Some of you may have heard about this already, but I just saw the pictures for myself.
Kerry and Bush were both in Portland last week at campaing rallies. Kerry's rally was open to the public, and drew around 50,000 people:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives ... tml#002456
Bush's rally was by invitation only, and drew around 2000 people:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... -515h.html
I think this TV screenshot captured by the Kerry campaign is worth a thousand words:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives ... tml#002425
My guess is that the great majority of Bush/Cheney rallies will be these "invitation only" events, like the one I posed about a week or so ago where non-republican supporters were required to sign loyalty oaths to gain entry.
So my question is, do you think this method will end up hurting Bush in the eyes of the public and media? The Kerry campaign is seizing the "issue" by doing their best to make Kerry rallies as open to the public as possible to draw a contrast as shown in the TV screenshot above. Will the Bush campaign follow suit? Can the Bush campaign follow suit?
Campaining in Oregon
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
At this point, I'd agree with Dedman. I'd say that the vast majority of voters have already made up their minds, one way or another. There is an "undecided" group, but I doubt that something like this would affect people. What will affect them will be each candidate's actions and policies. I think this election's going to come down to such things as voter turnout, any major flubs on either side, the Nader factor, and maybe even something as strange as Florida. I'm sure I speak for most people when I say that I'm already sick of the whole thing. And to think we have three more months of this.../me shudders 
The invitation only was to small business folk .. about 700. There were serveral thousand outside the school from both sides. ... a block and a half from my home. 
Cops everywhere and a missle armed coppter circled for a little bit before he got there.
Kerry was at Water Front park and invited Leonardo DeCapprio and Bon Jovi ... plus a couple of others. the next day, he went up to Hood River on the Columbia River to windsail .... o_O hehe.. there wasn't any wind.
However, that day, I was working at the Airshow. .. 3 days of BlueAngels ... free!
Cops everywhere and a missle armed coppter circled for a little bit before he got there.Kerry was at Water Front park and invited Leonardo DeCapprio and Bon Jovi ... plus a couple of others. the next day, he went up to Hood River on the Columbia River to windsail .... o_O hehe.. there wasn't any wind.
However, that day, I was working at the Airshow. .. 3 days of BlueAngels ... free!
I'm probably democracy's biggest fan; I even hate the near-socialist systems of high taxes in exchange for government services that have sprung up in Canada and Europe. How's that for fanatical?Vander wrote:"I'm sure I speak for most people when I say that I'm already sick of the whole thing."
Democracy is such a bummer, eh?
What I am sick of, however, is the endless stream of media coverage, attack ads on both sides, mindless opinions formed without any research of the issues in question, and, to put it bluntly, stupid and tasteless political cartoons. The only truly good thing to come out of this election year, in my opinion, was Jibjab.com's "This Land" spoof; it poked fun at both sides without any malice, plus it was damn funny .
One important note is that most of the disruptive groups are on the left. So it doesn't surprise me that Republican events are more carefully managed. As far as whether it will hurt the Bush campaign, I don't think it matters. We're all a bit jaded at this point at the manipulated coverage and I don't think it will influence an undecided voter (is there really such an animal?) because he/she sees more folks at one rally than another.
This kind of stuff goes on for both sides.
August 5th when both candidates were in Sioux City, Iowa, Bush had an open rally that drew about 10,000 while Kerry had an invitation only "round table" for about 350 businessmen and labor leaders.
What I am curious to know is if the same news station showed a similar split screen, in reverse, on 8/5?
August 5th when both candidates were in Sioux City, Iowa, Bush had an open rally that drew about 10,000 while Kerry had an invitation only "round table" for about 350 businessmen and labor leaders.
What I am curious to know is if the same news station showed a similar split screen, in reverse, on 8/5?
"One important note is that most of the disruptive groups are on the left. "
Based on what statistic?
The last "disruption" of the left (and there were conservative dissenters too) was the war in Iraq protests which I took a part of. They were pretty much peaceful.
I haven't heard of many specific disruptions of republican campaigns, perhaps you could enlighten me?
Based on what statistic?
The last "disruption" of the left (and there were conservative dissenters too) was the war in Iraq protests which I took a part of. They were pretty much peaceful.
I haven't heard of many specific disruptions of republican campaigns, perhaps you could enlighten me?
-
MD-2389
- Defender of the Night
- Posts: 13477
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: Olathe, KS
- Contact:
Ohh, you mean like the people that got bussed down to Florida to harass the people counting the votes back in 2000? It got to the point where some of them quit because they actually got death threats over that.bash wrote:One important note is that most of the disruptive groups are on the left. So it doesn't surprise me that Republican events are more carefully managed.
Well, I think the left has a much larger pool of those willing to gather for protests, which enables a smaller, more radical subset with greater opportunities for crossing sensible lines.
The right usually has little reason to be disruptive, because their causes are usually already enshrined in government or conventional wisdom. I mean, the definitions of the words conservative and liberal give credence to this.
Now, whether or not any of this makes it acceptable to "carefully manage" events in ways like requiring loyalty is a matter of opinion.
I personally think the "disruptive left" is a red herring in the context of attendance of campaign rallies. I think the big reason is a suppression of dissent from GWB's world. Their big gig is never saying they are wrong, and for the campaign to work, they need to remove people who might say they are wrong. BushCo plays offense. Not defense.
That is, of course, just my opinion.
*edit - what Genghis said.
The right usually has little reason to be disruptive, because their causes are usually already enshrined in government or conventional wisdom. I mean, the definitions of the words conservative and liberal give credence to this.
Now, whether or not any of this makes it acceptable to "carefully manage" events in ways like requiring loyalty is a matter of opinion.
I personally think the "disruptive left" is a red herring in the context of attendance of campaign rallies. I think the big reason is a suppression of dissent from GWB's world. Their big gig is never saying they are wrong, and for the campaign to work, they need to remove people who might say they are wrong. BushCo plays offense. Not defense.
That is, of course, just my opinion.
*edit - what Genghis said.
I don't consider it a red herring at all, Jeff, if you accept that in these waning months the gloves are off and various groups have different ideas of what will swing this reportedly extremely close election.
On the one hand, I believe (and this is borne out by reports of far left organizations bent on turning New York upside-down) some feel any disruption (heckling, rowdy protests, civil disobedience, vandalism, etc.) will embarrass Bush, draw away support and drown out his message. However, the other school of thought (of which I subscribe) is if New York (or any rally, for that matter) resembles Chicago/1968 then there will be many swing voters who will be angered and repulsed by such antics that they will gravitate toward the incumbent.
But why take the risk of how it will play in the media if you're the Bush campaign? Especially since they believe (and I agree) that to date the media has shown itself to be a hostile entity toward a Bush re-election. Any event has three possible outcomes; positive, indifferent or negative. Positive is the only reason for holding such events. If it's either indifferent or negative, you've wasted your time or harmed your campaign needlessly. Controlling the event is the only way to increase your odds that it is seen as a success, even if the *bigger is better* axiom isn't fulfilled. A small success is infintitely preferable to a well-attended disaster.
Either way, I believe that the Bush campaign is logically operating on the assumption that it's better to be safe than sorry and not risk having the message lost in the scuffle. Getting the message out is the most critical thing at this point in the campaigns. Scenes of protesters battling cops or hecklers in the audience tends to undermine the image of being in control that all cadidates wish to convey.
Kerry is shrouded in grey hoping to ride the ABB sentiment into power. But being such a close race (or so say the polls) Bush/Rove likely feel they have to redouble efforts to nationally define (as opposed to just convincing the local attendees) Bush and his presidency more precisely as a positive commodity and a clear alternative to that murky ABB message from the Dems. Everything else being the same (i.e., issue voters rather than those who cast their ballot for a personality), the undecided voters will choose the devil they know, imo. I believe the Bush campaign feels the same. Despite the see-saw polls, I believe the Bush campaign feels it will win and it's currently very risk-averse in regard to potential disruptions. The threat of organized disturbances to his campaign events is very real.
The virtual audience is always much larger than the physical one at any rally for either campaign and so it is much less important how many are at the rallies as it is that the rallies go off smoothly and that the messages (and not the disturbances) get the media attention. Hence, imo, the Bush campaign is choosing to give up (especially in areas not considered conservative-friendly) what dubious benefit a photo-op of a large crowd would provide in an effort to assure a disruption-free opportunity to get the message out.
I would expect that the same holds true for Kerry's campaign in conservative areas, assuming he has a campaign manager that fully appreciates that depth of polarization and passion that marks this presidential contest. The fact that the Dems practically locked their own far left loons in cages during their convention indicates to me that they are working under the same fail-safe restrictions. It will be interesting to see how the media plays it if those same measures are enacted during the RNC. The protest cages in Boston were largely ignored by the media. I'd wager the media won't turn such a blind eye to them in New York if similar containment is applied.
In essense, I agree with your appraisal, Jeff, that it's about putting on a happy face but I don't see that there's anything unethical about that. It's what political parties are all about. Losing the initiative means fumbling the ball--to use your analogy--and being forced into a defensive posture. You can win with that formation but rarely. In any sort of contest, allowing access from groups or individuals determined to be disruptive is a one-way ticket to losing the iniative.
Anyway, I sense you believe there is some sort of right that we all possess to have full and unfettered access to ambush folks we disagree with and perhaps you're feeling frustrated that it is being blocked. There is no such right. These are staged events, obviously, and subject to the restrictions of the hosting party. To me that just makes sense and I'd wager that both of us would run a campaign in the same protective manner.
On the one hand, I believe (and this is borne out by reports of far left organizations bent on turning New York upside-down) some feel any disruption (heckling, rowdy protests, civil disobedience, vandalism, etc.) will embarrass Bush, draw away support and drown out his message. However, the other school of thought (of which I subscribe) is if New York (or any rally, for that matter) resembles Chicago/1968 then there will be many swing voters who will be angered and repulsed by such antics that they will gravitate toward the incumbent.
But why take the risk of how it will play in the media if you're the Bush campaign? Especially since they believe (and I agree) that to date the media has shown itself to be a hostile entity toward a Bush re-election. Any event has three possible outcomes; positive, indifferent or negative. Positive is the only reason for holding such events. If it's either indifferent or negative, you've wasted your time or harmed your campaign needlessly. Controlling the event is the only way to increase your odds that it is seen as a success, even if the *bigger is better* axiom isn't fulfilled. A small success is infintitely preferable to a well-attended disaster.
Either way, I believe that the Bush campaign is logically operating on the assumption that it's better to be safe than sorry and not risk having the message lost in the scuffle. Getting the message out is the most critical thing at this point in the campaigns. Scenes of protesters battling cops or hecklers in the audience tends to undermine the image of being in control that all cadidates wish to convey.
Kerry is shrouded in grey hoping to ride the ABB sentiment into power. But being such a close race (or so say the polls) Bush/Rove likely feel they have to redouble efforts to nationally define (as opposed to just convincing the local attendees) Bush and his presidency more precisely as a positive commodity and a clear alternative to that murky ABB message from the Dems. Everything else being the same (i.e., issue voters rather than those who cast their ballot for a personality), the undecided voters will choose the devil they know, imo. I believe the Bush campaign feels the same. Despite the see-saw polls, I believe the Bush campaign feels it will win and it's currently very risk-averse in regard to potential disruptions. The threat of organized disturbances to his campaign events is very real.
The virtual audience is always much larger than the physical one at any rally for either campaign and so it is much less important how many are at the rallies as it is that the rallies go off smoothly and that the messages (and not the disturbances) get the media attention. Hence, imo, the Bush campaign is choosing to give up (especially in areas not considered conservative-friendly) what dubious benefit a photo-op of a large crowd would provide in an effort to assure a disruption-free opportunity to get the message out.
I would expect that the same holds true for Kerry's campaign in conservative areas, assuming he has a campaign manager that fully appreciates that depth of polarization and passion that marks this presidential contest. The fact that the Dems practically locked their own far left loons in cages during their convention indicates to me that they are working under the same fail-safe restrictions. It will be interesting to see how the media plays it if those same measures are enacted during the RNC. The protest cages in Boston were largely ignored by the media. I'd wager the media won't turn such a blind eye to them in New York if similar containment is applied.
In essense, I agree with your appraisal, Jeff, that it's about putting on a happy face but I don't see that there's anything unethical about that. It's what political parties are all about. Losing the initiative means fumbling the ball--to use your analogy--and being forced into a defensive posture. You can win with that formation but rarely. In any sort of contest, allowing access from groups or individuals determined to be disruptive is a one-way ticket to losing the iniative.
Anyway, I sense you believe there is some sort of right that we all possess to have full and unfettered access to ambush folks we disagree with and perhaps you're feeling frustrated that it is being blocked. There is no such right. These are staged events, obviously, and subject to the restrictions of the hosting party. To me that just makes sense and I'd wager that both of us would run a campaign in the same protective manner.
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
They're all liars and theives in my eyes, Repulicrats- the lines are
blurred. I don't know if I haven't paid attention in past election years or
not, but this election seems to be the worst as far as division. Too much
hate for me.
At this point I'd vote for anyone who told the truth and didn't stoop to
personally bashing his opponent in a vain attempt at making himself look
better.
Considering the opposition, Bush gets my vote.
blurred. I don't know if I haven't paid attention in past election years or
not, but this election seems to be the worst as far as division. Too much
hate for me.
At this point I'd vote for anyone who told the truth and didn't stoop to
personally bashing his opponent in a vain attempt at making himself look
better.
Considering the opposition, Bush gets my vote.
Bash Said:
"the media has shown itself to be a hostile entity toward a Bush re-election."
Oh really? Besides a couple newspapers we know you hate, what TV networks are hostile towards bush re-election? Talk radio is dominated by conservative voices, so your wrong there. On TV Fox News is the Bush Re-election channel. Hannity has a "countdown till bush is re-elected." CNN seems the closest to being neutral. I haven't seen anything very anti-bush as far as TV goes, besides the daily show which is on Comedy Central
Can I get some specifics from you bash? Some of your assertions in this thread are baseless generalizations.
I do however agree that all is fair in politics. Hell, I didn't think think Watergate was that big of a deal
Items left for you:
1) Specific disruptions by the left at Bush rallies
2) Specific media bias (more than one or two newspapers, preferably TV or radio) toward Bush re-election
If you can't answer these, you're just puffing smoke.
Bash Said:
"The fact that the Dems practically locked their own far left loons in cages during their convention indicates to me that they are working under the same fail-safe restrictions."
So do you think the claim by the Republicans that Edwards and Kerry are the most liberal senators is a crock of bull?
Barry Said:
"They're all liars and theives in my eyes......Bush gets my vote"
So get some balls and vote for a third party.
"the media has shown itself to be a hostile entity toward a Bush re-election."
Oh really? Besides a couple newspapers we know you hate, what TV networks are hostile towards bush re-election? Talk radio is dominated by conservative voices, so your wrong there. On TV Fox News is the Bush Re-election channel. Hannity has a "countdown till bush is re-elected." CNN seems the closest to being neutral. I haven't seen anything very anti-bush as far as TV goes, besides the daily show which is on Comedy Central
Can I get some specifics from you bash? Some of your assertions in this thread are baseless generalizations.
I do however agree that all is fair in politics. Hell, I didn't think think Watergate was that big of a deal
Items left for you:
1) Specific disruptions by the left at Bush rallies
2) Specific media bias (more than one or two newspapers, preferably TV or radio) toward Bush re-election
If you can't answer these, you're just puffing smoke.
Bash Said:
"The fact that the Dems practically locked their own far left loons in cages during their convention indicates to me that they are working under the same fail-safe restrictions."
So do you think the claim by the Republicans that Edwards and Kerry are the most liberal senators is a crock of bull?
Barry Said:
"They're all liars and theives in my eyes......Bush gets my vote"
So get some balls and vote for a third party.
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
Brian,
I'm too old and have too much to lose to mearly make a political statement by voting third party. We both know that third party has no chance of pulling anything off. A third party vote would take one from Bush and add one to kerry. Lord help us all if kerry is in.
Bush may not be my ideal cadidate, but Kerry, in my mind, is on the same level as Rican and Zuruck.
So, it's not about balls.
I'm too old and have too much to lose to mearly make a political statement by voting third party. We both know that third party has no chance of pulling anything off. A third party vote would take one from Bush and add one to kerry. Lord help us all if kerry is in.
Bush may not be my ideal cadidate, but Kerry, in my mind, is on the same level as Rican and Zuruck.
So, it's not about balls.
. I watched the Daily Show for 5 minutes and got more anti-right BS flung at me than I've ever seen before. It has as much slant as "The Boondocks" -
SSC BlueFlames
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Knoxville, TN
Nah... The Daily Show carries more of a leftward slant than you give it credit for, Hostile. They'll poke at everyone, but generally it's a poke in the eye when the right messes up and a poke in the belly when the left is in a similar situation. The Daily Show does, however, acknowledge that they are the fake news, which makes them the most credible news program on television, ironically enough.
