The political world has been shocked and saddened by the unexpected, sudden death of NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert, the Buffalo native who was moderator of Meet the Press since 1991.
Tributes have been many. As I write this, the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams has spent the entire half-hour broadcast with reminiscences from that network's correspondents, as well as print journalists like Al Hunt, Bob Woodward, and Sally Quinn.
Even while traveling overseas, President George W. Bush issued a statement:
Laura and I are deeply saddened by the sudden passing of Tim Russert. Those of us who knew and worked with Tim, his many friends, and the millions of Americans who loyally followed his career on the air will all miss him.
As the longest-serving host of the longest-running program in the history of television, he was an institution in both news and politics for more than two decades. Tim was a tough and hardworking newsman. He was always well-informed and thorough in his interviews. And he was as gregarious off the set as he was prepared on it.
Most important, Tim was a proud son and father, and Laura and I offer our deepest sympathies to his wife Maureen, his son Luke, and the entire Russert family. We will keep them in our prayers.
Update:I should have waited until the broadcast ended before hitting send. The last guest on the Nightly News was Ethel Kennedy, widow of RFK, whom I had not seen on television in forty years.
Brian Williams closed by noting that NBC will be preempting its regularly scheduled programming tonight to present an hour-long tribute to Tim Russert, beginning at 10:00 o'clock Eastern Time.
An amusing viral video that has attracted almost 200,000 hits on YouTube in about three days turns out to be a publicity gimmick by a company that manufactures hands-free mobile telephone equipment.
The video, which appears under the misleading title "Kid fails driving test 5 times in a day," is a sort of "candid camera" prank, in which several California driving teachers are the targets of the joke. Here's the video:
As you can see, the "kid" is not "fail[ing] his driving test," but rather is taking driving lessons from exasperated instructors.
Since the video ends with a plug for "Parrot.com," most people should have got the clue that this was a commercial production, and not some teenager playing amateur "Punk'd" with a hidden dashboard camera.
The video is part of a marketing strategy for a company called Parrot.com to raise the awareness of the new laws in California, as well as, to raise the brand awareness of their hands-free mobile devices in the US. Parrot funded the production of the video.
The video is not scripted. The company installed hidden cameras in the car and hired "John" to test the limits of these driving instructors using his cell phone.
Based in Paris and founded in 1994 by Henri Seydoux, its Chairman and CEO, Parrot S.A. is one of the profitable, fast-growing companies that have emerged from the "start-up" generation. Since its beginnings, Parrot's core competence has been the technologies for embedded noise-robust voice recognition and signal processing, with applications in mobile computing and mobile communications.
Parrot also hosts a web site called "ParrotSafeDriving.com," which provides a guide to hands-free driving legislation across North America. Among other things, it offers this useful map of U.S. states and Canadian provinces that prohibit (or are soon to prohibit) driving while using a cellphone or PDA or similar device:
This gives a whole new meaning to "red, blue, and purple states."
When Dick Cheney called the home stretch of the 1976 presidential campaign "the ten-day orgasm," he might have been referring to the new CBS-TV prime-time soap opera, Swingtown.
He wasn't, of course. Swingtown was 32 years in the future, and few people in October 1976 would have thought that a 21st-century TV drama about wife-swapping would turn out to be a weekly nostalgia trip for the leisure-suit generation.
For those who have not yet seen it, Swingtown may be the raciest show on broadcast television these days -- or ever. (I will admit that I seldom see nighttime soaps -- or even so-called "daytime drama" -- so my ability to judge the relative raciness ratio is limited.)
I expect this show will become a sort of guilty pleasure -- not just for me but for many others who came of age in the 1970s. Yet I hardly expected to like the show; from the promotions CBS ran in advance of the premiere on June 5, I thought I would find it too laughable to be watchable. I was wrong.
The test will be whether, unlike other TV shows that purport to be representative of a particular block of time, Swingtown remains true to its premise.
Both Happy Days and That '70s Show began as focused nostalgia exercises that promised to portray a specific time and place -- Happy Days in 1950s Milwaukee and That '70s Show in a fictional (coincidentally) Wisconsin town two decades later. In both cases, however, the producers lost sight of this sense of setting and devolved into typical sitcoms that could have been set at any time, in any place.
During its first season, Happy Days was meticulous about its setting. Shot with a single camera without a live audience, it had a dramatic feel of verisimilitude without losing its essential humor, which derived from its '50s-era situations. We knew we were in Milwaukee, for instance, because Earl Gillespie could be heard announcing the play-by-play of a Braves baseball game on the radio. Howard and Marion dealt with issues like racial prejudice in a sensitive yet realistic manner.
Yet even before Happy Days jumped the shark -- not the first TV show to do so, but the first to put a name to the phenomenon -- it began to be just another teen-oriented comedy, with less emphasis on the adults and on parent-child relationships and more on the outlandish antics of Richie, Ralph, and Potsie, who relied on Fonzie to rescue them from their predicaments. Any observable sense that this was the 1950s was lost by the third season.
So, too, with That '70s Show, whose first season was steeped in Seventies cultural and topical references. While music and costumes remained true to the premise throughout the show's run, by the third season it became detached from whatever grounding in the cultural milieu of the decade. It even trafficked in anachronisms: In one episode in which the kids visit Marquette University, the college walls are covered with banners for the "Golden Eagles," when everyone knows that the MU teams in the 1970s were named, in glorious political incorrectness, the Marquette Warriors.
Swingtown, therefore, has a challenge before it, which may be easier to meet because it is a drama rather than a comedy (although it has its comedic moments). One signal of its seriousness of purpose may be found in its costume room: A promotional video at the CBS web site says that the show has a collection of 10,000 pieces of period clothing (not counting accessories) ready to be used. (Some of those costumes look like they're straight out of this 1977 J.C. Penney catalog.)
Another challenge the producers face is that, despite the economic dislocation caused by a sudden spike in oil prices, the distrust of government caused by Watergate, and a general sense of malaise, the 1970s were -- in contrast with, say the 1960s -- dull.
With the nation's cities and campuses at peace, the political turmoil of the past decade was easy to forget. In an essay simply entitled "Sigh!" columnist Russell Baker wrote, "The nineteen-seventies are boring. The decade is already half over and its chief legacy is an engulfing swamp of boredom." Baker noted that "President Ford is boring, which is his chief political strength." But Baker added, "In the nineteen-sixties, of course, Americans hungered for boredom. A sleepy Government, some peace in the streets.... In all that turbulence, it seemed an unattainable dream of paradise. Now we may have it, and may even be enjoying it."
That is the climate from which Swingtown emerges. Its first episode is set during the weekend of July 2-4, 1976, and has all of the hallmarks of reaction to ennui: beer and bratwurst, Penthouse and pot, unabashed cocaine use, skinnydipping in Lake Michigan, and wife swapping.
Apropos of that holiday weekend, Mieczkowski continues:
The serenity, which was a welcome relief, was evident again the following summer during celebrations commemorating the nation's bicentennial. Douglas Bennett recalled that in 1976, while campaigning for Ford, he reminded audiences that less than two years earlier Americans "were angry ... we trusted nobody, and in the course of two years this president has restored a confidence. And this past Fourth of July was the bicentennial, hundreds and hundreds of people gathered at places around this nation, without incident -- and I think that is a direct tribute to the leadership of President Ford and the restoration of confidence, tranquility, and trust in our nation." Ford himself spoke of "a new spirit" in America that he observed during bicentennial celebrations.
That "new spirit" certainly manifests itself in Swingtown, but undoubtedly with details that would have made President Ford -- though maybe not his First Lady -- blush. In many ways, the "retrograde" Swingtown may be an antidote to two decades of puritanism that has predominated in American culture. Swingtown, perhaps, is a backlash against the backlash.
Put another way, Swingtown may be representing (in a carnal and vivid fashion) what Ford expressed during the Bicentennial celebrations and the political campaign that year. Mieczkowski again:
During the nation's bicentennial year, Ford often urged consecrating America's next hundred years to the individual, shifting focus away from government: "Now we are on the threshold of our third century. I see this as the century of individual freedom.... [That] means liberty from oppressive, heavy-handed bureaucratic government.... That is a goal we must achieve in our third century."
(We're still working on that. A warning label on that speech might have stated: "Some backsliding may occur.")
In terms of plot and character development on Swingtown, I am less interested in the interactions of the featured couples (Molly Parker and Jack Davenport as Susan and Bruce Miller; an often shirtless Grant Show and Lana Parrilla as Tom and Trina Decker; and Josh Hopkins and Miriam Shor as Roger and Janet Thompson) than I am in the subplot involving Susan and Bruce's son B.J. and his friend, Roger and Janet's son Ricky.
A viewer would have to be blind to miss the proto-gay relationship between these two teenagers. Watching the show with a friend of mine, we both reacted the same way to the body language and yearning looks that characterize the B.J./Ricky friendship. (It actually looks like B.J. might be abandoning his friend to explore his heterosexual side, but -- given the quality of the pilot's writing and direction -- I expect this to be a multifaceted plot development, with complications ensuing week by week.) The tableau of the Thompson family at the end of the pilot episode speaks volumes about the repressed emotional volcanism waiting to spew.
It was not until after watching the June 5 broadcast of Swingtown that I found this interview with the show's creator, Alan Poul, on the web site of The Advocate. Poul, who is openly gay, is asked by interviewer Kyle Buchanan:
I'm curious whether any of the characters in Swingtown will be exploring their queer sides as the series progresses.
Poul replies:
There are certainly hints that there is a certain amount of sexual fluidity within the group dynamics -- in particular, that the Deckers[played by Parrilla and Grant Show] get involved in. If you've studied open-marriage tracts of the time, it was true that within the early days of open marriage, girl-on-girl contact was tolerated to a much higher degree than boy-on-boy contact, which was strictly prohibited -- sort of like the straight male porn aesthetic, right? On our show, I would say that the relationship that develops between Trina and Susan is certainly a deep, enduring friendship, but that doesn't mean that it's a friendship that has to be devoid of physical content.
You know, I'm surprised you didn't bring up any of the younger characters.
Then Buchanan follows up, and Poul responds:
You mean the friendship between young boys B.J. (Aaron Christian Howles) and Rick (Nick Benson)?
That's the ringer. So far, we haven't explored it except in subtextual terms because we're depicting them as presexual. But it's clear in the pilot that little Rick, B.J.'s best friend, has a boy crush.
How so?
Just the way that Rick is attached to B.J. and is constantly jealous of him. Actually, there was originally a scene that we never shot that made the subtext a little bit more overt in terms of Rick's boyish attachment to B.J. We screened the pilot for test audiences, and they just jumped to the assumption: "Yeah, I liked the friendship between the two boys, one of which is gay." You can interpret it as you like. These are feelings that the people having those feelings were not even aware of.
Having been a gay kid named Rick growing up in the '70s, I instantly recognized Rick's (and, by extension, B.J.'s) predicament.
Now I would like to do a bit of compare-and-contrast. First, take a look at Swingtown's portrayal of a "Bicentennial Block Party." (Be sure to check out the parting glances between B.J. and Ricky.) Then, as an added treat, watch a video of an actual family picnic on the Fourth of July 1976. (No secrets here: it's my family, my backyard, at 1503 N. 70th Street in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.) That archival footage ends with the Bicentennial Fireworks as seen that night from Tosa's Hart Park; the CBS footage begins with a commercial.
Life:
I plan to watch the second episode of Swingtown tonight on CBS at 10:00 o'clock. I expect millions of others who enjoy guilty pleasures will be joining me. Will you?
For the Denver Post, the convention is a local story, so the article, headlined "Caterers find eco-standards tough to chew," has a local flavor. The challenge for the caterers is that the convention host committee has banned certain foods and combinations of foods:
Fried shrimp on a bed of jasmine rice and a side of mango salad, all served on a styrofoam plate. Bottled water to wash it all down.
These trendy catering treats are unlikely to appear on the menu at parties sponsored by the Denver 2008 Host Committee during the Democratic National Convention this summer.
Fried foods are forbidden at the committee's 22 or so events, as is liquid served in individual plastic containers. Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable. The food should be local, organic or both.
And caterers must provide foods in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white," garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.
The shrimp-and-mango ensemble? All it's got is white, brown and orange, so it may not have the nutritional balance that generally comes from a multihued menu.
"Blue could be a challenge," joked Ed Janos, owner of Cook's Fresh Market in Denver. "All I can think of are blueberries."
The Democrats are not alone in laying down the law on food at their convention. The Republicans, too, are working out rules, prodded, in part, by the latest iterations of congressional ethics standards.
...the Democratic convention in Denver and the Republican one in Minneapolis-St. Paul won't be like the old days for members of Congress, who must now live under a tightened regimen of ethics rules. Fortunately, while the House and Senate ethics committees aren't always vigilant about investigating real corruption, they have been cranking out memos (including a new one last week) on what lawmakers can and can't eat, drink and do during the conventions.
Among the do's and don't's suggested in the memo:
DO: Snag pigs in a blanket and bacon-wrapped-somethings from a tray at a party.
DON'T: Sit down to eat a meal on a plate with a fork and knife.
Hill members and their staffs are already familiar with these sometimes confusing culinary rules. As the House ethics memo points out, you may attend "receptions at which the food served is limited to hors d'oeuvres, beverages and similar food of a nominal value." Sit-down dinners are verboten. Yes, it can be hard sometimes to stand with a drink in one hand and a plate of food in the other, and consume it all without spilling on yourself, especially if a dipping sauce is involved. But you just can't sit down and eat your meal with silverware. That would corrupt the democratic process.
DO: Accept $49 worth of fried Twinkies at a Minnesota fair.
DON'T: Accept $51 worth (or die of a heart attack).
Lawmakers can accept any gifts worth less than $50 as long as the donor isn't a lobbyist or someone who works for a firm that employs lobbyists. Those who eat fried Twinkies, fried cheese curds and other Midwestern delicacies may not accept free emergency room care to restart their hearts, since most hospital systems employ lobbyists.
Now here comes the history lesson. Back in 1996, I traveled to Chicago to cover the Democratic National Convention, which was renominating Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who would go on to face the Republican ticket of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. As I have noted already, presidential nominating conventions don't really do much, so there was not much "news" to report. I ended up with four feature stories. One of them was about the media at the convention, with a special focus on food. This was the second in the series, and it appeared (with photographs) in The Metro Herald on September 27, 1996:
Feeding Frenzy: The News Media at the Democratic Convention Richard E. Sincere, Jr. Exclusive to the Metro Herald
When University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato used the phrase "feeding frenzy" as the title of his book about the news media and contemporary American politics, he probably had little idea how literally his image might be played out. If the behavior of reporters and their colleagues at the Democratic National Convention is any indication, the media "feeding frenzy" is far more real than any professor's imaginings.
Each evening during the course of the convention's four days, the Illinois Restaurant Association sponsored and distributed free food and drinks for the media representatives. From 6:00 to 9:00, Monday through Thursday, reporters, TV crews, radio sound engineers, pundits, and gophers from legitimate news organizations were able to graze among more than a dozen booths from some of Chicago's finest -- and not-so-fine -- restaurants. Chicago's ethnic groups were much in evidence: Mexican food, Polish food, Greek, Thai, German. The Billy Goat Cafe (made famous by Saturday Night Live in the 1970s with the refrain, "Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger! No Coke, Pepsi!") was there -- serving, naturally, cheeseburgers.
Reporters started to line up for the food about 5:15, wanting to be first to sample the goods before they were all snatched up and devoured. Inside the United Center, delegates and observers had to pay $5.50 and more for hot dogs and hamburgers. A small Coke (inside) was $2.50 for less than 12 ounces. At the media pavilion, however, you could get all the Snapple you could drink -- as well as Coke, Pepsi, beer, wine -- all for free. What we had was a miniature version of the annual "Taste of Chicago" festival held in Grant Park.
By the third night of the convention, delegates and others caught on to the rumors of free food in the media pavilion. Wednesday night was a horror-show of reporters elbowing delegates shoving Democratic Party officials for a cheap hamburger or for another slice of what is, without a doubt, the world's best cheesecake (from Eli's, 6510 W. Dakin Street in Chicago, which can now say that giving free food to reporters pays off in free publicity down the road -- call 800-ELI-CAKE for mail orders). So on Thursday night, the Restaurant Association and cosponsor Ameritech set up a security phalanx around the food court to assure that no one but credentialed media representatives could get through. No amount of begging, pleading, or flirting would do for the uncredentialed delegate or "special guest" -- only authentic journalists were allowed to eat. Even so, because the final night of the convention attracted more people than any other night (because of President Clinton's acceptance speech), the chaos in the media pavilion's food court resembled nothing if not one of those scenes of refugees from the Russian Revolution in Dr. Zhivago.
The Democratic Convention attracted 15,000 members of the news media to Chicago. This was 5,000 more than went to San Diego for the Republican Convention, which meant that 50 percent more reporters were chasing 150 percent fewer stories. As I noted in these pages last month, the major parties' political conventions have, over the past 25 years or so, lost their drama -- and with it the ability of a reporter to shape a story of interest to viewers or readers. "Drama" does not mean just entertainment value. It signifies three other alliterative concepts: debate, deliberation, and decision-making. At neither the Republican nor the Democratic convention were any of these three important elements of democracy in evidence.
Yet despite the absence of any real "hard" news stories -- an utter lack of debate, deliberation, or decision-making -- the media hordes arrived primed and ready in Chicago. For good reason, they sought stories outside the convention itself, such as in the official protest area just outside the United Center grounds (see the September 20 Metro Herald for more details). Perhaps most disconcerting, the media engaged in incestuous news-gathering -- interviewing and analyzing each other.
It was common to see, for instance, a reporter from a local ABC affiliate interviewing Jeff Greenfield of ABC News on the convention floor. The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt (also seen on CNN's Capital Gang) was often the target of an inquisitive reporter. All in all, reporters -- particularly broadcast-media reporters -- were as likely to interview each other as to interview elected officials or Democratic Party activists.
This incest extended to the publications available on the United Center grounds and in the dozens of convention hotels downtown. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times made slimmed-down daily editions freely available. The morning Chicago Tribune offered a special evening edition, distributed around the media pavilions. National Journal passed out a useful and informative "Daily Convention Edition," and even the avowedly conservative Weekly Standard created a special daily edition for the convention. In addition, Roll Call and The Hill (two Washington newspapers covering Congress) shipped thousands of copies to Chicago for the convention. Dozens of other publications, ranging from Reason to the Chicago Reader, dropped off stacks of samples for the thousands of reporters, who were happy to scavenge whatever they could find.
Clearly, the media mavens wanted their colleagues to read their products -- and perhaps subscribe later. In the meantime, however, having the instant analysis of rivals available made the jobs of the reporters easier -- they did not have to make up their own jokes about Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, when they could just steal this line from the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It takes a First Lady . . . "
Despite the lack of hard news to be found, the Democratic Convention was considered a plum assignment for many reporters, especially young ones who had never experienced an event like this. I met three of them who felt attending this convention was a real feather in their caps, something that increased their credibility with readers back home and gave them some substance by which to measure future political events. I was astounded at the number of reporters who were under the age of 25. (There were, indeed, older hacks in evidence, like David Broder of the Washington Post and Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times. But these are commentators as much as reporters. The wet-behind-the-ears crowd was something else.)
Among the younger reporters I chanced upon were Jason Ellison, 18, of the Wisconsin Light, a weekly in Milwaukee; Sean Donahue, 18, of the Middlesex News in Framingham, Massachusetts; and Steve Klafehn, 21, of radio station WBSU-FM in Brockport, New York. I had earlier met Donahue in New Hampshire, when he was covering the Forbes campaign (see the Metro Herald, March 8 and 15, 1996); he also covered the GOP convention in San Diego.
Ellison was accompanying his publisher while Klafehn was on his own -- an enterprising reporter, he convinced his station to send him to the convention and also persuaded a local travel agency to provide him with transportation in return for sponsorship of his on-the-scene, live reports about the New York delegation.
In addition, the Children's Express team was on hand, newsgathering as they have done at every convention since 1972. Children's Express is made up of reporters as young as eight years old. Most are in the 10-14 age group. They learn their trade under the guidance of mentors. Over the years, they have been remarkably successful. In 1976, for instance, a Children's Express reporter scooped the world with the story of Jimmy Carter's choice of Walter Mondale as a running mate.
No doubt these younger reporters gained much from covering the convention. They certainly had an opportunity to learn that, in the modern age, the most important activity for convention delegates is dancing to the "Macarena" to relieve boredom. With a combination of skills and luck, however, they probably also learned how best to sniff out stories that may not be apparent on the surface -- and, with that, they may be able to rise to the levels of Al Hunt or Jeff Greenfield in the next 30 years.
But, if not, at least they got free tacos and cheesecake out of it.
I will be posting the other three of my 1996 Democratic Convention in the weeks to come, depending on whether I can find an appropriate news hook for each of them. Watch for those "history lessons" here.
It has become commonplace to lament the decline of the national political conventions from decision-making bodies to beauty pageants with a winner known in advance. While most would not want to return to 1920, when it took ten ballots before the Republicans nominated Warren G. Harding, or to 1924, when the Democrats struggled through 103 ballots (and 17 days) before nominating John W. Davis, there is still reason to desire that the Republicans and Democrats used the four days of their quadrennial conventions for more than receptions, buffets, hospitality suites, and message-testing for the TV cameras.
State nominating conventions -- as those who attended the recent Virginia GOP convention to select a Senate candidate can attest -- still make decisions, sometimes by a narrow margin.
The lack of drama at these conventions has led to a decline in interest among the general public, and even among political junkies. (If you are reading this blogpost, you probably fall into that latter category.) An article in Politico earlier this week noted how the TV networks are responding to this situation:
When Barack Obama made his first major appearance on the national stage in 2004, giving easily the most memorable speech of the Democratic National Convention, the traditional Big Three networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—had all returned to their regularly scheduled programming.
Gone are the days when the broadcast networks' extensive coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions was the only game in town, competing on late summer nights with a handful of television re-runs. As network viewership has declined and the political junkies have fled to cable, prime-time network coverage of the convention has dwindled.
Indeed, the Big Three each devoted just one hour in prime-time during three of four convention nights in 2004, with no live programming of that now memorable Tuesday night when Obama arrived on stage at Boston’s Fleet Center. Coincidentally, John McCain also spoke at Madison Square Garden before the networks were broadcasting live (Rudy Giuliani, though, got a coveted televised spot at the podium).
The article, by Michael Calderone, notes:
Phil Alongi, NBC’s executive producer for political coverage and special events, said that while the network has penciled in a similar programming schedule to 2004, he’s “always looking for a reason to get more air time.”
If the political parties were smart when putting together the schedule of speakers, Alongi said, “they’d come up with a hook to give us a reason to be on for longer than [during] the past few political cycles.”
It’s in part the over-scripted nature of recent conventions, where the nominees are known beforehand, that’s led to diminished interest. Where once conventions were where nominees were decided in backroom deals, now they’re where those already chosen are publicly coronated. And at this point, there’s little chance of a floor fight in Denver.
Calderone's piece brought to my mind an article I wrote a dozen years ago, reflecting on that year's Republican National Convention, which I watched (as much as I could) on television. (Later that year, I was able to attend the Democratic convention in person, covering the event [as much as I could] for The Metro Herald.)
Here is what I wrote in August 1996. It's amusing that my byline was stated as "entertainment editor" rather than, say, "political writer."
Longing for the Golden Days of Politics Rick Sincere Metro Herald Entertainment Editor Exclusive to the Metro Herald
Ah, for the halcyon days of 1968! That was the year when Dan Rather was roughed up on the floor of the Democratic National Convention by "security guards" and John Chancellor ended a report from the same convention ". . . from somewhere in custody. . ." 1968 was when reporters scrambled to their typewriters at the Republican National Convention with a single question on their lips: "Spiro who?"
Watching the TV coverage of this year's Republican Convention from San Diego, one cannot help but be struck by how stage-managed and pre-programmed this quadrennial ritual has become. Democratic and Republican conventions no longer have any drama for television viewers or journalists. Nothing unpredictable happens. No wonder ABC's Ted Koppel pulled his crew out of San Diego and promises that he will not even bother to take Nightline to Chicago for the Democrats' coronation of Bill Clinton.
So thin is the news from San Diego that Scripps-Howard reported that a man dressed as a bumblebee outside the convention center attracted five reporters, all eagerly quizzing him.
Is this what American politics has come to?
Though the 1968 Democratic convention is remembered most vividly because it was marred by violence, it is only in the past few years that political conventions have become more like TV awards shows than like deliberative exercises of democracy. It is easy to imagine the announcer saying something like "And presenting the Grammy for best spin-doctoring by a duo or group is New York Congresswoman Susan Molinari! [Cheers and applause!]"
The vapidity of today's conventions -- and here I am talking about the major parties' conventions, not those of the Libertarians or the Perot party, which still hold the promise of unpredictability and the drama of spontaneity -- can be traced to the changes in the process of selecting presidential nominees that began in 1972. Since that time, the process has increasingly become front-loaded so that the nominee is determined several months before the conventions take place, with little chance of any debate or uncertainty.
Who recalls now that as recently as 1968, Ronald Reagan announced his presidential candidacy just two weeks before the Republican convention, yet he was still considered a serious challenger to front-runner Richard Nixon? Or how in that same year, George McGovern threw his hat in the ring at the last moment, in an effort to take up the banner of the slain Robert Kennedy? McGovern may have had little chance of beating Hubert Humphrey that year, but he clearly set the stage for his nomination victory four years later.
That 1972 Democratic Convention was not without its drama and controversy. I remember that, as a pajama-clad 13-year-old, I stayed up past 4:00 a.m. to watch McGovern's nomination acceptance speech, which had been interminably delayed by a rules battle on the convention floor. McGovern's message of "Come home, America" was heard by hardly anyone.
Even in 1976, the Republican convention was a cliffhanger. Incumbent President Gerald Ford eked out a nomination victory over challenger Ronald Reagan by only a handful of votes. No one knew, going into the convention, whether Ford or Reagan would emerge as the nominee. Despite Ford's winning bid, the convention clearly belonged to Reagan. Ford delivered the most powerful address of his political career in Kansas City, reminding Americans that "a government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you have." Yet he was forced by circumstances to invite Governor Reagan to the podium following his acceptance speech, and Reagan stole the spirit of the convention by delivering -- without notes or a teleprompter -- a gracious and energizing valedictory address. The Republican Party has never been the same; it has been Reagan's party since that night.
Remember the excitement of 1980, when Senator Ted Kennedy mounted a vigorous challenge to incumbent President Jimmy Carter? The race was close; Carter feared a loss until the weekend before the convention, when CBS News reporter Roger Mudd asked Kennedy why he wanted to be president. Kennedy, looking befuddled, was at a loss for words. The best he could muster sounded much like Bob Dole's "well, it's my turn." Kennedy's faltering response handed Carter the nomination.
That same year, the Republican convention was abuzz with rumors about Reagan's possible running mate. Walter Cronkite reported that he had it on good authority -- reputedly former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger -- that Reagan would name former President Ford as his vice presidential partner. These rumors proved false, of course, but they were taken quite seriously up until the moment that Reagan, in a break with tradition, appeared on the floor of the convention shortly after the nomination vote was taken, to say that as much as he respected President Ford, his choice for vice president was runner-up George Bush. It was a powerfully dramatic moment, both for the conventioneers and the vast television audience.
This year's conventions lack all drama. Everything is plasticized. There is no digression from a minutely-planned script, with everything of importance taking place in prime time. With no surprises -- even Dole's running mate was announced before the convention began -- there is little to report. Except for Nancy Reagan's thoughtful and heartfelt address in tribute to her husband -- during which one could hear a pin drop anywhere in America -- the Republican convention had all the class of a late-night infomercial -- it lacks only an 800-number with "operators standing by to take your order!"
The front-loading of the presidential primary season deserves major scrutiny. It effectively excludes the majority of party members from participating in the selection of their parties' nominees. For instance, Virginia's delegate-selection process takes place so late in the season that Virginia has no -- zero -- impact on the nomination. Republicans and Democrats need to rethink their emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire. If political parties are to have any substantive meaning in the new millennium, they must renew and reinvigorate their conventions as deliberative, decisionmaking events. The vitality of the parties -- of our democracy -- depends on it.
In retrospect, it's interesting to see that Virginia's February presidential primary actually did have an impact this year, at least on the Democratic side. Obama's decisive victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the major elements that suggest Virginia is "in play" this year, rather than firmly in the Republican column.
The nomination-process calendar still needs to be reformed. It's ridiculous for the Iowa caucuses to take place as early as January 3 and for the New Hampshire primary to virtually as early. It ill-serves voters, candidates, and political parties to cluster so many primary elections together and to front-load them.
A couple of letters in the Washington Times over the past several days caught my eye. Both address the topic of international trade from widely different points of view.
The first letter appeared last Friday above the signature of Howard Richman, who identified himself as co-author of a book called Trading Away Our Future. (The book is published by a non-profit group called the Ideal Taxes Association, which seems to be a think-tank staffed by Mr. Richman and people sharing his surname.) His letter to the editor says, in part:
In his Tuesday Commentary column, "Economic Reality Check," Michael Barone cites many trees but misses the forest. He points out that the economy is not suffering from much unemployment (true), nor is there much inflation (true). Nor is the economy shrinking (true). He also points out that the growth rate is mighty slow, but he doesn't stop to analyze why. His conclusion: Barack Obama's "protectionism" would not help the United States economy.
What he misses is the reason U.S. growth is so slow despite the lack of unemployment. It is slow because businesses have not been investing in American production. They have not been investing because they know that if they do, the mercantilist countries that control our level of trade deficits through currency and other trade manipulations will simply drive them out of business. The key to fixing the problem is for the United States to insist on balanced trade.
Richman's letter prompted a response from Don Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Fairfax. Boudreaux's letter, which appeared in Monday's editions, deserves to be reproduced in full:
Howard Richman argues "Balanced trade is the key" (Letters, Friday/Saturday) to America's prosperity. He's confused, as evidenced by his claim that America's recent economic slowdown is linked to its trade deficit. The United States has run a trade deficit for each of the past 31 years, some of which (like the present) were periods of slow growth, but many of which were periods of high growth. Indeed, the evidence suggests that higher trade deficits are associated with higher, rather than lower, rates of economic growth.
This last point highlights another of Mr. Richman's confusions. He thinks trade deficits mean less domestic investment. Not so. Every trade deficit (more accurately, current-account deficit) is offset exactly by a capital-account surplus - meaning net inflows of capital into the domestic economy. More capital generally means more growth.
Boudreaux -- who has a knack for writing letters to the editor that he characterizes as "one-minute economics lessons -- has the better of this argument. His letter in the Times reminded me of an article I wrote on the same topic in the last century. It appears, below, as one of an irregular series of archival pieces that I think of as "history lessons."
The earliest version of this article appeared in the Chicago Tribune in August 1991. This revised version appeared in The Metro Herald in October 1993:
Free Trade and the Trade Deficit Richard E. Sincere, Jr.
Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder's round-the-world trip to drum up business and investment for Virginia is a colorful reminder of how the globe is interconnected through commerce, finance, and industry. Virginia can only benefit when the Governor finds new markets for our agricultural and manufactured products. At the same time, the heated debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) reminds us how international trade can be a political ping-pong ball.
One aspect of the trade issue is the so-called trade deficit. According to conventional wisdom, a trade deficit is bad while a trade surplus is good. In fact, the terms "trade deficit" and "trade surplus" are so much hot air—they are empty and meaningless. To focus on the trade deficit distracts us from more important economic tasks.
National trade figures are meaningless because nations are not economic units and therefore do not trade. The numbers gathered and released by the government merely summarize countless sales and purchases made by individuals and corporations. The "nation" does not trade; only units within it do.
Canadian economist Richard Grant, writing for the Johannesburg-based Financial Mail, explains: "The implication is that exports and trade surpluses are good is totally unfounded. They are simply numerical aggregates that emerge from the summation of millions of unrelated transactions by individuals. No one is responsible for it. To say that a surplus is ‘sound' or that the balance of payments is ‘in good shape' is meaningless babble."
Grant goes on to note this example: "When a miner sells gold, he doesn't care who buys it so long as it gets sold. And he should be under no illusion that he is in any way serving the ‘national interest' by selling it to foreigners instead of local buyers. If local buyers are the highest bidders, they will—and should—get the gold."
Put another way, it doesn't really matter whether an Arlington software company sells $1 million worth of its product within Virginia or if it "exports" the software to Hyattsville, Maryland, or Accra, Ghana. What matters is that the company earned $1 million, which can then be used to employ more workers and buy more raw materials or be invested in stocks, bonds, or bank accounts.
What has happened is that persistent trade deficits have embedded themselves in the national consciousness as bad things.
"Our balance of payments is sick," cry the economists who believe the balance of payments needs medicine from the Federal Reserve Board. They argue that a balance-of-payments deficit indicates that American business—particularly manufacturing industry—is in decline. This is not necessarily true; in fact, the opposite may be the case.
At a seminar sponsored by Hillsdale College, economists Marshall Loeb and George Gilder made precisely this point. Loeb, managing editor of Fortune magazine, noted that structural change is occurring in the U.S. economy.
"After years of stagnation," he said, "U.S. manufacturing productivity is rising sharply. In 1987, it went up about 3.5 percent, more than double the rate of the middle to late 1970s and faster than Japan's or Germany's." Despite a general slowdown in the economy, this trend has continued through the early 1990s.
Far from declining as a portion of the national economy, Loeb pointed out that U.S. manufacturing currently accounts for about one-fifth of the gross national product (GNP), "almost exactly the figure that existed 10 or 15 years ago."
How this affects international trade figures was explained by Gilder, a prolific author on economic themes. He suggested that the trade deficit is beneficial to the U.S. economy, not the threat that many perceive it to be, because a substantial amount of money earned by foreign exporters is reinvested in U.S. businesses, industries, and real estate.
"The other side of a trade gap is necessarily a capital surplus," Gilder said. "That's what it means when they say the United States is becoming a net debtor. People want to lend us money. During this period when our debts were increasing, our assets were increasing much more rapidly." Between 1980 and 1988, for instance, the value of assets owned by American companies grew from 180 percent of GNP to 240 percent.
How can importing be advantageous over exporting? Gilder thinks it signifies improving competitiveness. "What happened in the early 1980s is that the United States began growing much faster than it had in the '70s, and much faster, in fact, than its trading partners were growing."
What this means to American business is that "if you're an exporter from the United States, and you're exporting to a stagnant global market, clearly you won't be able to expand your exports as fast as an exporter from a country that faces a booming American market."
Richard Grant made much the same point in the Financial Mail: "It is not exporting that makes businessmen happy, but rather selling to a wider market. How much business sells—and where—will be determined in the marketplace." And the marketplace, we know—the "invisible hand" exposed by Adam Smith—is a remarkable instrument for creating wealth.
Let's remember that the next time politicians start calling for a "national industrial policy" (that is, more central planning), or propose subsidies, quotas, and tariffs to "protect" American industries (that is, to keep obsolescent factories going despite their uselessness) or simply bash Japanese or Mexican workers to please their more bigoted constituents. The "trade deficit" is nonsense. All that matters is expanding wealth and wider opportunities for buying and selling. That's why Governor Wilder deserves our applause for traveling to Africa, Asia, and Europe to open up more markets for Virginia.
While the specific numbers for the first decade of the 21st century may be different from the last two decades of the 20th century, the principles remain the same. A trade deficit does not portend bad economic news; in fact, the opposite is often the case, since it means that Americans have money to spend on goods and services from whatever source they choose, whether here or abroad.
That unusual TV ad aired of late featuring an unlikely pairing of outspoken preachers - conservative Pat Robertson and liberal Al Sharpton - has left a bad taste in the mouths of the left, who obviously don't like mixing with the right.
Results of a new national study of 305 Democrats, Republicans and independents reveal that Democrats are less supportive of immediate government action on global warming after viewing the ad featuring Mr. Robertson and Mr. Sharpton.
The study was conducted by HCD Research and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion to obtain Americans' views on the ad about climate change.
Unfortunately, a look at the complete results of the survey reveals that the shift among Democrats is not very significant.
Still, any shift is better than none at all. Go, Pat, go!
In the old days, before the Internet and before bloggers, it was possible for political candidates to lie with impunity (even in print) and not fear being caught.
Not so anymore.
The Washington Post reports how congressional candidate Mark Ellmore, who is running for the GOP nomination in Virginia's Eighth Congressional District, fabricated quotations from that newspaper in a flier distributed to voters just days before the primary.
A flier put out by Mark W. Ellmore's campaign days before Tuesday's U.S. House Republican primary in Northern Virginia falsely attributes material to The Washington Post, an error pointed out by his opponent and confirmed by Ellmore's staff yesterday.
Ellmore is running against Amit Singh in the primary for a chance to challenge Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a nine-term incumbent.
The flier, which hit some mailboxes Friday, attributes the following photo caption to The Post: "Amit Singh with his political mentor Libertarian Ron Paul, who reportedly has plans to disrupt the Republican Convention in Minneapolis." Those words never appeared in the newspaper or as a quote elsewhere, and the photograph was not taken by The Post.
Political bloggers across Virginia have pounced on this as evidence that Ellmore -- who might be described as a "Mike Huckabee Republican," which is not exactly complimentary -- cannot be trusted to represent the people of the Eighth District.
It seems that Mark Ellmore’s campaign has been caught red-handed spreading blatant falsehoods about his opponent in Tuesday’s primary election....
I will say this much for Ellmore, he would be qualified to replace Jim Moran in one respect, they both seem to have an interesting commitment to the truth.
Mark Ellmore has managed not only to make himself look like a liar, he is jeopardizing the entire Republican establishment in Northern Virginia. It is imperative we elect Amit Singh to be our Republican nominee for the 8th district.
Update: The Ellmore campaign responded this afternoon with a press release that doesn’t address the accusations of false statements in their material, but in turn accuses Singh of using false statements in his latest mailer.
and
Update 2: The Washington Post writes today that the quote and photo on the flier attributed to them never appeared in the paper. The Ellmore campaign told Post reporter Theresa Vargas that the information for the quote comes from the LA Times and that it was an “honest” mistake. However, a simple search of the LA Times Web site reveals that there is no article that writes about Amit Singh.
You would think that, eight years into the 21st century and some fifteen years after the Internet began to play a role in political campaigns, politicians and their operatives would have learned that you can't get away with spreading falsehoods without being found out. Ellmore deserves to lose, not just because he's wrong on the issues, and not just because he's a liar, but because he's a stupid liar who's wrong on the issues.
Faking quotations from the Washington Post just invites scrutiny. Mark Ellmore, meet Gary Hart.
Update: After he saw this blog entry, Jon Henke asked me to write a short analysis of the Ellmore-Singh race for the new web site, The Next Right (motto: "Politics. Strategy. Action.") The result can be found here.
Southern Voice, a gay weekly published by the same company that also publishes the Washington Blade, has a long article about Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr and how (and why) his positions on gay issues have changed over the years (hat tip to Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report).
What's most interesting to me is how Barr explains that it was conversations with members of Outright Libertarians, a partisan group of gay libertarians, that helped him refine (and change) his views on issues of importance to gay and lesbian voters. Southern Voice reports:
Bob Barr sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in Congress as a Republican representing Georgia’s 7th District. Now running for president as a Libertarian, Barr advocates repealing part of the law.
In a June 2 interview with Southern Voice, Barr, who served in Congress from 1995-2003, delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.
“This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],” he said.
Barr said it is the second part of DOMA he would work to repeal if elected president.
“Over the years and over the last year since I’ve been more active in the Libertarian Party, I’ve talked with a number of individuals, including members of Outright Libertarians [a gay Libertarian group], and have come to view the second part as having been used as a club, or the tail wagging the dog,” Barr said. “It has become in effect a national definition of marriage. This is not what I intended.”
The article continues:
Doyle Jones, a member of Outright Libertarians living in Tucker, plans to vote for Barr for president and said he believes Barr’s reversal on DOMA is “sincere.”
“I think Outright Libertarians have influenced him,” Jones said.
Rob Power, chairperson of Outright Libertarians, said while pleased with Barr’s change of heart on DOMA, he was disappointed to hear Barr wants to repeal only part of the law.
But Power, who lives in San Francisco, does believe Barr has “evolved” on the issue. Barr first talked with Outright Libertarians at last year’s Conservative Leadership Conference in Reno, Nev. While Power was not at the conference, he worked with fellow Libertarians on devising a strategy to convince Barr he was wrong on DOMA by stressing to him the law was an attack on federalism, or state’s rights.
After a conversation with current Outright Libertarian secretary Brian Miller at that conference, Barr essentially reversed his position on DOMA, Power said.
While Barr does not yet think gay marriage is a good idea, he is open to both civil unions and permitting gay couples to adopt children:
Barr also told Southern Voice this week he now believes in civil unions and that gay couples deserve legal benefits and rights.
He supports gay people adopting, saying he has seen “plenty of heterosexual people adopt that shouldn’t have.”
And in line with the Libertarian Party, Barr, a former federal prosecutor, opposes hate crimes legislation, saying such a law “actually makes cases harder to prosecute.”
He also does not support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job bias based on sexual orientation, again citing the need for less governmental interference.
Barr's biggest break with conservatives may come in his opposition to DADT:
But Barr advocates dumping the federal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy prohibiting gay service members from serving openly. He said this week the firing of gay Arabic linguists, for example, is a threat to national security.
In a June 2007 op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal titled “Don’t Ask, Who Cares,” Barr wrote, “As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class,” Barr wrote.
“Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services,” he added.
While Bob Barr still has a bit more room to evolve and improve -- it would be nice for him to say that it's a good idea for gay couples to have not just the responsibilities of marriage but also all of the rights and privileges associated with it -- he deserves credit for listening to his erstwhile opponents and coming around to their point of view.
Bob Barr's "conversion" is an example of why libertarians have to be out in the arena, making arguments, trying to change minds. He is also an example of how nobody is a lost cause and why it is important to engage in dialogue even with people with whom we vehemently disagree.
Last July, while vacationing in Wisconsin, I took a self-guided tour of the state capitol building in Madison with some friends. Thanks to state Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), we were able to climb to the top of the rotunda dome, and even into the lantern that caps the building.
Last weekend, while attending the Republican Party of Virginia's state convention, I was part of a group invited to tour the state capitol building in Richmond by Delegate Rob Bell. Delegate Bell -- who represents constituents in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and Orange counties -- arranged for Bruce F. Jamerson, Clerk of the House of Delegates and Keeper of the Rolls of the Commonwealth, to guide the tour.
What follows is video of both tours.
First, the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, which is said to be the tallest of all the state capitol buildings. This video is primarily of the interior of the building.
This next video may be recognizable as part of the previously published "Getting High" series.
I have more material on the Virginia State Capitol, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson and is the second-oldest state capitol building in the country. (The Maryland State Capitol in Annapolis was built earlier than the one in Richmond.)
The tour was a real history lesson. Who knew, for instance, that Mr. Jefferson's capitol was almost torn down in the post-Civil War era, but that lack of funds prevented the demolition?
Mr. Jamerson's narration is well worth the time of watching this nine-part video series. (The whole thing lasts for about an hour.)
Note, in Part VII, that Keith Drake tells about his experience as a Virginia Elector, casting his vote for George W. Bush in 2004 in a ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber. (The Virginia members of the Electoral College will meet in that same place on December 15 to cast their ballots.)
Delegate Bell also takes some time, in Parts VIII and IX, to give us some "inside baseball" about how the House of Delegates works -- where members sit, how they determine when to take a break in the lounge, when to stop eating because the cameras are aimed at them, and so forth.
Last weekend, Delegate Jeff Frederick of Prince William County was elected the new chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, succeeding John Hager. Members of the Jeffersoniad blogging collective decided to share a few ideas with him as he takes office and begins to shape the party apparatus for the next four years.
Jeffersoniad members sent this memo to Chairman Frederick, who at the moment is taking a well-earned vacation with his family:
To: Chairman Jeff Frederick, Republican Party of Virginia
From: The Jeffersoniad
Date: June 5, 2008
RE: Technology and the RPV
Congratulations on your election to lead the Republican Party of Virginia.We are excited to have an energized leadership team heading up the party in Richmond.We want to help you and your team succeed in your quest to revitalize the Republican Party of Virginia.
As you know, the Jeffersoniad is a coalition of conservative bloggers who write about the issues facing our Commonwealth.Because many of our members have significant political experience and knowledge in Virginia and beyond, we are confident we can be an asset to your team and your plan to improve the Party.Our first offering is this memorandum outlining our ideas on how you can utilize various technologies to expand and improve the communications of the party.
Party activists like to be in the know; they want to be informed about what is going on.For far too long, and for far too many, RPV has been an obscure building in a bad neighborhood in Richmond to which only the most elite of Party insiders had access.You have the opportunity to transform RPV into an integral part of GOP efforts in Virginia accessible to all.Use of technology to disseminate information should be the first item on your list of things to do.
First, we are very pleased with your campaign promise to revamp the RPV website to include elements that will be welcoming to new visitors, and will also give an “inside baseball” feel to all.We look forward to the changes you have planned.If desired by your team, we are available to provide feedback and a medium for outreach so that the revamped site is a success.From providing beta testing of the new site to participating in an explosive launch of the new site, we are here to help you make it work.
Furthermore, on websites, your initiative to ensure every Republican unit has a website is a solid proposal.Many units may not have the resources to produce and host their own site, and as you have stated, RPV should be there for those units.RPV should produce boiler plate sites that can be hosted on RPV servers that, at the very least, contain local party contact and meeting information as well as contact information for local elected Republicans and Republican candidates.
A second element of technology use we would like to see significant work on is email contact lists.Unfortunately, such lists are valuable resources that are often held tight by the owners of those lists.It is imperative for RPV to build and maintain a solid Republican activist list that can be easily sorted by city/county, HOD legislative district, State Senate legislative district, and Congressional District.These lists not only need to be constantly updated, but also should have an easy method by which visitors to the RPV and local committee websites can sign up in the first place. The RPV has Voter Vault.Does someone have the technology to quickly update this database with emails?Or do you want to manage a separate list – if so, then there should be a means to do cross checking and integration.
Social networking sites are all the rage right now.We have seen significant use of sites like Facebook and My Space in the political arena.Many Congressional candidates make effective use of these sites to recruit young volunteers, announce events, and communicate their message.RPV should be in the game as well.RPV needs to create a presence in all popular social networking sites and use these sites to disseminate information about the Party.
We would be remiss if we neglected to mention the role of blogs and the blogging community to advance the Party.Blogs play a very important role in Virginia politics today.RPV should acknowledge the blogs and work with coalitions like the Jeffersoniad to disseminate information important to RPV.Many members of the Jeffersoniad are former candidates, future candidates, former Party officials, current Party officials, and -- of course -- future Party officials.We have vested interests in seeing RPV succeed and grow.You can expect us to be very favorable to actions you take that will improve the Party.At the same time, you can expect us to be very honest if you do not live up to the promises of your campaign.
RPV must embrace blogs, not only as readers and passers of information, but also as active participants.RPV has attempted to incorporate a blog on its website with limited success.RPV should have a blog that can be used to get information out.You should also use the RPV blog to expose the opposition.Obviously, we understand the need for caution when posting on an official Party blog, but those assigned to post to the Party blog should be trusted and have the freedom to post with very limited bureaucratic process to go through for post approval.
Also, we should come to a mutual understanding of free speech.There will be times when the RPV doesn’t want to be branded with the opposition’s labels for everything a blog/blogger has ever said.Likewise, there may be an action or statement from the RPV that blogs/bloggers might want to keep some distance.It’s worth a collective chat to talk about such times before they happen so expectations and responses are held in common understandings.
The use of video, audio and graphics can’t be understated. If RPV opens the door, then we could suggest cogent clips or symbolic statements that RPV can consider to spend the resources, or not, to make them happen.Likewise, the material prepared by users might be considered by RPV for use.As always, good humor and taste are personal and won’t be universally enjoyed.
Blogs should also be used at the local level.Ideally it would great for RPV to develop a blog coalition that is made up of those who make posts to their local unit blogs.There should be mechanism in place that enables RPV posts to be easily pushed down to local unit blogs.
We are very pleased with your campaign promise to create the Majority Blog to get information out to members of the General Assembly. We would encourage more use of these specialty blogs for the purpose of getting information into the right hands.
There are many more tools becoming available every day, we hope RPV takes advantage of all available tools to get information out on the street.
Finally, we would recommend creating the position of Director of New Media within the RPV staff structure.It should be the duty of this position to utilize all of the available technology to get the message of the Republican Party of Virginia out to all.
We hope you take this memo into consideration as you move RPV forward into the 21stCentury.We want to see RPV grow and have unprecedented success in the coming years.We wish you luck in your leadership role of the Republican Party of Virginia.
"One of the smarter blogs is the libertarian-leaning collection of Charlottesville posts put up by Rick Sincere..." -- Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, May 8, 2005
With the nation's cities and campuses at peace, the political turmoil of the past decade was easy to forget. In an essay simply entitled "Sigh!" columnist Russell Baker wrote, "The nineteen-seventies are boring. The decade is already half over and its chief legacy is an engulfing swamp of boredom." Baker noted that "President Ford is boring, which is his chief political strength." But Baker added, "In the nineteen-sixties, of course, Americans hungered for boredom. A sleepy Government, some peace in the streets.... In all that turbulence, it seemed an unattainable dream of paradise. Now we may have it, and may even be enjoying it."
