Just after we published on Tuesday, former U.S. Senator from Nebraska Bob Kerrey announced a decision we were fairly sure of for some time now: that he would not seek the U.S. Senate seat he once held.
Kerrey's decision was compounded by the announcement earlier Tuesday that former Lieutenant Governor Kim Robak also declined to run for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by her former gubernatorial partner, Ben Nelson.
Unsurprisingly, there were all kinds of ridiculous overreactions and feigned surprise, both locally and nationally. These overreactions came from both Democratic and Republican politicians and pundits, and even national media outlets. On the left, Democrats seem to be left headless in a political contest with a filing deadline just a week away. On the right, Republicans are patting themselves on the back, for absolutely no reason. This was a decision by Bob Kerry, who likely could have defeated any of the clownish candidates the Nebraska GOP looks to put up.
Frankly, we're not surprised at any of this. We also won't be surprised at the likely outcome this fall, or in the years to come. This is what allowing nearly unlimited campaign finance donations, few real campaign finance regulations, and years of no real political competition brings.
For more than a few years now, neither major political party has done much real work at building their ranks for the future. As the number of truly competitive races has shrunk in every category from Mayor and Councilperson all the way to Congress, and in every city, state, and legislative district, neither party has had much need or desire to build a decent farm team.
That need diminished even further with the Citizens United ruling. Now both sides can simply bring out of the back rooms the habits they've been publicly denying for many years now, that only those who can beg, borrow, steal, or inherit a small fortune will be able to buy their way into politics in America.
In real terms, the outlook for Nebraskans is sad and bleak for the near future. It's now fairly likely that one of the many incompetent Republican candidates vying for U.S. Senate will pander, lie, and buy their way into Federal office, That is, though, with fewer TV, radio, and newspaper commercials than they might otherwise have purchased had Bob Kerrey decided to enter the contest.
After this fall, those Nebraskans who are not right-wing political extremists will have little real representation in their Federal government. Sadly, all that will be left in Nebraska's national political delegation are politicians who do not agree with, and will not fight for, anything other than extreme conservative points of view. We honestly recommend any politically displaced Nebraskan forward any appeals for Federal assistance to Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa - though they may only be able to do so for another couple of years. By then, the cannibals may have run him out of Washington, as well.
For those who want to curse out Kerrey or Robak, we think you should stop now. Who can blame them for not wanting to get back into the fray with the political landscape the way it now is?
For those on both sides of the common political divide who are decrying the dearth of worthwhile candidates, ask yourselves: would you want to do the pandering, the begging, the glad-handing, and even maybe some groveling just to get the money required to run for office? Would you rather become an incredibly high-priced plaything for a multi-billionaire, like Newt Gingrich seems to be? Would you want to put your family, your friends, your former co-workers - virtually anyone you've ever known - through the insane magnifying glass of a major political/slime campaign today?
We certainly wouldn't.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Game On
As Americans returned to work yesterday, one of the biggest topics of discussion was naturally the Super Bowl, including the commercials. As there often is, one specific ad seemed to be generating the most amount of discussion at workplaces, online, and even in the media.
If you haven't yet seen the ad, we highly recommend that you do. The ad was for the Dodge & Chrysler family of products and featured scenes of Detroit and Michigan - as well as the talents of the iconic Clint Eastwood. The ad was a stroke of genius, and reportedly, Eastwood even wrote some parts of the script himself. It didn't even mention Chrysler by name - but everyone seems to remember which company the ad was for.
The ad also made it clear, without ever mentioning the auto bailout, that it took everyone coming together - our government included - to rally around and find a way to save one of America's last great industries, and that the same thing is now needed for our nation to take the next big step back.
The message of the ad was a powerful one, one of hope and rebirth - but one that also matches the empirical data about what has been happening in our economy. Already this year, Chrysler announced they had returned to profitability for the first time since 1997. Jobs are starting to come back to Detroit too, and to many places in the Midwest and Ohio Valley that were so decimated by the recession.
These facts about the economy, coupled with the powerful ad, had many people asking if this ad was an ad for Chrysler - or for the Obama reelection campaign. That the ad was voiced over, acted in, and partially written by Clint Eastwood - a man that George H.W. Bush had once considered asking to be his Presidential running mate - seemed to shock those who derided the ad as Obama's, especially those on the right.
The man with the most responsibility for our political system's current hostile temperament, Karl Rove, said the Chrysler ad offended him. Other talking heads on the extremist right followed in lockstep with Rove, denouncing the ad as propaganda, and heavily implying that Eastwood must have sold out.
The truth is, Eastwood did not sell out - either his principles or his politics, a claim supported by Eastwood's own comments on Monday that he is "not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama." In fact, Eastwood has been historically very centrist, with a bit of a libertarian streak. When he was mayor of Carmel, California he was registered non-partisan. He's supported candidates from both major parties in the past, too. And while Eastwood said he voted for John McCain in 2008, he's also noted he has yet to decide who he'll support for President this year.
The claim that the ad is propaganda is also untrue. Even if some Republicans are in denial about it, the economy finally appears set to strengthen its recovery this year - much to the dismay of some very partisan Republicans running for office. Jobs are already coming back to the American automobile industry - and GM finished 2011 as the world's top automaker.
We'll admit - the economy isn't fixed yet, and we're all going to have to work together if we want to get things rolling again, past the starting point into a full-blown recovery. That was exactly Mr. Eastwood's message in that ad - one we believe is good for every American, regardless of their political affiliation.
The fact is, while the Chrysler ad may not have been meant to be political, its honesty and message being delivered at this time in American history make it somewhat naturally political - and to us, that's actually a very good thing.
As Mr. Eastwood says in the ad, "This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines."
The ad finishes with this line: "It’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin."
To that, we heartily agree, and simply say, "Game on."
If you haven't yet seen the ad, we highly recommend that you do. The ad was for the Dodge & Chrysler family of products and featured scenes of Detroit and Michigan - as well as the talents of the iconic Clint Eastwood. The ad was a stroke of genius, and reportedly, Eastwood even wrote some parts of the script himself. It didn't even mention Chrysler by name - but everyone seems to remember which company the ad was for.
The ad also made it clear, without ever mentioning the auto bailout, that it took everyone coming together - our government included - to rally around and find a way to save one of America's last great industries, and that the same thing is now needed for our nation to take the next big step back.
The message of the ad was a powerful one, one of hope and rebirth - but one that also matches the empirical data about what has been happening in our economy. Already this year, Chrysler announced they had returned to profitability for the first time since 1997. Jobs are starting to come back to Detroit too, and to many places in the Midwest and Ohio Valley that were so decimated by the recession.
These facts about the economy, coupled with the powerful ad, had many people asking if this ad was an ad for Chrysler - or for the Obama reelection campaign. That the ad was voiced over, acted in, and partially written by Clint Eastwood - a man that George H.W. Bush had once considered asking to be his Presidential running mate - seemed to shock those who derided the ad as Obama's, especially those on the right.
The man with the most responsibility for our political system's current hostile temperament, Karl Rove, said the Chrysler ad offended him. Other talking heads on the extremist right followed in lockstep with Rove, denouncing the ad as propaganda, and heavily implying that Eastwood must have sold out.
The truth is, Eastwood did not sell out - either his principles or his politics, a claim supported by Eastwood's own comments on Monday that he is "not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama." In fact, Eastwood has been historically very centrist, with a bit of a libertarian streak. When he was mayor of Carmel, California he was registered non-partisan. He's supported candidates from both major parties in the past, too. And while Eastwood said he voted for John McCain in 2008, he's also noted he has yet to decide who he'll support for President this year.
The claim that the ad is propaganda is also untrue. Even if some Republicans are in denial about it, the economy finally appears set to strengthen its recovery this year - much to the dismay of some very partisan Republicans running for office. Jobs are already coming back to the American automobile industry - and GM finished 2011 as the world's top automaker.
We'll admit - the economy isn't fixed yet, and we're all going to have to work together if we want to get things rolling again, past the starting point into a full-blown recovery. That was exactly Mr. Eastwood's message in that ad - one we believe is good for every American, regardless of their political affiliation.
The fact is, while the Chrysler ad may not have been meant to be political, its honesty and message being delivered at this time in American history make it somewhat naturally political - and to us, that's actually a very good thing.
As Mr. Eastwood says in the ad, "This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines."
The ad finishes with this line: "It’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin."
To that, we heartily agree, and simply say, "Game on."
Monday, February 6, 2012
Getting Your Hackles Up
After a weekend filled with Super Bowl hoopla, snow shoveling for some, and another GOP primary contest - the Nevada caucus, which Mr. Romney won handily - America is once again returning to business this morning.
Sadly, there's still a bit of stuff to clean up from last week.
In the middle of the latest gaffe from Mitt Romney, and the preparation for the big Super Bowl game, the Susan G. Komen Foundation made a major mistake pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, which we initially focused on last week. Since our initial whack at the story, two things have changed.
The first major change was that the Komen Foundation partially stepped back from its initial strike at Planned Parenthood on Friday, after the Foundation's actions raised the hackles of millions of people. Upon further review, Komen's claim that they're returning funding to Planned Parenthood appears to be more spin than a real retraction. We're not entirely surprised their so-called advisors got them into this mess - but deciding to pull the funding isn't the main reason for our anger at Komen.
The second major change since last Wednesday was that most of our media colleagues missed the real story in the Planned Parenthood/Komen battle. They got caught up in the complicated secondary topics and didn't really address the real problem with Komen's actions - which we will.
We understand the subjects of abortion, birth control, cancer, and religion are individually complicated topics that raise the ire of many Americans - let alone when any or all of those topics cross paths.
Just on the issue of abortion, there are far more than just two sides. For example, we know of no one who is truly pro-abortion - meaning that they think Americans should have more abortions. We do know individuals who are anti-choice and anti-abortion - meaning they don't want anyone to be able to have abortions (regardless of the fact that the right to choose what to do with one's own body is settled law). We also know those who are pro-choice yet anti-abortion - meaning they'd prefer no one had an abortion, but if a women makes that choice it should be safe and rare. We even know a few people who are truly pro-life. That means they're against the death penalty, war, euthanasia, and abortion, and are heavily in favor of helping the poor get medical care, including breast cancer screenings. Then there are those who claim they're pro-life, but think war and the death penalty are a-okay. We know a few of them too.
You can see from that confusing array of accurate labels why the soundbite media had such a problem with the Planned Parenthood/Komen story.
The biggest single simple lesson most in the media missed, and that the Komen Foundation reminded us all of, is the same lesson that has been taught in American politics repeatedly: the sin isn't as much the action, as it is the coverup.
If the Komen Foundation had come out and admitted they were giving up their carefully cultivated neutral political facade - that they still wanted to to fight cancer but wanted to do it from an extremist conservative point of view - we still think many millions of people would have been disappointed in them. However, we don't think those Americans would be nearly as angry.
What the Komen Foundation did by trying to hide their true intentions under the proverbial cover of fighting cancer was to betray the trust many millions of people formerly had placed in them. Instead, they raised the hackles of millions more and temporarily made the issue of fighting cancer into a political beach ball.
Organizations that want to fight cancer from a left or right political stance may certainly do so - and we welcome their help from all sides. What organizations should NOT do is attempt to use something as important as fighting cancer as a shield for their organization's political views.
The truth is easy. Cancer is not political. It harms all who are affected by it. The goal of beating cancer is one we can all agree on.
Sadly, there's still a bit of stuff to clean up from last week.
In the middle of the latest gaffe from Mitt Romney, and the preparation for the big Super Bowl game, the Susan G. Komen Foundation made a major mistake pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, which we initially focused on last week. Since our initial whack at the story, two things have changed.
The first major change was that the Komen Foundation partially stepped back from its initial strike at Planned Parenthood on Friday, after the Foundation's actions raised the hackles of millions of people. Upon further review, Komen's claim that they're returning funding to Planned Parenthood appears to be more spin than a real retraction. We're not entirely surprised their so-called advisors got them into this mess - but deciding to pull the funding isn't the main reason for our anger at Komen.
The second major change since last Wednesday was that most of our media colleagues missed the real story in the Planned Parenthood/Komen battle. They got caught up in the complicated secondary topics and didn't really address the real problem with Komen's actions - which we will.
We understand the subjects of abortion, birth control, cancer, and religion are individually complicated topics that raise the ire of many Americans - let alone when any or all of those topics cross paths.
Just on the issue of abortion, there are far more than just two sides. For example, we know of no one who is truly pro-abortion - meaning that they think Americans should have more abortions. We do know individuals who are anti-choice and anti-abortion - meaning they don't want anyone to be able to have abortions (regardless of the fact that the right to choose what to do with one's own body is settled law). We also know those who are pro-choice yet anti-abortion - meaning they'd prefer no one had an abortion, but if a women makes that choice it should be safe and rare. We even know a few people who are truly pro-life. That means they're against the death penalty, war, euthanasia, and abortion, and are heavily in favor of helping the poor get medical care, including breast cancer screenings. Then there are those who claim they're pro-life, but think war and the death penalty are a-okay. We know a few of them too.
You can see from that confusing array of accurate labels why the soundbite media had such a problem with the Planned Parenthood/Komen story.
The biggest single simple lesson most in the media missed, and that the Komen Foundation reminded us all of, is the same lesson that has been taught in American politics repeatedly: the sin isn't as much the action, as it is the coverup.
If the Komen Foundation had come out and admitted they were giving up their carefully cultivated neutral political facade - that they still wanted to to fight cancer but wanted to do it from an extremist conservative point of view - we still think many millions of people would have been disappointed in them. However, we don't think those Americans would be nearly as angry.
What the Komen Foundation did by trying to hide their true intentions under the proverbial cover of fighting cancer was to betray the trust many millions of people formerly had placed in them. Instead, they raised the hackles of millions more and temporarily made the issue of fighting cancer into a political beach ball.
Organizations that want to fight cancer from a left or right political stance may certainly do so - and we welcome their help from all sides. What organizations should NOT do is attempt to use something as important as fighting cancer as a shield for their organization's political views.
The truth is easy. Cancer is not political. It harms all who are affected by it. The goal of beating cancer is one we can all agree on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)