2010
 

So, last week we all watched as a few Americans in Massachusetts put a gun in our collective mouths and tried to pull the trigger. (Collective?! You Socialist!) Now that the shock had subsided a bit I'm feeling a little better. Not sure what's going to happen, but a couple of thoughts.

Their man Brown, who according to all reports was elected as a symbol that Americans were tired of the partisan bickering, is signing his autograph "41". Nice. Way to show everyone you're not just another partisan hack. Republican leaders looked energized after the election and couldn't find a TV camera or microphone to get in front of fast enough. Amazingly all these free thinking Republicans said exactly the same thing. "We have to kill this bill and start over". They were quite clear that we could not possibly amend this current bill. We have to waste another year working on this. Hum.

Man, the political winds change quickly anymore and the Republicans seem to be back on their feet if only a little. But they're not exactly spouting bipartisan cooperation. If the lesson to Democrats is "don't let power go to your head" it seems to have been lost on the Republicans. And if the move in polls to the Republican side was in some part based on the idea that a Supermajority shouldn't stand, that issue is resolved.

So what do you think? I can't say what will happen this fall. But it seems quite possible the Republicans who needed only to shut up and wait may do some damage to their chances between now and then. Then they have the whole Tea gang to deal with, trying very hard to push them even further to the right. I can't imagine that the Democrats won't feel some pain in the fall, but maybe not as much as people thought last week.

Take care,

Ed

I think the State of the Union ought to be interesting, the Republicans have chosen that man of brilliance ol senile Mitch to respond, now how in hell can you take the alloted time (30 minutes?) to say NO. "No, nein non, nyet . . .":rolleyes:

Guess they did not want another Jindal fiasco,

America certainly doesn't enjoy watching pompous assholes gloat, but they're not too fond of the legislative incompetence they've witnessed on the part of the Democrats. I think the winning party (on both sides) is generally guilty of reading too deeply into election victories. Obama interpreted his victory as broad support for wholesale change, whereas Republicans are interpreting the Massachusetts results as their just reward for killing health care reform. As is usually the case, the truth is a bit more nuanced - but that doesn't fit with the story they're trying to tell.

Theres a problem with nuance. Elections are won and lost on advertising messages. Single and simple are the rules. Sell one thing, and sell it in the most simple terms possible. Thirty seconds isn't time enough to convince anyone of anything they don't already believe. You can merely leverage those beliefs against your desired goal. So in some ways, they have to boil it down to back or white or they don't get elected. But at the same time, voters are growing increasingly tired of black or white. Someday someone may figure it out. And if they do, I'd guess they'll do quite well in politics.

In other words if you want to sell it to the hoi poloi use single syllable words. Ah well all is not lost, I am sitting here bathed in the sound of Rachmaniniff's Second and to hell with politics.

A glorious piece! Think I'll go dig it out.

Dave

Literally, no. Metaphorically yes. The way things are sold is a product of how television's profit model developed. It is what it is and thirty seconds is what it is. There was a move a few years ago to try to make the standard unit fifteen, but it didn't work well. So it's the thirty second spot.

Here's the quandary- in thirty seconds you can not explain a complex issue. Political spots that are about "facts" are typically not very compelling. It's just not enough time to dig into an issue. As an aside, this is almost certainly why people say they don't know what's in the Health Care bill. Can't be done in a thirty. You'd have to do active research, not just participate in passive learning.

But thirty seconds *is* just enough time to move someone emotionally. Which, as it turns out, appeals to the part of the mind that actually makes decisions. If you ask people what kind of car they want they'll answer with logic. I want good mileage, low price, reliability etc. So they describe the Toyota Tercel. But when I look around, most cars are not the Toyota Tercel. Some are Prius- bought to impress their liberal friends. Some are BMWs to show off how they have arrived. Some are Mercedes so show that somehow they're even better off then the guy with the BMW. A Senator in Massachusetts thought it worth while to tell voters he drives a pick up truck even though he has no reason to drive a pick up truck.

So we are left with the best emotionally compelling, short, single argument. Which very rarely is the most intellectually compelling or logical argument.

Television is waining in it's ability to attract audience. Not sure what will replace it- probably nothing as it was. It will be a combination of things- internet, cell phones, things we've not yet dreamed. Good old radio and television will play their part. Print media is looking like it may only survive in very limited form. It may change the landscape. But better or worse remains to be seen.

Guess I am different, I bought Florence the Impala for several reasons, it was built in NorAm, has a five star safety rating, only full size car to get on the good mileage list, and has proven to be reliable as any car can be. Liked it so much I bought myself one as well.

Yeah, sounds French!

John

Oh mon Dieu!