Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (57815)	8/3/2004 4:22:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793600

I think this is true. Bush was the underdog in his last couple of debates. He won. It's the debates, stupid By Steven Stark Boston Herald FOR THE PAST several weeks we've heard from television, the print press, and bloggers how important the convention and acceptance speech were to John Kerry's prospects of becoming the next president. In truth, they didn't mean much of anything. And for the next month, we'll hear how essential defining a second-term vision or picking a different vice president -- not to mention staging a successful convention -- are to the reelection chances of George Bush. But they won't mean much either. This year, more than any year since 1960, the election will come down to one thing: which candidate impresses the American people the most in that reality television series otherwise known as the fall televised debates. Despite the hype traditionally associated with these face-offs, presidential debates aren't usually that important. Outside of the four meetings between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in those first TV encounters, it's questionable whether debates ever affected the outcome. Sure, Ronald Reagan did better than Jimmy Carter in 1980. But was his impressive performance really worth 10 percentage points, the final margin of victory? In truth, Reagan would have won the election even if he hadn't been able to turn to Carter and tell him, "There you go again." This year the role of the debates will be different for two reasons -- one political and one cultural. Take the political. Despite last week's convention, John Kerry enters the campaign less well known than most major party candidate in the age of television. Ever since the audience stranglehold of the three major TV networks was challenged by cable, the number of viewers for virtually anything political has been steadily declining. Compared with conventions, say, of the '70s and '80s, Kerry spoke on Thursday to what amounts to the modern equivalent of the smoke-filled room. Even Bush remains a less well-known figure in living rooms than any president of the modern media age because far fewer people watch the news. Moreover, the way Kerry won the nomination worked to reduce his visibility even further. In virtually every other modern campaign before this year, the nominee had to earn his stripes through a series of primaries across the nation -- introducing himself over months to voters in state after state after state. This time the Democrats changed the rules to allow their nominee to clinch things early. Kerry pretty much had things wrapped up after Super Tuesday. So virtually everyone in the other primary states never got the chance to meet the candidate via local TV. What it all means is that the prime-time debates will be the only major opportunity for Kerry -- and even for Bush -- to meet and impress a large mass audience of voters this year. The current cultural mood will make these debates even more pivotal. As pop culture events -- brought to the American people through the popular media of the day -- campaigns reflect current trends in programming. The Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 came on the heels of the popular quiz shows of the late '50s. To an audience in 1960, the debates were just another form of the same popular exercise. The 1988 campaign reflected its TV times, too. That contest was notable for the effective negative campaigning waged by the senior Bush forces against Michael Dukakis over issues such as the furlough of Massachusetts prisoner Willie Horton. Those tactics reflected the zeitgeist of in-your-face confrontational television then dominating TV through offerings featuring Mort Downey Jr., Geraldo Rivera, and even Roseanne. It was a trash campaign for trash TV. We're living in the age of "reality TV." From "Survivor" to "American Idol," viewers continue to be infatuated by the spectacle of two (or more) "ordinary Americans" facing off for all the marbles in some kind of extreme competition. The popularity of these reality shows reflects a deeper political and cultural mood. In an age in which viewers think virtually everything on the medium is staged, packaged, and predictable -- and they have a point -- reality shows purport to give the public something authentic and spontaneous. In a boring campaign devoid of a similar authenticity, the debates will perform a comparable function. And they will attract unusual interest. Americans may not know as much as they should about the politics and history of the Middle East or the intricacies of economic policy. But they do have a fair amount of expertise evaluating the finer permutations of any contest reality TV cares to throw in their direction. Polling the electorate now is like trying to ask viewers who is going to prevail on "Survivor" after watching only a single episode. The truth is that this year, culturally speaking, the voters are going to pick their president through a few action-packed episodes of the ultimate reality show. It's not exactly what Lincoln and Douglas had in mind. But then again, those two never got to experience the joys of "Big Brother," "Average Joe," and "Last Comic Standing." Which, by the way, Lincoln would have won in a walk. Steven Stark lives in England, where he is writing a cultural history of the Beatles. © Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: unclewest who wrote (57815)	8/3/2004 10:28:24 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793600

Looks like "stealth" has ended, uw: ANTI-KERRY VETS GATHER FOR ASSAULT; BOOK CLAIMS KERRY WAR 'FABRICATIONS' XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE AUG 03, 2004 21:35:02 ET XXXXX drudgereport.com Exclusive A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND: Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire. All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization. A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star. Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident. Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter. Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months. The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is pay for play, and the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever played on a candidate for the presidency. How low can they go?" Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton. UNFIT FOR COMMAND will not be released until August 15. The names. The details. All on the record. Beginning tomorrow, the DRUDGE REPORT will break the embargo.