And now, this.

The Wizard of Glover Park will return after these messages.

Project Portion: Complete!

Today marks the end of the compulsory section of this blog, but that doesn't mean the job is done. Once my project is finished (which, ideally, should come around 6pm this evening), expect posting to return soem time tomorrow afternoon. We're 29 days from Iowa; around here, the fun's just starting.

In the desert of the writer's strike, a fake news oasis.

Poll: Mitt Romney Is Candidate Most Voters Want To Get Into Bar Fight With

See you on Monday, if not sooner.

EVENT REVIEW: Republican YouTube Debate, 11/29/2007

Well, that's finished.

The Republican YouTube debate is in the books, and, I must say, it wasn't nearly as painful as I expected it to be. The producers seem to have learned from some of their mistakes at this summer's Democratic equivalent, because, on the whole, the number of questions asked or produced by assholes or internet crazies seemed to be way down. Kudos, also, for avoiding what I christened the "Stupid Fucking Cartoon" trap. Of all of the questions asked last night, I only counted three that I would place in this category. Plus, one of them featured this guy:



...which I'm basically ok with. I got home a bit late from class last night, so I missed taking notes on two of the early debate highlights. Right off the bat, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney proved their Presidential mettle by... arguing like fishwives over home improvements. Uh-huh. Then, our favorite supervillain and yours, Tom Tancredo, proclaimed that, when it comes to immigration, all of the candidates are trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo". Nobody out-crazies Ophelia, either.

After that, we have real notes, so... well, here they are:

8:35 - I'm not sure what the question was, but Mitt Romney is suffering from a fierce case of sweat-lip. Bickering on live television will do that to a guy, I guess.

8:37-8:40 - A question comes up regarding spending cuts. Thompson evades, looks hangdog. Ron Paul goes state's rights. Huckabee scores big with a pledge to boot the IRS. Pretty standard, and a nice way to get myself acclimated.

8:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #1!

8:41 - John McCain is booed by Ron Paul supporters for... making rational point about foreign policy commitments. Watch out, because this becomes a trend, and quickly.

8:42 - Paul counters McCain's charges of isolationism with a right hook on troop donations. Back home, we'd've followed that up with a resounding "booyah", but here, Paul opts for looking spooked and pointing to the crowd. It's just a difference.

8:44 - We have a Tancredo sighting. The man has eyes like a shark. A SHARK!


Tom Tancredo in happier times.

8:45 - Giuliani responds to the charges leveled in this Politico story by saying that his spending was justified because there were, and I'm quoting directly here, "y'know, threats". My, what rousing detail.

8:49 - The video provided by Tom Tancredo's campaign features him having an imaginary conversation with Hillary Clinton. I'm sure imaginary conversations aren't all that uncommon when Tom Tancredo's involved. He follows up this corker by answering a question about the safety of Chinese imports with an impassioned stand against toy immigration:

It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, of course, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws, with regard to immigration of both people and, now in this case, of course, items, goods and services.

Optimus Prime just wants a better life, Tom. Really.

8:52 - Thompson's video airs, and the long knives emerge. I know he's desperate and all, but I'm surprised he chose to go negative. Looking like a bloodhound in a man-suit can only give you so much credibility, and this kind of ad isn't helping in the push for more.

8:59 - Once again, we're getting boos for rationality. Giuliani's call for reasonable gun regulations almost gets him winged as 200 angry audience members lock and load at once.

9:04 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take One:


9:06 - The camera pans to Tom Tancredo, who wastes the unexpected face time by brooding like Emperor Palpatine. This man is my favorite.

Cue to 1:05, Jedi.

9:13 - There it is. The line of the night. Mike Huckabee cements his lock on the down-home, folksy wisdom vote with the following exchange:

Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

9:16 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take Two:


9:19 - The ad from the Romney campaign also doubles as a sleep aide.

9:20 - MVParents.com gets their numbers from the Search Institute. That's like going to eat at a place named Restaurant. It's just not done.

9:23 - Giuliani's ad is up, and he goes for the humor vote. If King Kong likes him, he must be doing something right. Knocking over building, mostly, I'll bet.

9:24 - How do we repair our image in the Muslim world? Simple, say the candidates: attack more! I must say, John McCain owns the debate over the next few questions. If only he'd sounded like this the whole time...

9:27 - John McCain says "I said 'good day', sir!". Mitt Romney responds by reeking of maple syrup and old grease.


9:33 - McCain scores again, diffusing Iraq-Vietnam comparisons by noting that "Vietnam didn't want to follow us home". If not for Huckabee's earlier score, this might've been the night's most memorable exchange.

9:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2, and a solid run for JohN McCain, who concludes his power play by not only sneaking in a direct shot at his old nemesis, George W. Bush, but also reviving the old "straight talk" slogan that captivated us eight years ago. Man, that was a strong 15 minutes for the senator from Arizona.

9:47 - This question regarding gays in the military, while interesting enough in its own right, is made all the more interesting by the following fact: the gay retired Brigadeer General who asked the question in the first place, was later revealed to be a possible plant by the Clinton campaign. Here's a better recap, courtesy of Outside the Beltway.

9:52 - Mike Huckabee accepts the support of Log Cabin Republicans, noting that you can disagree about issues and still like each other. For his part, Mitt Romney accepts Log Cabin pancake syrup on all of his delicious waffles.

Really now. How is this...


... all that different from this?


Damning, this evidence.

9:53 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2 1/2. Yes, I'm counting the dollar bill.

9:57 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #3, because slideshows count for half a point. Huckabee regains some of his early debate thunder by suggesting we send Hillary Clinton to Mars, followed by numbers suggesting that, on the whole, African Americans might not find him completely repellent, sorta. Well, I guess you really gotta know your crowd.

10:04 - They're talking about infrastructure, and I'm starting to fade. Even Ron Paul's starting to lose his normal, elf-like appeal. Oh, he's also ruling out an independent run, for now, which pokes a fairly large hole in my theory that Paul is actually just a robot controlled by Ross Perot deep within Antarctica's own Fortress of Solitude.

10:07 - What better way to end a debate on serious issue than with a baseball question? Shockingly enough, this is the one issue that Mitt Romney has made up his mind about. Well, you gotta have something, I guess.

WINNERS
Mike Huckabee - In the span of three weeks, this guy's gone from the candidate with the funny name to leading in Iowa and looking more presidential than most of his counterparts combined. He stayed above the fray, answered thoughtfully, and actually showed some signs of humanity. I may not like his policies, but his prowess for televised debate is unquestionable. It wouldn't surprise me if tonight's broadcast served as a new jumping off point for the Huckabee campaign.

John McCain - Where has that been this whole time? McCain's gravitas factor was way up tonight, and his extended time in statesman mode towards the end of the debate might remind people of why they liked him in the first place. Though it's probably too late to mount a serious challenge at this point, it's nice to see McCain recapture some of that old fire, if only for one evening.

Ron Paul - If fundraising and applause meters are to be believed, Ron Paul is having a rosy campaign indeed. While a general lack of name recognition and the novelty factor of Paul's grassroots, libertarian-tinged campaign hindering Paul's poll numbers, he's still proving that there are huge swaths of the Republican Party not being addressed by the other candidates.

LOSERS
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - The frontrunners took some serious heat early and never fully recovered. Now, guys, I know it's tempting to one-up each other on national television, but it doesn't make for very entertaining, or informative, programming. Sniping and interrupting isn't presidential; it's not even polite. Whether it's shifty practices and policy positions (Romney) or not-so-secret liberal leanings (Giuliani), both of the frontrunners fell rather flat this evening.

Fred Thompson - Did he even show up? For all the hype surrounding his candidacy announcement, Fred Thompson has done little to nothing to excite voters about his run to the White House. Tonight was no different. He went negative early, but no one else took the bait, he got out-folked by Mike Huckabee, and, when he actually chose to respond, his answers seemed vague and evasive. Not a great way to revive an already-flagging campaign.

So, that's that. Did anyone else watch this thing?

YouTube Republican Candidate Debate: Video preview

The Republican YouTube debate is this evening at 8PM EST, and I'll be providing a recap with some notes and thoughts late tonight or tomorrow. Until then, enjoy wading through some of the candidate questions that could very well be featured in tonight's debate (except probably not). I'm sure the judges did.

















Because, really, when I think of the Republican party, the first things that spring to mind are cartoons, furries, and Dick Armey.

If you feel like killing the rest of your evening, by all means, start here.

Internet celebrities to government: WTF?

I touched on net neutrality and its growing impact on the campaign landscape a couple of posts back, but I would be remiss if I didn't share this video. Apparently, it's been around for a while, and I'm not sure how it took me 18 months to see it, but that's how it goes. If this is old or uninformative to you, I apologize. However, if I know my audience (and I think I do), then the cameos alone will be worth your price of admission.


Interested? Let Leslie Hall of GemSweater.com tell you more.


Now there are two causes I can support: keeping the internet free, and lovingly chronicling some awful fucking sweaters. Head to their website, linked above, to learn how you can get involved.

And, just for fun, here's a less political recap featuring a few other net residents.

Campaign killers? Net skulduggery and political ads.

A quick programming update before I hop the next train back to Washington. Wednesday night, after the no doubt farcical exchanges of the Republican YouTube debates, CNN will actually air a program I'm interested in for once. Entitled "Campaign Killers", the show is a part of CNN's Broken Government series. This particular episode deals with negative campaigning and its effect on the American political process. While I'm not exactly sure what bases they'll cover over the course of an hour, a press release from earlier this month promises some interesting coverage:

The documentary examines political mudslinging, the history of negative advertisements and the role of the Internet as a viral weapon in politics today.

Nice to hear the Internet mentioned in the same breath with important political discourse that doesn't primarily involve fundraising. One of the most interesting media developments in the last couple of election cycles has been the ease with which individual citizen can personally affect a candidate's campaign. Before this, voicing your opinion required organization; even as late as the 2004 presidential election, the major sources of ads and media, outside of the campaigns themselves, were PACs and other interest groups. Now, anyone who has access to a camera and an opinion can, with a little talent, a few well-placed connections, and some luck, produce a video that can garner national attention over night. While this kind of impact seems like a logical step towards greater political freedom, it remains to be seen how the candidates and their campaigns can exploit this new communication tool.


Sadly, the good old days.

One obvious double-edged sword in all of this is the potential for responsibility-free negative campaigning. Traditionally, campaign ads have an easily-traceable origin point. While people can debate the intentions and validity of groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they remain an identifiable group. Placing the advertising online at sites like YouTube makes that kind of background check almost impossible. Candidates could, conceivably, run a proxy smear campaign online with much less chance of immediate repercussions than they could using the Internet's broadcast-style predecessors. Though the people have more power, they also have a higher chance of attracting focused manipulation on the part of the candidates.


How do we deal with this?

Or this?

The political world has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to internet campaigning. At worst, the focus on user-generated campaign materials signals a potential excuse for laziness on the part of the political strategists. After all, why would they spend valuable campaign dollars on internet marketing when we have supporters who will do a decent job for free? However, that kind of attitude risks ignoring the innovations possible when investment dollars and talented minds collide. So far, this election has shown that the internet isn't going away. Whether or not a candidate can exploit the true potential of internet organizing and advertising in the next 12 months, however, remains to be seen.

That said, have a personal question about negative campaigning: why are the Democrats so bad at it, especially in the general election? My friend Lisa and I talked about this last week, and we couldn't figure it out. During the primaries, the knives come out, and the vitriol spews. Just ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Once the nomination is sewn up, though, a strange thing happens: everyone becomes nice. All of the anger and frustration that the candidates aimed at each other disappears once the real opponent enters the room. What's the deal? Is it a moral highroad issue? Are Republicans just meaner? What's behind the Democrats' lack of teeth when it comes to advertising?

Your opinions are, as always, welcome.