campaigns. But if there are two candidates with about the same amount of financial backing, I think that the country would pick the best candidate because they are seeing more of both sides instead of seeing a majority a single sides propaganda.

The question of financial backing is a tricky question, because the more money behind a candidate, the more good publicity they will get, and the more bad publicity their opponents will be get. But if a candidate has a major financial backing from several sources, does that mean that they are the best candidate? Is it fair to say the people and companies supporting the candidate have a lot of money for a reason; they are successful and educated. But, of course, this brings up another issue of the elites running the country. Is that such a bad thing? Maybe the educated and elites should run the country because they are the most educated and knowledgeable. I don't know, it seems to be a issue that will never be completely answered.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hp

Obama's "Secret Agenda" and Your Future

Although there has been much speculation on what people are calling “Obama’s own Etch A Sketch moment”, I find it hard to rap my head around how blown over proportion the President’s comment to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has become. It troubles me how such a seemingly subtle comment as

   

“This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Can inspire such scenes as this:

Which doesn’t surprise me as this quote will undoubtedly be relentlessly used by republicans to criticize the President’s supposed “secret agenda”. In regards to the President’s “secret agenda” Republicans pose this to the public:

“Ready for mandatory military service, disarmament and censored speech? If not, then either prepare yourself for Obama’s New World Order and socialism or start investigating what our America will become.”

And let’s not forget comparing the President to “... Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin.”

Though I may be lacking the vivid imagination that automatically kicked in for some Republicans after hearing President Obama’s comment, I do have the will to analyze this “hot mic” scandal further in detail so as to conclude whether or not media framing is responsible for this nonsense criticism.

What I am referring to as framing is specifically episodic framing. Shanto Iyengar defines episodic framing as “event-oriented reports [that] depicts public issues in terms of concrete instances.” Iyengar notes that, “Television reports that rely on visuals of an event will be more entertaining to an audience, yet provide little useful narrative interpretation to understand the broader issue.”

The sound bite of President Obama’s comment, along with the photo depicting the conversation, seem to be perfect examples of episodic framing because:

1)      It is entertaining to catch the President in a suggestive moment which to many implies a radical second term if he were to be re-elected.

2)      Although this sound bite is entertaining to many with strong imaginations, it does little to inform the public of what the broader subject of the President’s bilateral meeting with Russian President Medvedev, which was to exemplify the cooperation between the US and Russia so as to look forward to resolving issues with missile defense.

I began with the intention to defend the President from further criticism by analyzing this sound bite for what it truly is: an incident of episodic framing. For those who lie awake at night shivering in their sheets, with the thoughts of the President’s “secret agenda” I ask you one question: Why would the President after having four years  to implement this supposed “secret agenda” wait until his second term to unleash this agenda when 4 perfectly good years have just gone by? And furthermore why would you undermine a system of checks and balances where a president cannot act with authoritarian rule?

 <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-russian-president-for-space-on-missile-defense/?hpt=hp_c1>

<http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/12/27/prepare-new-nuclear-war-preparedness-guide-fedgov/>

<http://gothamist.com/2012/03/26/obama_caught_telling_truth_on_hot_m.php>

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-and-president-medvedev-russia-after-bilateral-me>

<http://merciad.mercyhurst.edu/node/61>

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/obama-begs-russians-space-missile-defense-talks/>

<http://bostonglobe.com/2012/03/26/president-obama-has-own-etch-sketch-moment-with-open-mic-comment-russian/WQWVRUifiTfjgy5ciFmxcI/story.html>

<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/03/obamas_flexible_second_term.html>

Who Decided That This Election Was Going to Be About Sex?

So anyone noticed lately that the election has turned from "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" to "Sex, Sex, Sex"? Who decided that? This is the question that David Brooks and Gail Collins of the New York Times set out to answer in this week's "The Conversation", a weekly opinion column that takes place in between weekly columns. (Anyone still worried that print media is having a hard time keeping up with the 24 hour broadcast media?)

Though they pose an interesting question, Brooks and Collins unfortunately never get around to answering it. They mull over the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, bemoan the theologically- driven arguments presented by presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and finally trail off into a discussion about birth rates amongst unwed mothers in different class settings and the advantages of waiting to have children until after marriage.

Brooks and Collins are sort of contemporary journalism royalty. They're well-respected, each have op-ed columns in the New York Times, are frequent guests on NPR's All Things Considered, and publish best-selling books. So it's curious to me that the two of them don't consider who is setting the agenda here -- the Media.

I would posit that there's a good possibility this issue is being driven by media outlets who know that "sex sells" and theocrat candidates such as Santorum can't resist weighing in. In class and in recent readings we've discussed how much influence the general media has in setting the agenda. In "The Conversation", Collins aptly points out that "Teenage pregnancy rates are down. Abortion rates are down. Crime is down. There are problems with the social fabric but they no longer have to do with the sexual revolution..." So it would seem to me that this was not an issue weighing heavily on the minds of voters until the Obama Care - Catholic church debacle allowed the media to run amuck over this particular policy. Could it be said that they moved sex to the top of the agenda? Or is the stereotype of "sex sells" in this case an example of zombie political (media) theory?

It's time to talk "Plan B"

Rick Santorum's recent surge in the polls leading up to Super Tuesday has parts of the Republican establishment excited for the possibility of having a hardline, hardcore conservative candidate for the November election against Obama.

Others aren't so sure.

GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.

Continued after the jump.

Trump Strongly Supports Romney

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/trump-takes-hatchet-to-santorum/

          Donald Trump recently spoke on a Michigan radio show about his support for Mitt Romney. Trump has put a lot of money behind Romney, and is starting to harshly attack Rick Santorum. Trump is going to speak several times in Michigan to try and gain Michigan for Romney. He is showing strong support for Romney while bashing Santorum. Trump is a very well repeated business man so he's opinion might matter to the public and to the people of Michigan. Trump stated that the demarcates are waiting for Santorum to win because he believes the democrats think that if Santorum is elected, it will be an easy election. Trump's strong backing of Romney shows how the elites of our society can have a possible drastic impact on the political elections. With the upcoming elections in Michigan, Trump may have an impact on voters decisions.
       Should Trump's opinion really impact the decisions of voters? In my opinion his opinion should have no effect what-so-ever on the publics choice. Yes he is a very wealthy and successful business man, but there are several possible reasons as to why Trump is backing Romney so strongly. Trump may have other interests or motives behind his behavior that we don't know. So Trump's decision could be clouded by some things we don't see or know about; for all we know Trump might not even think Romney is the best candidate, he could be protecting his own interests. The public should do there own digging and search more into the candidates instead of simply letting the opinion of a powerful business man persuade them into making a decision.

Nevada Primary Results

Article Title: Early Returns In Nevada Favor Romeny

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/us/politics/nevada-caucuses.html?_r=1&ref=us)

Where do I begin to count the ways that this article diminishes the significance of our electoral process and the significance that our voting population places on their ballot. The title alone, "Early Returns Favor Romney"...With only eight percent (8%) EIGHT PERCENT!, of the precincts reporting, New York Times journalists believed that it was the appropriate time to call the winner. If I were back in my AP Literature or Language courses, I would cite an ecological fallacy, however we are not. Rather, I must cite the advances in exit polling, mathematical jargon that no one understands, and the fact that Romney just came off a "momentous" win in Florida. (Oh in-case you were wondering, Washington Post just emailed me with 9% reporting, that Romney has taken Nevada). I wish someone would really just point out that despite any of this, it is really Romney's bank account that is the true indicator of this race to the republican national conference later this summer.

Secondly, this quote right here.... "Mitt Romney appeared headed toward his most definitive victory in the month-old race for the Republican presidential nomination on Saturday." Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Florida the most definitive victory? Before that, South Carolina (well that was a loss, but they claimed it would be if it were to be won by Romney)? Etc. Etc. Etc. Then in this "month-old race", this campaign or race has been much much MUCH longer than a month. It has been at minimum a year in the making, it is at the least a race that began four years ago when McCain won the Republican ticket and then Obama won the presidency. To even begin to place this race to the Republican ticket as a process of only thirty days from beginning to end is preposterous and continues to poorly educate the public who are not political nerds.

Thirdly, NEVADA has a HUGE Mormon population. Nevada is considered almost home turf for Mr. Romney, who is Mormon. The state has a large Mormon population, who made up roughly a quarter of Republican caucus-goers, according to entrance polls. And it shares a border with Utah, where Mr. Romney won credit for saving the troubled 2002 winter Olympics. Did anyone really think that Gingrich who has been inflating the issue of Romeny's wealth and religion, would stand a chance in this state? 

Finally, the article reports that "More than 4 in 10 of the caucusgoers surveyed Saturday said the quality that mattered most to them in a candidate was his ability to beat President Obama in the fall; three-quarters of them said they backed Mr. Romney." While I agree that voters were looking for someone who could beat Obama, I dont believe that Romney was our only option to beat Obama. Romney merely has the monetary funds to compete against Obama's plentiful war chest of campaign contributions. I personally believe that Huntsman was the best choice, however he's out because the Media only paid attention to the "boisterous Newt Gingrich" and the "Smooth talking car salesman, Romeny" (Sorry, personal rant over). 

In the end, it is quite infuriating when reporters and journalists forget that they are here to serve an objective role: report the facts, remain unbiased, remove the fluff, and keep the commentary to yourselves. Leave that to the blogosphere. This article does nothing to perpetuate democracy, it does however point out that all we need is 8% of precincts to vote and then throw the rest of the votes away because thats all mathematicians need to determine an election. I bet that "hanging chad" scandal that occurred in Florida two national campaign seasons ago (Bush v. Gore) would have barely gotten two days of airtime in this campaign season. Sorry Florida, you were ahead of your time when it comes to ignoring votes and throwing them away.

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

Last night, 02-02-12, on Piers Morgan Tonight TV host Jerry Springer drooped a major blow to Pseudo media by asking "Why does everything have to be political?" to speak out on behalf of an idea that our class has held onto so dearly the Pseudo media attacks on politicians.

We have encountered the distinction between pseudo media and the information that is seen as an indicator of the media fulfilling their role as the link between the government and the people which they govern.

The major concerns between these two types of information is that this pseudo media obstructs the flow of legitimately important information which serves the public.

Now since this is the case the media is currently failing to fulfill its role as America's 'Watch Dog' on government by constantly airing Pseudo media such as the number of Newt Gingrich's ex-wives or the project number of future Newt Gingrich's wives come next election cycle.(I'm kidding but you get the point; theres alot out there.)

This Pseudo media is taking over the spotlight from the important questions which the public should be concentrated on, because in the end what the media's role comes down to is what we as a public will converse about. And it is only when the appropriate information is broadcast that we as a public become involved in the conversation known as the nation.

http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheLarryKing/2769528

We Who Are About to Write, Salute You

     While students all over Florida were encouraged to live blog about the Florida primary, the media had different pursuits.

     Sure, there were gallant efforts by the politically-focused press, but the king of this week’s news is not crowned among the realms of democracy. No, almost a week before the actual event, the media is live blogging about the Super Bowl. On a site that boasts, "Where your daily sports conversation begins... and never ends." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-2012-media-day-live-blog-eli-manning-and-the-new-york-giants/2012/01/31/gIQASam7eQ_blog.html)  

     Now, there is no political consequence to this— so much is true. In fact, it is clear that the American publics are more interested in gladiatorial combat than Greek theater. As I have drawn parallelisms between Rome and America before and now, I probably will again. We are plagued by many of the same problems. Human nature has barely changed over thousands of years, and we still prefer sex and violence over more cultured or intellectual pursuits.

Pollice Vero, Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1872

     But that is just it.

     The commercial media and events-based journalism are built not upon the adage, “If you build it, they will come,” as the comment-based presses of many other countries are. No, it is built on supply and demand. The news is a product to be sold—not a scrutiny to evoke thought. As long as our Cerberus is appeased with bread (see: the story of Psyche in Greek mythology), he will silently allow issues to pass under his watchful eye, silenced.

     So too is our press. So long as the watchdog is given ratings and advertising income, he is placated. But while that is a problem rooted in the nature and history of our press, the solution lies in us.

     We define the demand. We can break the cycle. 

TL;DR

     There’s quite a menagerie to American politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right, the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.

No, Noah. They're not worthy.

     But, please, don’t take my word for it. The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).

     I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.

     I’d have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job. Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.

     There were plenty of cockfights that the media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and “immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.

     In the first question (“Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers. Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)

     If you know anything about history, you’d remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good strategy. A classic.

     Shortly thereafter, we get to the prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the latter.

     Not to say there was any real political consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their posturing.

     And the real problem with the American media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just events.

     At this point a question is asked concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”

     Santorum responds that Paul “obviously wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.

     Let’s pause for a moment and go back to history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these noble goals.

     Who, Mr. Santorum, was listening?

     Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2^nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.

      “Well you have stock in these companies. Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.

     In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich, wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.” He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down, proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault, right?

     In the end, they both looked like asses—with or without the animal puns.

     Now, in the animal world, we get to see a prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:

     Returning from commercial break, Blitzer confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.

     Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator, Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that. You did.”

     I’d paraphrase here, but I can display Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.”

     Romney skips the dove part and strikes like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

    Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?

_________________________________________________________

*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.