Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Be thankful for two things: These women fought for your right to vote, and you don't have to dress like this.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(69)
-
▼
October
(23)
- Obama's 30-minute infomercial
- Interesting and honest interviews about race and t...
- Hey, AP GoPo students
- Bribing people to vote
- More SNL goodness
- Questions about who's winning?
- Your turn.
- Things are looking good for Obama
- Things are looking good for Obama
- Sarah Palin on SNL
- A female draft?
- The candidates went to dinner last night...
- Want to see the commercials the people in the swin...
- Test your history of past debates
- Last debate
- THE LAST DEBATE IS TONIGHT!!!
- Death penalty
- From DJ
- New poll numbers
- High school economics will save the future!
- The oldest registered voter in Connecticut!
- Comedy and the election
- Who you callin' a maverick?
-
▼
October
(23)
4 comments:
http://news.aol.com/elections/article/rnc-spends-thousands-on-palin-clothes/221230
This article was about the money the Republican National Committee has spent on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin. They have spent thousands of dollars of her and some are questioning the legality of the actions of the committees to use the money for personal use. Their spokeswoman declined to answer some question pertaining to this expenses. I thought that this was interesting because always wonder why kings and queens and the president always get a lot of money when they start their duty. I never see why they would need all that money to do their job but that's always how its been I guess. Its also a shock that they are spending so much money on that when there is an economic crisis going on right now but I guess beauty comes first. Its also sad that the media is paying so much attention to this instead of other truly important things regarding this election and that so many other people have used money for personal use in the past.
I didn’t put a link (don’t know how), but all you guys have to do is go on YouTube and type in “The View 10/24/08 (4 of 5)” and watch this clip. It’s perfect with what we have been learning about campaigning. The Bush-Dukakis 1988 election activity we did made me think, this 2008 is not all that bad. Do you think the ‘08 election is getting ugly? It will seem like a “love fest”, as Whoopi says, after you see the TOP 5 NASTIEST PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS IN HISTORY! Kerwin Swint, the author of “Mudslingers: The Twenty-Five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time,” summarizes the nastiest campaigns…and it proved to me that this is politics. Now I don’t think, “Oh…poor Obama or poor McCain.” Sometimes it does make me mad because I know what the truth is (sometimes) and it may be too harsh to bear, but they are politicians and they know what they are getting into. This also proved to me that you have to have tough skin for this job. Some are made for it, others are not. Ms. McShane was talking about G.H.W. Bush’s running mate in 1988, Dan Quayle, and made it clear that he was not fit for the job. My point is, mudslinging is an unavoidable part of American politics, and I am sure other country’s politics. It can get too nasty, but without mudslinging it just would not be the same. The bad thing about this is that many people believe what they hear or see without gaining knowledge about the issues. If someone takes the time to google some attack talked about in the ads, they could form their own conclusions. The media influences all of us, but only some people go further and investigate to form more accurate depictions of these politicians.
The other thing about these nasty campaigns is that we can see what type of tactics work and don’t work. History helps us learn and we can see what we should not do again. Although, many types candidates don’t know what would and would not work. Our country changes and people look for different qualities in leaders at different times, so tactics do have to be reformed. In this campaign 2008, it seems that the American public are not looking for mudslinging and pointing of fingers. They are more focused on the economy and other issues that matter to the people. However, in other eras, with more peace and prosperity, candidates may have done better by pointing out all the flaws of their opponent. People may have been more entertained by the mudslinging, fueling the negativity. However, based on many polls, like those by Gallup and CNN, report that most Americans strongly dislike when either the Obama or McCain campaigns become more negative. In other cases, McCain’s negative ads especially would have been more productive, but right now…not so much. For example, if people weren’t losing as many jobs or losing their homes, they would want more of the William Ayers-Obama connection from McCain or more of the Keating Five from Obama e-mails and ads (if you receive e-mails, the Obama campaign made a long video about McCain and the Keating case, which we read about last night.)
All this is according to Kerwin Swint:
The number five nastiest campaign was the 2004 G.W. Bush and Kerry campaign. Damage was done by an Independent pro-Bush group called the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth,” which went after Kerry’s Vietnam service which was supposedly his strong suit. The ad undercut the confidence people had in Kerry. The ad Kerry put out, I found was so amusing…how did Americans not take this ad as what was to come? Bush looked very foolish and seemed so uncomfortable. I thought this did show Bush was his “own worst enemy”, as Joy Behr said. It was a very clever commercial and undermined Bush’s readiness for the job.
The fourth was the 1972 Richard Nixon versus the whole Democratic party campaign, namely Edmund Musky (spelling?) and George McGovern. I could not believe they made Musky tear up by using his wife and then used that against him…that is too much. But eventually Nixon ran against McGovern and they both ran nasty ads.
The third, in my opinion, could have been the first nastiest campaign because of the daisy ad. Using a little cute girl is really intense and causing so much fear in Americans. This was during the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater election. The ad only aired once, but I am sure many have seen it since, especially thank to YouTube. This ad seems so cute and cuddly with the sweet girl that can’t could (5-6-8...), but then WHAM…the bomb. Whoever thought of this was clever, but maybe a bit too extreme.
The second worst presidential campaign is that between G.H.W Bush and Dukakis. Thanks to AP Gov and the reading of Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s excerpt of “Dirty Politics,” I totally knew about this! The Willie Horton ad in 1988 came from a PAC, independent of the Bush campaign, which made an ad about his crime policy. It played to racial fears because it showed the mug shot of a black prisoner and it was very racist. And from my own research during the homework and watching all those ads, I have to agree that the campaign was pretty nasty. A lot of mudslinging!
The nastiest campaign of ALL time (supposedly) really surprised me-- Andrew Jackson versus John Quincy Adams (1828, I believe). It was very personal and I was shocked to find out that Jackson’s wife died right after the election due to the stress of the election. Jackson’s opponents accused him of murdering his OWN troops in the war. The 1800’s must have really tough for these candidates.
The time is getting closer and closer…there are only 10 days left ‘till the election! The commercials have been nasty (maybe not so many here in CA), the words exchanged have been not so pleasant, and the faces made in the debates may have crept you out a bit, but we’re almost there…only a bit longer to go until all this madness is over. Don’t get me wrong, I love this whole political process and it’s fun, but I really want to know who the next president of the United States is. Whenever you get tired of the same-old mudslinging you hear or see in the 2008 campaign, have a positive outlook on life and think, “This could be a lot worse.” According to this video, the have been a lot worse.:)
-Aislinn
http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/5/index.php?id=4
The video "The News is What We Make It " is about the media. I found it appropriate because we are learning about the media in class. The video is about a girl who gets interviewed by a news station. Her story is altered by the people that work at the station. She tries to get the news station to issue a retraction but they refuse. She becomes angry and asks news stations to air an exposé on the news station that altered her words. She researches different news stations and media issues. She finds out that there are a small amount of companies who own most of the media. I found the video interesting because I didn't know few companies own a lot of the media. It has inspired me to research what companies own my favorite news stations.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/02/illinois.blagojevich/index.html
The return of Blagojevich! I, personally, haven't heard much about him since he was removed from office at the end of January. However, I just saw on CNN that he was just indicted on 16 felony accounts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, and making false statements to investigators. There are also claims that he was planning, even before he took office, to use his position for monetary gain and that he did, in fact, try to sell Obama's Senate seat. He says that he's innocent - as he has done all through this whole thing.
Since Blagojevich was impeached, he has been sort of out of the national spotlight, and now he's back in the news, so I think we're going to be hearing a lot from him for a while. Senator Dick Durbin, from Illinois, made a comment that he hoped that Blagojevich wouldn't use this opportunity to take "another publicity tour," but I think he will. He will go to trial for all of these charges, and if convicted, he faces a very long time in jail.
Post a Comment