Comments on: Conventions ‘08: Round #2 with Brand McCain

By: Kathy Horak

Kathy Horak — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:54:11 +0000

Let’s see.
Who owns Alaska? Exxon, Chevron, etc.
Ergo, Who owns Sarah Palin?
Big oil.
Do you Republicans and undecideds really think the Arabs, Russia and Venezuela are on your side?

By: CK

CK — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:52:33 +0000

@carol: “McCain and Palin were here in Kansas City area yesterday, they had 6000 people show up just to see them. I have to admit I have not seen anything like this in any political campaign since I started paying attention and voting 30 some years ago.”
Very telling on the attention-level and core interest (a marketers’ dream!) that this election is garnering. But on a purely personal note, I’m thrilled to see so much involvement. Whomever wins, it gives me confidence how much people are caring, and still very much care.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:34:02 +0000

Good points on the shift in conversation, Carol.
I have said from day one of McCain’s choice of Palin, as have others here such as Alan Wolk, that McCain choosing her was a brilliant tactical move.
Whether it translates into an electoral victory remains to be seen…

By: Carol Doms

Carol Doms — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:02:44 +0000

Thoughts Several days later from the convention.
I just read both blog on Obama’s speech and McCains.
McCain’s Veep pick trumped Obama’s night of speech. Look that Round 1 blog comments. It did not take long for the focus switch from Obama’s historic night to McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin. Same thing happenend in other media venue.
Kudos to the Republicans: They got the momentum (for now) and the buzz.
McCain and Palin were here in Kansas City area yesterday, they had 6000 people show up just to see them. I have to admit I have not seen anything like this in any political campaign since I started paying attention and voting 30 some years ago.
Ad Age ran commentary on Political “brand” as well Front page 9/8/08.
Most interesting comment: Believes Obama’s trying to tie McCain to “another 4 years” (Bush 3rd term) should be dropped. McCain Maverick reputation against is own party (at times) works against that. Suggested that they tie the McCain from 2000 is not the same McCain form 2008. Comments on that?
And just for fun. The Sarah Palin “Facts” web site. People are having a lot of fun “creating facts” on Palin.
http://www.palinfacts.com/?paged=4
Carol Doms
Nicholson Kovac

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:43:10 +0000

I don’t think he is the epitome of evil. In fact, I think he probably has good intentions and has done some good things, too.
Cam, to be clear, I respect you because — while we do not see eye to eye on politics — at least you are a thinker. The post was more a rant against the Bush admin and a call for competent leadership in both the White House and Congress, not an argument with you.
It was also a rant against excessive partisanship and ideology. Yes, some partisanship and ideology is needed because frankly, on some things, there is not all that much compromise. You are either for it or against it.
But some things have stalled because of hard positions taken by both sides and as a result the problem festers out of control. That is unacceptable.
And it is completely unacceptable to waste tax payer money on things like earmarks and clearly failed government programs or those that just benefit some special interest or another. There are a lot of subsidies that the government pays just because of a strong lobbying savvy. That is flat-out wrong.
Americans have to absolutely insist the next administration and Congress put a stop to that. It is absolutely unacceptable.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:01:08 +0000

“Please tell me your political philosophy?”
That’s a long post. I’ve voted for CP and LP candidates before on occasion, but I don’t subscribe to all of their ideals or actions.
I vote case-by-case, based on what I know of the candidates.
My ground zero for forming my philosophy was upon reading Common Sense and Rights of Man. From there, 2nd Treatise on Civil Government and studying the Constitution by a thorough reading of it, plus the DoI, the Federalist Papers, other supporting (and detracting) documents, biographies, history, case law, etc.
But, God willing, I’m always learning something new that forces me to challenge what I know and the process by which I came upon that knowledge.
I was never a Bushite, but I don’t think he’s the epitome of evil, either.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:10:17 +0000

That statement at ARPAnet and Internstate highway system was directed at you (and others who seem spasmodically anti-government) but the rest of my post was *not*. I should have made that clear.
Please tell me your political philosophy? The bits and pieces I have gotten seem to place you at the hard right, anti-government camp. Perhaps the Constitution Party or something like that.
I could be way off.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:30:53 +0000

“ou, my friend, are benefiting from the fruits of government funded research and development. If you don’t like it, maybe you should stay off the Internet?”
“Do you drive on the Interstate highway system? Do you drink relatively clean water? Do you breathe relatively clean air? Is your food supply relatively safe? Etc.”
No doubt your argument could greatly benefit from knowing what my political philosophy actually is.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:48:06 +0000

As decided by whom? It is not so cut and dry as you might think. Note that the Internet itself started as a government project funded by what was then called the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA). In fact, it was initially called ARPANET:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpanet
You, my friend, are benefiting from the fruits of government funded research and development. If you don’t like it, maybe you should stay off the Internet?
Do you drive on the Interstate highway system? Do you drink relatively clean water? Do you breathe relatively clean air? Is your food supply relatively safe? Etc.
It is just one of many examples of how research and development that starts with government backing spins off into the private sector or for the benefit of the private sector. The Interstate Highway system is another example but there are numerous other examples.
Often the sort of basic research and development that the government can do is not *immediately* profitable so not possible by the private sector alone. Much scientific, engineering, and medical research falls into that category.
Basic infrastructure: roads, bridges, train tracks, etc., are public goods and areas where the market fails. You need a LOT of money to keep it maintained and to build it up.
The market fails when it comes to protecting the environment and other needed regulatory functions.
I advocate limited government but the line by some extreme libertarians that only national defense is a proper functions of the federal government is a flat-out kooky idea.
The corrupt, special interest driven system we have now must be reformed for us to succeed as a nation. Our hard earned tax dollars must be spent responsibly. This has not been the case and, frankly, the last eight years have been probably those most irresponsible in history. We cut taxes and increased spending on everything under the sun — including many, many, bridges to nowhere type projects — with little accountability, all while fighting two wars.
This has been absolutely irresponsible and it was both Democrats and Republicans who participated in this outrage though I have to say that the Bush Administration spent like a drunken sailor and the so-called conservative Republicans who dominated both Houses, joined right in the on the feeding frenzy. If Republicans can’t be fiscally responsible, then what are they good for?
I think there are good, competent people in both major parties and I hope that whoever gets elected picks the smartest, most competent people he can possibly get. We can’t afford another 4 years of sheer incompetence.
From the firing of Shinseki for saying that he would need 500,000 troops to properly conquer Iraq and then the inexcusibly incompetent and arrogant mis-handling of the wars aftermath is beyond the pale. It was absolutely shameful. I just got back from Silver Spring Maryland near Walter Reed Hospital that takes care of many vets and you see people’s kids walking down the street with prosthetic limbs. Billions squandered.
Maybe we did have to go in with a sledge hammer and bust the place up but that was the easy part, it was inexcusable not to plan for the aftermath. No excuse.
There was no excuse for letting a city drown and patting some flunky on the back and saying, “way to go.” No excuse. None.
There is not excuse for turning the largest surplus into the largest deficit. No excuse. None.
There was no excuse for arrogantly running our international standing, carefully built since WW II into the dirt. No excuse. None.
I think both McCain and Obama have observed and learned: Don’t just bring in a bunch of flunkies. Find some smart, competent people and and run a responsible, adult administration.
I have talked to responsible, adult, thoughtful liberals, moderates, and conservatives but the idealogues who parrot this or that thing they heard on Fox or MSNBC or some party platform drive me nuts. Do some of you own thinking.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:07:33 +0000

“Cam, if you want a taste of anarchy,”
No thanks. There’s a good ground somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy with many stages in between.
A government that confines itself to its just and properly enumerated powers is sufficient. I’m not sure we’ll ever get there, but we can certainly get closer than we are now.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:48:33 +0000

Folks I'm adding these to BOTH the candidate discussion threads in the comments because I added the text from each of the speeches to both the discussions. It's just nice to keep a record of all–if for nothing but posterity's sake– Here's what McCain's speech promised: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/mccain.highlights/index.html Here's what Obama's speech promised: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/obama.promises/index.html (that's it, just wanted us to have them)

By: Michael Leis

Michael Leis — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:41:45 +0000

One of those ancient sayings: All stories are fundamentally about life, death or sex. One of those meatloaf sayings: Two out of three ain’t bad.
The republican convention, and McCain’s speech in particular focused on major subtextual themes key to their age-old formula for winning votes: fear and death, wrapped in the context of the perception of the american dream.
To those who commented about confusion, don’t forget that this is a key strategy employed by Rove to perfection again, and reminiscent of the same kinds of confusion and fear campaigns run by both AT&T (remember all those 10-10-savings numbers they flooded the market with to retain share?) and Verizon’s “can you hear me now?”
So yes, the message was the same convincing combination of death, fear and consumption that has proven to win with US voters. The Aesthetics and the delivery however may prove to make this speech a turning point where McCain allowed Palin to steal a pivotal scene needed to continue the suspension of disbelief.
More often than not, memorable presidential campaigns are marked with slowly speaking short sentences. McCain had trouble controlling his cadence, rhythm, or any other part of the delivery that would have controlled the studio audience and helped them make his forensic points emotional punctuation in an impassioned march towards the White house.
But he flubbed that potential, along with any other hope at a performer-audience relationship with nutty facial expressions, bad vocal intonation/emphasis, and rushing every delivery. My favorite was “Electric Auto-mobiles?” as though he was asking if these really existed at the end of a list of energy alternatives to create independence from foreign oil.
[Though I must say we got all up in this foreign oil after discovering that the Industrial era's coal-driven energy plan wasn't really efficient or good for breathing. A century ago.]
Aesthetically, the creative leaders may have lost him the election alone with their choices of backdrop video. Did they see An Inconvenient truth? The Obama speech? Not even from a partisan standpoint, but from the basic understanding that there are three kinds of shots: Wide, medium, and close. The imagery, colors, and subtextual meaning complementing the subject MUST work for all three. In this speech, they only worked sometimes, and only in a few wide shots.
The close-up shots of that speech are like the putting green in golf. That’s where you ring the register. All of the emotion you’re trying to convey comes together when the camera closes in on a point the speech is making. Too often McCain was enveloped in bright, contrasting colors like green or blue that were so hot against the color of his skin they bled over, blurring the definition of the shape of his face. Even the best cameramen and technical directors can’t make up for that.
What’s worse, when shows try to spoof it as green screen, putting in their own images in the background, you can see the problems of uneven color values in those ugly bight hues. So even post-production folks will be cursing while they try to find a way to wrap a new, more convincing color scheme around these awful live blunders.
If being a maverick means poorly staging a rushed speech fashioned around death, fear, and consumption: mission accomplished!

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:58:13 +0000

@Stephen: While I think David was referring to the base feed that was rebroadcast…the question, as I understand, is whether that base feed was inherently biased. Actually, the issue is whether the media is biased overall.
Now, I do find Fox to be right-biased but then I must turn to myself (hi, self!) and ask if so many other media isn’t left biased–and to your point if they aren’t left-biased just at the Conventions but overall. I’m so used to Time being left and Newsweek being right that I need to take a step back and look at the ‘aggregate’ of the others. That is an action point for me. Just FYI: I’m mainly a “CNN” watcher and reader. Tell me which is the most “fair-based” in your opinion and I’ll watch that for a month so I can really assess it from a daily standpoint.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:40:05 +0000

I may a bit of an idealist because I think a lot of peace and prosperity can be achieved through trade and firm diplomacy. So, like you, I am excited about the future.
Though I also have to agree with George Orwell’s statement that, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
BTW, thanks for the book recommendation your blog link. It looks fascinating.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:20:18 +0000

@Neil: Speaking of global change (as the world around us has changed), I want to refer you to the best ‘marketing’ book of the year…which is not about “marketing best practices” but the rise of new markets. Because globalization is truly the story of our time (yes, climate change is the “issue” of our time). Our administration, whomever it is, will need to embrace that our country is far from the only superpower and if you think this election is great I believe you’ll find so many prominent superpowers even more exhilarating (it doesn’t frighten me, I’m thrilled as new markets are always a good thing–complex but good).
http://www.ck-blog.com/cks_blog/2008/06/this-marketer-r.html
And I, too, feel much better regardless of whom wins. That’s NOT saying I don’t have concerns–it means I feel better. Mainly because the public is SO involved again…and we not only have America, but the world watching. We’re both accountable and participatory again. That alone is something remarkable.
Sorry ’bout that, I was giving Cam some well-intentioned grief over mentioning Top Gun .

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:28:46 +0000

And, I should mention, both candidates recognize that out of control health care costs and a broken insurance system are in danger of really running middle and working class families standard of living into the ground. Whether the cost of born by businesses or the individual it is a HUGE drag on prosperity.
I hope to hear more details on their proposals but ignoring this issue is national economic suicide.

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:26:53 +0000

“Sorry to burst the bias bubble some may hang onto.”
Huh?
David, I’d send you a link, but Google shows 2,490,000 of them. And I can’t type “knowhow” that many times.
The media, absent Fox, has taken a hard left in American politics. We don’t have to debate this, do we?
The MSM has lost the confidence of the American viewer because they have consistently delivered a poor product, replacing “news” with “opinion”, overwhelmingly from a far left standpoint. Their declining viewership and readership reflect this, not to mention the rise of citizen journalists like us.
If your dog food stinks, dogs won’t eat it — regardless of your commercials and packaging. This is basic marketing and a branding lesson that is replayed time and time again in all industries worldwide.
You can read more about this if you’re interested, but t his link is a good place to start: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_bias_bigger_problem_than_campaign_cash.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:09:45 +0000

CK, I couldn’t agree more. This is the most exciting presidential race I can remember.
I have to say that I take some solace in the knowledge that whether McCain or Obama wins they are going to be very careful to bring competent people in around them in key positions. Neither wants to make the same blundering mistakes as George W.
Neither McCain or Obama will say “way to go” to some flunkie while a city drowns or whatever awaits us in the next 4 years. They both will take things seriously and have competent people to turn to quickly.
Both candidates recognize that the middle class and working class standards of living have fell in the last 8 years. They may have different prescriptions for how to deal with this fact but both recognize it as a reality and we will hear what they have to say over the coming couple of months.
Both candidates realize our standing in the world has dropped like a rock and will work to repair our relations with the rest of the world.
Both candidates recognize the importance of education and the environment. Again, they have different ideas on how to deal with these problems but neither pretends they do not exist.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:55:53 +0000

Cam is talking about the 1986 movie staring Tom Cruise as "Maverick." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:43:58 +0000

Hey Folks: thanks for continuing this convo; I hate that I couldn’t participate again until late yesterday. Luckily this blog is open 24/7 .
I’ve no doubt that McCain as a person is both a military hero and a maverick. As said above I recognize that he has the blood, sweat and years to prove it. I’m not questioning what he’s done to serve his country in times of war and in times of internal conflict when he’s gone against the status quo. And to many of your points, there are absolutely examples of military men/women who have been both.
But I’m talking “Brand McCain” and the platform/theme of this campaign–particularly the convention and specifically the speech.
And we need one really strong theme. I feel we have two.
Both are strong, both have honor. But both have positions in the mind all their own (the teamwork and regimented precision of the military and the blaze one’s own trail of maverick). And while “country first” can nestle both of his qualities because it’s country not man above all else, I am still struggling to position him in my mind. During a convention when the objective is to communicate one strong theme (so as to energize the base and get the undecided votes), we need more clarity and less complexity.
Am I saying he won’t win? Nope. Happy to say that I think this race is gonna be neck-and-neck and one of the most exciting I can remember. I do think that this convention made him more likable, trustworthy and accessible. Because he’s humble and soft-spoken and true to his country (but his VP sure is a firecracker) while his opponent is much more celebrity and looking to blaze a new era of change. (That is not a knock on Obama calling him “celebrity,” he’s just got that star quality about him).
Now, what Alan hit on is correct that they needed to distance McCain as not “McSame” (many have been calling him this due to aligning him with Bush). I think his humility is what is working best to that objective.
@Cam: what is this “Top Gun” that you speak of?

By: Janine Libbey

Janine Libbey — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:49:23 +0000

“Was the speech “ownable”: was it true to the candidate’s brand’s personality and unique strengths?”
The speech and McCain’s delivery were both boring in my view. I don’t think his personality came through as strongly as it could have so I’d give him a goose egg for ownability.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:51:07 +0000

Cam, I am not sure of your politics but I am grateful for some government just not pie-in-the-sky promises.
Part of the reason we have “relatively” clean air, safe food, drinkable water, and even highways is because of government. Where those functions do not work well or at all, you have places like China where you cannot breath, nearly all the water is foul, and the food can contain who knows what. You only had to look at the last minute Herculian effort the Chinese put in to make the Olympics even possible. If they had done nothing, you certainly would not have able to say, run a Marathon, without collapsing from the air.
While U.S. agencies are not perfect (and need a lot of improvement), I am grateful for the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the National Parks Service, the armed services, and yes even the CIA and FBI.
Cam, if you want a taste of anarchy, maybe you should try living in a place with a none functioning central government for a while? Have you looked at moving to Somalia, perhaps?
George W. did give us a taste of non-functioning and whether a Democrat or Republican gets elected, I want competence above all else. I think both candidates will be an improvement in just raw competence and bringing in goods, smart people not incompetent flunkies.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:34:27 +0000

CK,
I think the definition of a hero is one who goes beyond just one of the team. His story goes beyond just being a team player to being a hero. No training could have prepared him for how he handled the Hanoi Hilton. People in the audience chanted hero, hero, hero, indicating by there choice of words a “hero” (a maverick that stands apart in a good way).
Also, he was a pilot. Not exactly lost in the ranks. There are even jokes about this:
Q. How do you know if there is a fighter pilot at your party? A: He’ll tell you.
In addition, military and maverick do not necessarily contradict each other. There are places in the armed services (e.g., special operations) that value the maverick. The Navy SEALS expect it.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:34:58 +0000

I didn’t want to participate but you brought up the military–I was a maverick in the military and remain so. And many others, including McCain when he served, are mavericks. One can be disciplined and still think outside the core. Nothing contradictory in that at all.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:42:15 +0000

“But a brand standing for military AND maverick? Never the twain shall meet.”
If you understand the military culture, you’ll know that there are exceptions. Special Forces (Green Beret, Seals, Recon) and pilots can be mavericks.
Haven’t you ever seen “Top Gun??”
And McCain certainly has gone against the grain. That’s not a matter of positioning by advertising, that’s a matter of historical record.
Not everyone is as mesmerized by that as the media are or McCain wants them to be.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 12:36:20 +0000

Neil – I suspect you’re right about most cynics.
As for me, I’m disappointed by the promises themselves, where politicians on both sides make promises with other people’s money.
We’re supposed to be grateful at the politician’s magnanimity, forgetting, as we tend to do, that it is not within their (or any government’s) just responsibility to execute the promises they make.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:25:04 +0000

And now having watched the speech twice and having read the speech’s text twice, I can tell you it was a beautiful piece.
No. It was TWO beautiful pieces.
The problem with Brand McCain isn’t humility; it’s one of perplexity. (WHAT is he exactly?) And that’s why he still gets a 3 from me.
My issue from a “marketing analysis” is that his brand is two distinctly different things. And while a person is, in fact, a complex set of many different things, a brand has a hard time…if not an impossible time…being two distinctly different things. Because one can’t line-extend themselves. They can, however, reinvent themselves.
But, like Madonna, they gotta be fully committed to one style/genre/gimmick at a time.
McCain is an honorable war hero. And the military is regimented with rules that are not in place for red tape but for survival. Moreover, in the military you’re on a team.
But a maverick blazes his own trail. There’s no ‘i’ in team; yet there’s certainly one in maverick.
And we have all this talk of maverick and then all these signs of ‘country first’ which are patriotic and thusly, evoke military because we fight for our country to be first.
So I am left not knowing if he’s military hero or maverick, and therefore left with neither (though I gotta say, with the brutality he endured, I think military hero trumps maverick). It’s gotta be hard to choose when you have the blood, sweat and years of doing both things so deeply and with such conviction. He was a POW for 5 years. And he’s been a maverick since Reagan times and still recently with disagreeing with Bush.
But a brand standing for military AND maverick? Never the twain shall meet.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:43:47 +0000

@Stephen
“And lastly, I found it utterly disgraceful that McCain wasn’t shown the respect that Obama was given — being interrupted so often in the first five minutes. This reflects poorly on Obama, his supporters, and his party — particularly given the strong bi-partisan message McCain delivered.’
Are you kidding me? Stephen, from strategically minded you, I expected better .
What you call interruption, I call a gift. Think I’m nuts? Go ahead (you won’t be the last). But hear me out on this one…
Yes, the protester–I’m mainly focusing on the very vocal woman protester as the others seemed politely quiet–was disgraceful. I hate that it happened. He didn’t deserve it. And she damned her own cause and looked like a freakin’ wreck. And believe me pal, it would be easy to think that the “other camp” would secretly support her. I get that strategy. But both sides have enough smarts (and enough style) to know that when they plant disruption (yes, they’re even called “plants”) they wouldn’t hinge their hopes on such an absolute lunatic.
What’s more? The disruption resulted in far less attention on the “happening,” far more on the man who handled it all in stride. A man that, at 72, in front of a huge convention–in the first 5 minutes of his speech (the first 5 are the hardest on nerves)–did remarkable by being so unremarkable and at ease. 3 things:
1) It made us feel terrible for McCain–and made us angry at the depth of disrespect he was shown. I was on Twitter and there were a lot more left than right commenting and they agreed that it was despicable. But it made us feel for him–to “feel for him” is a first for many.
2) It allowed him to walk his talk. Let’s face it, during a speech one is usually only afforded talk. But he got to “walk” during his time at the podium. He reacted not by ignoring it and continuing to read. But by accepting it and not missing a beat. He showed that “hey, that’s nothin’, I’ve been through far worse–let’s keep going because that’s what America does.”
3) It helped him prove a point. He then said “nah, let it go–haven’t we all had enough yelling?”. And how could we, in the face of what we had just witnessed, not take a step back and agree with him? Yep, McCain, you got a point, too much bickering and bitterness; time to get on with business.
He had plenty of time to practice that speech–and teleprompters in his face reminding him of every word. But he was his best when he was caught completely unrehearsed. It was a gift that won him some respect. Funny things happen when you start respecting someone. Because you find yourself starting to like them.
PS: What would have been brilliant is if she were planted by his own team.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:11:14 +0000

Cam, I think that politics is the marketing and the sales.
Policy is the product or service.
What makes people so cynical about politics is that the marketing and the sales pitch often do not match the services (policies) that are ultimately delivered.
When it comes right down to it, what is said during an election has some connection to the policy delivered but there are so many factors involved. Getting policy through Congress and the courts, bureaucracy, and special interests aggressively pursuing their interests.
Even politicians who start out well meaning can be captured by the sort of rent seeking interests that rule Washington. In the real story, Mr. Smith goes to Washington and gets wined, dined, charmed, dazzled, and corrupted.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:50:50 +0000

I got off a plane this evening or I would have joined this fascinating round two earlier.
Anyway, I think McCain did what he set out to do:
By going with the maveric/change theme and choosing a maveric for VP he both distanced himself from the Bush Administration and “Washington.”
He further solidified his support with the conservative base while starting to reach out to moderates. A theme, by the way, that Palin talked about in her speech: both talked about their experience working with Democrats and Independents.
I think the reason he told the POW story again was because many watching were hearing some of the details for the first time. The North Vietnamese offered him early release for propaganda purposes when they found out his father was an Admiral. He refused to go home ahead of his fellow prisoners. It is a powerful story so it is probably wise to repeat the story until it becomes tiresome. It is right at the edge of tiresome so he should probably ratchet it back.
He invoked the sort of leader he wants to be, which include many icons of his party, including Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
He looked presidential. Not a classic American political speech but I think it is accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish. He can’t write a speech like Churchill or deliver line like Reagan and he probably knows it.