The Literal Collision of Politics & Pop Culture

Politics and pop-culture often cross paths, or, when fund-raising is involved, run in similar circles. Rarely though do they collide in a way that affects the trajectory of either. All that changed this past week...when John McCain climbed down from The Straight Talk Express and into the mud and in doing so tempted the wrath...or rather the opportunism of Paris (no need to even mention the surname).

In a television ad that represented a whole new take on "scare tactics" and apparently aiming to provide clarity of choice in this year's Presidential race in terms sure to resonate with ALL Americans of high moral fortitude, the GOP nominee lumped Barack Obama together with Paris and Brittnay. The ad copy - "he's the biggest celebrity in the world but is he ready to lead?" was timed to coincide with Obama's multi-country overseas tour during which he drew adoring crowds in the thousands.

Paris just being Paris, wasted no time in leveraging the pathetic ploy of the "white haired dude" to further perpetuate her status as the preeminent practitioner of "famous for being famous" debuting a response ad online.

Yeah, yeah...entertaining, slightly shameful but I'm curious about what effect any of this had on to involved parties? Looking at the chart above, at least in the blogosphere, SHE saw an ~900% increase in blog post mentions from the time the McCain ad first ran to through when her ad was posted online. Since positive and negative mentions seem to have the same value for Paris, no other analysis is needed. For HIM on the other hand, he saw a 50% increase in blog post mentions from the time his ad first ran to through when Paris's ad was posted online. But unless you're a Hilton, a Spears or a Kayne West, that can't be the whole story - positive and negative effects matter.

If the McCain camp's strategy was to try to contrast him with his opponent in terms of age and experience, looking at the charts below, we see that McCain's effort may have backfired...while blog post mentions including the words "Barack Obama" + "young" increased ~50% during this sideshow, blog post mentions including the words "John McCain" and "old" increased ~86%.

"Old" and "young" do not automatically equate to "bad" and "good" but in the context of Presidential politics, I think we can assume that old = a negative. "Young" on the other hand is more subjective. Without looking at the context for each post, we can't know but for purposes of this analysis, let's consider "young" to be "less than ideal." So the McCain ploy generated an uptick in discourse around Obama's youth but a groundswell of discourse about McCain's oldness. But that's not the whole story either...let's look a little deeper...

If the aim of the McCain team was to increase the regard for McCain's experience and contrast that with Obama's ostensibly problematic inexperience, that doesn't seem to have worked out for them either as the chart below illustrates. During the period from when McCain's ad first ran through when Paris posted hers, there's almost no movement in the % of blog posts mentioning McCain's experience or Obama's inexperience.


At the end of the day, the whole episode, at least as viewed through the lens of the blogosphere seems to have created only negatives for McCain, for Obama, there was little impact and the real winner appears to be Paris. What a shock. Her % of blog mentions, while having subsided in the past couple of days, is still up 350% from before the McCain ad ran. She's got to be grateful to the "wrinkly old guy" for that!

It's Good to Be the King

Hiring a crony who'll cow tow to your every whim - $250,000 (per year; to the American people)

Having someone do your administration's dirty work - $2.8 million (cost to investigate/prosecute; to the American people)

Commuting your crony's sentence to keep the base loyal and reassure the next one that you'll protect him too - Priceless

It's good to be a President without morals.

Where the Heck is My Diebold AccuVote?!

I just voted. And in a nostalgic nod to the 1980s that I can appreciate on some levels, I used a pencil to color in ovals next to the candidates of my choice. But this means of doing my civic duty was completely unexpected and the whole process, decidedly underwhelming. My wife summed it up perfectly on our way out of the polling place when she exclaimed to me "that was it?"

In the months and weeks leading up to this day, the media and punditocracy was awash with grave concerns and vast theories about the extent to which electronic voting machines would wreak havoc on today's results. Rampant fraud, technical glitches and votes lost, unrecoverable because of a lack of paper back-up...or at least the specter of the potential resulting mayhem added an incremental (and badly needed) level of "interestingness" to this mid-term.

But not for me...at least not this election. I voted with the tried and true paper ballot and filled-in bubble for which the potential errors are limited to those human and analog. Wowee. Relieved to a small degree, I mostly feel like I got hosed - I know that some guy in Iowa just had more fun voting than I did!

Dick - Why You 'illin'?

Yes Dick. It's all a massive mega media conspiracy...this whole Iraq quagmire thing. Thank goodness we have calm, rational and forthright leadership in you to expose it. And Fox News.

We, the "lemmings" (no, you didn't call us that, but if we're buying what they are selling so easily, doesn't that make us lemming-like too?!), appreciate it. Sincerely. In fact, we really should do something nice for you as our way of saying thanks. How about a nice long extended vacation beginning ASAP?

Ok. Now let's be serious and frank for a moment... What's the deal with these fist-pounding crank-fests? Do you and Rumsfeld have a contest going? And is the bet a dollar?

You're an intelligent guy so we know that you know that Cheney in '08 isn't going to happen. You don't want it and neither does the Republican base. So you're destined either for the soft-landing of a board seat or the wide open spaces of good 'ol Wyoming. You did what you were brought in to do - got your boss through two elections successfully (in theory)...Iraq could so easily just be his mess.

You could just clam-up, ride it out through '08, carve out you niche as a private citizen and then patina as you slowly fade from our collective memory the way most VPs do. Look at your predecessors...whether you agree with "An Inconvenient Truth" or not, Al's getting props worldwide. He even won a screen-writing award. And then there's Dan... Dan (like Al) avoided controversy and now he's Chairman of a hedge fund. And dispite his own spelling and word-useage issues, after he left office, people still generally liked him enough to make his book a best seller.

So why limit your options and appeal? You can walk loudly AND carry a big stick on your ranch if you want, but this whole Mr. Wilson, curmudgeon-thing is becoming part of your public persona and won't play well in the boardroom.

Sorry Joe but now it's time to go...

To: Senator Joseph Lieberman

As a former CT resident, supporter and intern in your Washington DC office, your recent Democratic Primary loss pains me. Why? Because you're a good man - good for CT and good for the country and the right person for the job. Are you too close to the President? A Republican in Democrat's clothing? Of course not. You're a politician and a prudent, talented and committed one at that - a bit of a rarity in DC (you always were).

Anyone who knows anything about how the Senate operates knows that Ned Lamont (should he be elected) will be significantly less effective as a proponent for the state than you are and as he says he'll be. Profile’s important on the national stage and seniority is key in Senatorial politics… New Senators have zero standing...he's gonna end up on Agriculture and Veterans Affairs. You're on Homeland Security/Government Affairs and Armed Services and you’ve used your standing judiciously to fight the Bush administration on issues of security and to prop up CT’s lagging defense industry but all won't be lost... the citizens of CT will still get what they deserve...I’m sure Ned will do well by CT farmers…

It's unfortunate that voters don't know how things in Congress really work. Otherwise they might have thought a bit harder. But we both know that they're reactionary. They hear what they want to hear (which this nanosecond is a vociferous anti-Iraq war message). They vote with their hearts and wallets rather than with their heads. But you know all this - you're a seasoned pro. And you had to anticipate that some parts of your recent past would come back to haunt you in this race (the hug, UGG! Joe). Your bid for a fourth term has fallen victim to the adept manipulation of voter emotion and crafty rhetoric. Maybe someone even crashed your website on Election Day. Sometimes chicken, sometimes feathers Joe.

But now it's time to face reality, be a mench and use your head. Politics is just wacky enough these days to make a Republican senator from CT feasible (remember good'ol Lowell Weiker?). And headcount is too critical this election for you to run as an independent and risk being the spoiler. Headcount is what it's all about...not experience, talent or committment. No openings for the GOP this year Joe - you've got to bow out, swallow your pride and back Ned for the sake of the Party, the State and everything else you stand for. I'm sure Ned will learn the ropes and become an effective advocate for CT...or at the very least, be a good newby and vote the party line.

This isn't the end of Joe...just Joe how we know ya. You're a force. No one disputes your contributions. Grace and dignity will open other doors for you down the road. You've still got your friends in the Party...for the moment - don't force their hands, make 'em turn against you. In the next administration - a DEMOCRATIC administration, I'm sure there'll be a cabinet post or ambassadorship for you. Follow George Mitchell’s lead - find another way to make a difference. You can start now by making sure that the base isn't divided in November and that the state remains a Democratic stronghold.

Blowing Off Wind

When I was growing up, a neighbor installed solar panels on his roof. They were ugly, he was weird and the whole situation carried the aura of fanaticism. "Alternative energy" hadn't yet entered the American lexicon. Neighbors scoffed that the panels were just "a waste of money" and "pointless" (because they were notoriously inefficientin the early 80's) but the single biggest gripe was that they were lamentably "ugly." One woman went so far as to plant a new tree just to block the view from her living room window.

Community reaction in my neighborhood growing up illustrates one of the biggest impediments to broad-scale adoption of alternative energy generation these days - that while the majority of people believe the technology works, has value and support the concept of "clean power," most don't want to look at what's needed to produce it. Power production has always been something that happened in isolated areas, industrial zones or "the other side of town" and folks want and expect it to stay that way. And there’s nothing wrong with that except that the reality is that for alternative energy generation to work efficiently and to be cost effective in the way that it needs to be to be a viable alternative to traditional fossil fuels and nuclear, by and large, the means of generation needs to be in places much closer to where people live, work and play. It means people will encounter the means of production. Solar panels work best on the roofs of the buildings they're powering...but they're getting easier to disguise. Wind turbines in contrast, due to the size of the blades needed to generate meaningful power and that they need to be located where the wind blows best makes them hard to visually minimize. Because of their prominence in the landscape, they are likely to elicit strong emotions.

Wind is the battle du jour where I live and it's forcing people to consider competing emotions within themselves and the community. It's calling priorities into conflict for Joe and Jane Q Public and creating some very odd alliances and strange bedfellows. How odd? How strange? How about socially progressive intellectuals and fossil fuel companies? How about liberal cause-fronting celebrities and conservative lawmakers?

At issue is the proposed "Cape Wind Project" which seeks to erect 130 wind turbines that are 400 ft. tall (to the top of the blades) several miles off-shore in Nantucket Sound off the Cape Cod coast. Why this pristine location? It's because there's a shoal there that provides the needed anchoring and the wind conditions are ideal for power generation. The turbines would cleanly provide ¾ of the power consumed by Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Not surprisingly though, a project of this nature, in a preeminent tourist area and within view of some of the most expensive coastal real-estate in the country has drawn much fervent criticism. What is surprising...or at least unusual in the realm of environmental issues (and is quite a conundrum for many people) is that many Massachusetts residents (and a lot of seasonal ones) find themselves in uncomfortable position of having to agree with BOTH sides of the argument. It's not often that "environmentally friendly" people (I'm talking everyday people who aren't Al Gore but who recycle actively and support environmental initiatives) find themselves opposing something they know is better for the environment.

Many citizens not to mention the old guard of Massachusetts and many political and celebrity "friends of the environment" from Ted Kennedy to Walter Cronkite have come down on the side opposed to Cape Wind. NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) has gotten the better of their minds and hearts. NIMBY is powerful because it involves a choice - and forces people to make a decision about something close to home literally.

If you're for wind, you need to accept the means by which it's generated. You also need to accept that you can't just plunk a turbine any old place (read: places where people don't vacation, where poor folks live or spots that are already "ugly"). It may even mean that you might need to look at windmills on the horizon from the deck of your vacation home or where you tan.

To embrace the future, it usually means that you have to compromise. The key to compromising is being flexible. And the thing that makes being flexible possible is the willingness to consider things in other ways. In the case of Cape Wind, the choice need not be progress or beauty...if people are willing to reconsider what they regard as "beauty."

Europeans largely made peace with wind power years ago and embrace turbines as a unique and beautifully dramatic part of their landscape. You can see them on the Irish coast, in the French countryside and dotting hills in Bavaria and the Alps. They view modern turbines the way we view the old wood and fabric windmills of yore - as interesting and picturesque aspects of the landscape.

What's unfortunate is that opponents of Cape Wind are refusing to compromise with themselves to the extent that they can make peace with the technology and envision beauty in a new way...even if the turbines will be so far from shore that despite their height, they'll only apear to reach 1/2 inch above the horizon. For the vocal opposition, Nantucket Sound must always appear the way it has "naturally" - turbine free. Emotion (and nostalgia) win out over logic, practicality and adaptability...and we all miss an opportunity to take a step forward together.

I'm not criticizing the opponents of Cape Wind for taking their position - I'm just saying that if they could open their minds to see beauty in modern turbines and recognize the minimal visual intrusion this specific project would have on the vistas they know and love, they could reconcile those diametrically opposed views that place them on both sides of the argument.

Bush's First Pardon?

2008. What's in a year? That depends...for the soldiers in Faluja and Baghdad, it's at least how much longer the Bush Administration says that they'll be in Iraq. For the President though, it'll be "Miller Time" as the timing for their withdrawl "will be decided by future presidents." How convenient. This would just about do it. I don't think it's a stretch to call this the official start of the Bush lame-duck presidency. It sure feels like hands have been thrown up... that after three and a half years of self-inflicted pain and self-victimization, the Bushies are exhausted by the whole "Iraq thing" and this out of touch administration is closing the storm shutters, putting on the noise-canceling headphones or hanging out the "gone fishing" sign (although "gone hunting" may be more appropriate). Marginalized by poor choices and sloppy political footwork, with party members running for the hills, it seems like they're beginning to lay the groundwork for absolution via term limits.