Hampton Union- 01-11-08
It's over. The TV advertisements will stop. The endless campaign mailings are finished. And, my personal favorite annoyance, those seemingly endless phone surveys will end.
TV ads: Clearly the largest expense of any political campaign and, in the beginning of the season, the most effective. No politically concerned citizen minds seeing a smiling face with a positive message every now and then. The key words here are "every now and then." When things begin to heat up, about in the middle of the campaign, the ads go from being a smiling positive message to a more intense, dour, almost name calling, negative communiqué. They are almost always accompanied by a grainy, unflattering photo or clip of the intended opposition target either picking their nose or scratching their butt. The worst part is the frequency of these ads. One night my wife counted at least eight while pondering the trials and tribulations of someone she refers to as "Dr. McDreamy" during a commercial break.
Campaign mailings: In the beginning there are just a few that clog our mail boxes. As in the TV ads, almost all are positive. In the beginning that is. When the election is close the candidate manages to still have an attractive, highly air brushed image of them, yet seem to find the most ugly, unattractive image of the opponent. It is at this juncture we all start to receive mailing from all the fringe groups such as "Save the Sloths" and "Peace Through Warmth and Understanding." I wonder how many trees would be saved if all the candidates keep mailings to a minimal.
Phone surveys: Clearly the most annoying aspect of this year's election. The sad truth is that they are all totally unnecessary. Telephone poll takers and surveys are for the most part, contracted by media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, and TV networks. Their main purpose is to give lazy reporters something to talk about. The secondary purpose is to create controversy and concern among voters. The third and more nefarious purpose, "In My Humble Opinion," is to steer the perceived slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging voters away from one candidate and toward another.
In the Dupuis household I simply accuse the caller of not being who he says he is, but instead the guy who is seeing my wife on the sly and that if I ever find him he will pay with his life. My wife on the other hand responds to all the questions with a deep sultry voice culminating by stating that Tom Brady is receiving her vote for president. My 13 year old does her "valley girl" impression saying Paris Hilton is her choice. She ends the call by stating she has to go because of a critical appointment to get her nails done.
Most New Hampshire residents, whether political junkies such as myself, or not, take our first-in-the-nation primary status very seriously. We invite candidates into our homes, our church meeting halls and our restaurants. We don't do it just to listen to some canned stump speech either. We do it because we want to look any potential president directly in the eye when we ask a question. We do it because we want any potential candidate to look us directly in the eye when he or she answers. We're pretty smart here in New Hampshire and can spot a phony a mile away.
Of course, this is all just "In My Humble Opinion."
Ron Dupuis is a longtime New Hampshire resident, former state representative and a freelance writer. E-mail him at drcdupuis@comcast.net or visit his Web site at www.imho-nh.blogspot.com.
1.11.2008
1.10.2008
Change Talks, Experience Walks
---by Micheal
NH primary voters surprised the media pundits. After Iowa, they were all hyped up that THE key word was "change." They were trying to spin the American "mood" (like we only get one?) as demanding "change." They thought they had us all figured out.
All of the candidates picked up on this media presumption. In their last debate all of the GOP candidates were shoehorning the word "change" into their carefully crafted responses. The pundits took this as vindication that they were right (not that they might have caused the cavalcade of change-words).
What's fascinating, is that the voters of New Hampshire did NOT do what the pundits predicted. New Hampshire voters picked McCain and Hillary. Both strongly tout their experience. They're proud of knowing the old ropes and familiarity with how things are done. This is not change. These are champions of their respective status quo.
Hillary is the heir apparent to the old guard 90s liberal agenda. Whatever the many-headed beast of liberalism has declared proper (gay marriage, welfare, abortion, socialized medicine, etc.), she has been the champion. There's no change there. Well, I suppose there would be a change for America if she gets into the White House, but that's the change of old liberal for old conservative. Not really a change in the sense the pundits liked, as in 'something new.'
McCain, as much as he cultivates the maverick image, is old school Republican. He's pushed all the usual Republican buttons. There's no change there either. If he gets to the White House, it would be a change in style perhaps, but nothing radical. He'd just give the liberals someone new to vilify.
Prior to the Iowa caucuses, the media and pundits predicted who the two "obvious" front runners were (Hillary and Romney). Iowa picked two others. So, it's not that the pundits were just wrong, you know. Oh no. It's that America is demanding change! The pundits then predicted that New Hampshire would opt for the candidates of change. But no. NH picked the big status quo candidates.
Okay pundits. Now what mood is America in?
NH primary voters surprised the media pundits. After Iowa, they were all hyped up that THE key word was "change." They were trying to spin the American "mood" (like we only get one?) as demanding "change." They thought they had us all figured out.
All of the candidates picked up on this media presumption. In their last debate all of the GOP candidates were shoehorning the word "change" into their carefully crafted responses. The pundits took this as vindication that they were right (not that they might have caused the cavalcade of change-words).
What's fascinating, is that the voters of New Hampshire did NOT do what the pundits predicted. New Hampshire voters picked McCain and Hillary. Both strongly tout their experience. They're proud of knowing the old ropes and familiarity with how things are done. This is not change. These are champions of their respective status quo.
Hillary is the heir apparent to the old guard 90s liberal agenda. Whatever the many-headed beast of liberalism has declared proper (gay marriage, welfare, abortion, socialized medicine, etc.), she has been the champion. There's no change there. Well, I suppose there would be a change for America if she gets into the White House, but that's the change of old liberal for old conservative. Not really a change in the sense the pundits liked, as in 'something new.'
McCain, as much as he cultivates the maverick image, is old school Republican. He's pushed all the usual Republican buttons. There's no change there either. If he gets to the White House, it would be a change in style perhaps, but nothing radical. He'd just give the liberals someone new to vilify.
Prior to the Iowa caucuses, the media and pundits predicted who the two "obvious" front runners were (Hillary and Romney). Iowa picked two others. So, it's not that the pundits were just wrong, you know. Oh no. It's that America is demanding change! The pundits then predicted that New Hampshire would opt for the candidates of change. But no. NH picked the big status quo candidates.
Okay pundits. Now what mood is America in?
1.05.2008
Obama: The New Carter
-- by Micheal
Early in the campaign speeches cycle, all of the Democratic candidates were sounding highly socialist. The government should do everything, manage everything for the betterment of mankind. Teachers deserve a bajillion dollars, as does every other union worker. Everyone should have the ultimate best healthcare at no cost, etc. etc. Spend spend spend. Obama was right in there chanting the left's favorite songs.
Now, Obama is being touted as the great unifier. THE one who (unlike Hillary) can reach out to conservatives and help us all get along. This is a far different song. Which one is the real Obama? I do admit that Obama comes across as a nice guy. He's a smoother public speaker. He doesn't have, perhaps for lack of media exposure, Hillary's reputation for meanness. It is this nice-guy-ness that I could see appealing to the undecided and centrist Republicans (if the GOP opts for a rightist).
If Obama does get the DFL nomination, and the GOP puts up an unpalatable candidate, Obama could win the presidency. Given the last two presidential elections, I would predict him not winning any kind of "landslide" or obvious "mandate" as election spinners like to spin it. Obama would, indeed, have to build coalitions and be the nice guy.
The appeal for a change, for a fresh face, sounds mighty familiar. As the fresh face new-comer nice-guy, Obama would be the new Carter. A guy you could like, but ultimately ineffective. Consensus and coalition don't tend to accomplish much beyond the status quo. Consensus and coalition don't act quickly (if at all).
Republicans seem to worry about a Hillary presidency, because they recognize that she's not a consensus and coalition type. She's more guns-a-blazin' old school Democrat who would push for the leftist agenda and take no prisoners. Sure, the other old school Dems would like this, but the country as a whole would remain split.
I don't think Republicans worry as much about an Obama presidency. Carter didn't hurt them much and actually ended up helping them.
Early in the campaign speeches cycle, all of the Democratic candidates were sounding highly socialist. The government should do everything, manage everything for the betterment of mankind. Teachers deserve a bajillion dollars, as does every other union worker. Everyone should have the ultimate best healthcare at no cost, etc. etc. Spend spend spend. Obama was right in there chanting the left's favorite songs.
Now, Obama is being touted as the great unifier. THE one who (unlike Hillary) can reach out to conservatives and help us all get along. This is a far different song. Which one is the real Obama? I do admit that Obama comes across as a nice guy. He's a smoother public speaker. He doesn't have, perhaps for lack of media exposure, Hillary's reputation for meanness. It is this nice-guy-ness that I could see appealing to the undecided and centrist Republicans (if the GOP opts for a rightist).
If Obama does get the DFL nomination, and the GOP puts up an unpalatable candidate, Obama could win the presidency. Given the last two presidential elections, I would predict him not winning any kind of "landslide" or obvious "mandate" as election spinners like to spin it. Obama would, indeed, have to build coalitions and be the nice guy.
The appeal for a change, for a fresh face, sounds mighty familiar. As the fresh face new-comer nice-guy, Obama would be the new Carter. A guy you could like, but ultimately ineffective. Consensus and coalition don't tend to accomplish much beyond the status quo. Consensus and coalition don't act quickly (if at all).
Republicans seem to worry about a Hillary presidency, because they recognize that she's not a consensus and coalition type. She's more guns-a-blazin' old school Democrat who would push for the leftist agenda and take no prisoners. Sure, the other old school Dems would like this, but the country as a whole would remain split.
I don't think Republicans worry as much about an Obama presidency. Carter didn't hurt them much and actually ended up helping them.
1.03.2008
IMHO-NH Hampton Union Fri Jan 4th
By Ron Dupuis
This newspaper goes to press long before the Iowa caucus results are in. In fact, this newspaper goes to press long before the “cauci” even begins. Despite that, me, being the ever petulant prognosticator of prodigious political parlance, will pen my congratulations to the winners here and now (mid-day Wednesday, January 2nd.) Should I be wrong, my statements will at the very least give me the title of next Friday’s column, “Humble Pie”.
Republicans:
WIN: Kudos’ Mike Huckabee. Despite what many left thinking Republicans said about you, your victory by at least five percentage points proves that people in Iowa are not afraid of the word GOD. Now take no more than one day off then get back here to New Hampshire and continue exactly what you’re doing. That is run a positive campaign focusing on what you would do as President of the United States.
Place: Mitt Romney. Congratulations Sir. Second place in the Iowa caucus does still give you the momentum to continue here in New Hampshire. My unsolicited advice is to take a few days off, rest, and solidify your position on several key issues such as abortion, health care, and immigration. In fact, having been the former Governor of the Republic of Massachusetts and a wealthy property owner here in New Hampshire why not just skip campaigning here altogether. I hear the weather is great in Florida.
Show: Congressman Ron Paul. Your strong showing in Iowa tells me that every state, even Iowa, has a group of discontented radical conspiracy theorist. Most of your supporters that I’ve spoken with here in New Hampshire are either from out of state, here only for the primary, or libertarians that have moved here with a plan to take over State government. You have no chance of ever being elected President. Return to earth and go back to Texas.
Also Ran: Rudy Giuliani, you by passed campaigning in Iowa because they do not have a Carnegie Deli there and other issues that are beyond me. Fred Thompson, you seem too tired to campaign anywhere. Duncan Hunter you just want to be Secretary of the Interior. Those are the reasons why the three of you did not fare well and wound up here in the “Also Ran” section.
Democrats:
WIN: Congratulations Mrs. Rodham Clinton. You managed to beat out your opponent by the slimmest of margins. You seem to have enough momentum to continue on in New Hampshire. South Carolina will be a fight, as will Florida. Be careful in Kansas. Someone my wish to drop a house on you.
Place: Barack Obama only by two percent behind Mrs. Rodham Clinton. Keep up the good work. The “Kennedy” style plays well in New England. Don’t forget to register all the outlaying cemetery’s in the Chicago area. Every vote counts.
Show: John Edwards. Third place only, dare I say it, by a hair. You’re polished and well spoken. Even for a personnel injury lawyer. Third place in one of Iowa’s tightest contest means a lot. My “free” advice here Sir is stop telling everyone what bad shape the country is in. Change you message to a more positive one. You might consider a less expensive haircut. Perhaps a mullet.
Also Ran: Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson. You all had one or two salient points about different issues. Biden’s was about the war in Iraq, Dodd, about the economy, Bill Richardson about foreign policy, and Kucinich about space travel. Unfortunately none of you seemed to get your message across. Advice, drop out now and don’t waste any more money.
Next week, Congratulations To Me, or, What Was I Smoking.
Ron Dupuis is a long time New Hampshire resident, a former State Representative, and a freelance writer. His e-mail is drcdupuis@comcast.net. His web site may be viewed at www.imho-nh.blogspot.com
This newspaper goes to press long before the Iowa caucus results are in. In fact, this newspaper goes to press long before the “cauci” even begins. Despite that, me, being the ever petulant prognosticator of prodigious political parlance, will pen my congratulations to the winners here and now (mid-day Wednesday, January 2nd.) Should I be wrong, my statements will at the very least give me the title of next Friday’s column, “Humble Pie”.
Republicans:
WIN: Kudos’ Mike Huckabee. Despite what many left thinking Republicans said about you, your victory by at least five percentage points proves that people in Iowa are not afraid of the word GOD. Now take no more than one day off then get back here to New Hampshire and continue exactly what you’re doing. That is run a positive campaign focusing on what you would do as President of the United States.
Place: Mitt Romney. Congratulations Sir. Second place in the Iowa caucus does still give you the momentum to continue here in New Hampshire. My unsolicited advice is to take a few days off, rest, and solidify your position on several key issues such as abortion, health care, and immigration. In fact, having been the former Governor of the Republic of Massachusetts and a wealthy property owner here in New Hampshire why not just skip campaigning here altogether. I hear the weather is great in Florida.
Show: Congressman Ron Paul. Your strong showing in Iowa tells me that every state, even Iowa, has a group of discontented radical conspiracy theorist. Most of your supporters that I’ve spoken with here in New Hampshire are either from out of state, here only for the primary, or libertarians that have moved here with a plan to take over State government. You have no chance of ever being elected President. Return to earth and go back to Texas.
Also Ran: Rudy Giuliani, you by passed campaigning in Iowa because they do not have a Carnegie Deli there and other issues that are beyond me. Fred Thompson, you seem too tired to campaign anywhere. Duncan Hunter you just want to be Secretary of the Interior. Those are the reasons why the three of you did not fare well and wound up here in the “Also Ran” section.
Democrats:
WIN: Congratulations Mrs. Rodham Clinton. You managed to beat out your opponent by the slimmest of margins. You seem to have enough momentum to continue on in New Hampshire. South Carolina will be a fight, as will Florida. Be careful in Kansas. Someone my wish to drop a house on you.
Place: Barack Obama only by two percent behind Mrs. Rodham Clinton. Keep up the good work. The “Kennedy” style plays well in New England. Don’t forget to register all the outlaying cemetery’s in the Chicago area. Every vote counts.
Show: John Edwards. Third place only, dare I say it, by a hair. You’re polished and well spoken. Even for a personnel injury lawyer. Third place in one of Iowa’s tightest contest means a lot. My “free” advice here Sir is stop telling everyone what bad shape the country is in. Change you message to a more positive one. You might consider a less expensive haircut. Perhaps a mullet.
Also Ran: Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson. You all had one or two salient points about different issues. Biden’s was about the war in Iraq, Dodd, about the economy, Bill Richardson about foreign policy, and Kucinich about space travel. Unfortunately none of you seemed to get your message across. Advice, drop out now and don’t waste any more money.
Next week, Congratulations To Me, or, What Was I Smoking.
Ron Dupuis is a long time New Hampshire resident, a former State Representative, and a freelance writer. His e-mail is drcdupuis@comcast.net. His web site may be viewed at www.imho-nh.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)