Bush White House -- Most P.R. Conscious In History?

[Huerta88]

I don't want to start a general Bush Sucks/No He Doesn't war here.

Putting aside his politics (and even putting aside the carrier landing specifically, which has been beaten to death), are there any conservatives here, especially, who aren't 100% comfortable with Bush's relentless "packaging?"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/16/nyt.bumiller/

I remember talking to many a conservative who professed disgust with Clinton's constant stage management and instinct for the photo op. (when he went to Chicago, he'd manage to be photographed holding a book by a Polish-American author, and his other props (the Bible, the blue jeans, the saxophone) were legendary).

But Bush seems to have taken the stagecraft to a new level -- I've specifically noticed the "backdrops" that this article speaks so admiringly about, and it seems there's a poster with a big, slick slogan (with everything but a TM sign) for every appearance ("Rebuilding Iraq;" "Jobs For America's Workers;" "Leave No Child Behind").

Clinton unabashedly loved Hollywood and its denizens. So in a sense, his PR tricks were kind of part and parcel of who he was. But aren't conservatives (even though Reagan arguably initiated the current era of showmanship with his actor's instincts) tempermentally supposed to be intolerant of the glitzy and superficial "packaging" oriented politics? Should government employees really be spending their time telling VIPs to take their ties off so they'll look more plebian in the background of a speech?

I'd be interested in hearing whether any conservatives think that this sort of image obsession is regrettable as playing into the hands of those who think Bush has nothing to say for himself (this is of course not the only explanation; even a President who was plenty smart could succumb to handlers who persuaded him that the medium mattered more than any message).

[december]

My impression is that Bush isn't doing more of this, but he (or his team) is better at it. Note how few actual examples of stage management are contained in the lengthy cited article. Plenty of other politicians including Bill Clinton have visited troops and worn military garb, but none of them got anything like the all-day PR boost provided by Bush's speech on the Lincoln.

The whiny cited article is just sour grapes. Democrats, eat your heart out. :D

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by december
My impression is that Bush isn't doing more of this, but he (or his team) is better at it.
But I guess this is one of my questions. Assuming you're right (although I think that the banners/backdrops specifically may be more ubiquitous under Bush), is this a "skill" at which conservatives should want to be "better?"

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by december
The whiny cited article is just sour grapes. Democrats, eat your heart out. :D
And I'm not advocating for either side -- in fact, the concept of loyalty to a party, per se (rather than to specific causes or issues) has always struck me as odd and clique-ish.

So I'm looking to get beyond "The PR helps the GOP, so it must be good, and the Dems. can pound sand" and "Bush and Republicans are evil, so the PR must be evil."

[december]

Originally posted by Huerta88
And I'm not advocating for either sideI didn't mean to aim my crack at you, Huerta88, but at the New York Times, who is an advocate for the Democrats. As you pointed out, "the carrier landing...has been beaten to death." And, yet, the cited article was still complaining about it.

Is this a "skill" at which conservatives should want to be "better?" I'd say, they have to, in order to win elections. This President Bush won more votes striding out in a flight suit than his father did vomiting in the lap of the Japanese Prime Minister.:eek:

[Magiver]

Maybe a different way to ask the question is to ask if the image sought after matches the person.

I would try to decide where the line is between a staged photo op, and a grooming photo op.

One undeserved image disaster was the Dukakis tank incident. He had a military background so he was not out of place. However he looked like a little boy sticking his head out of the tank while wearing an oversized helmet.

I think Clinton did more staging shots than most. The dancing photo with his wife was on the “image grooming” side of the fence. The arrangement of rocks planted on Normandy beach (while a battle ship wanders by) is on the “staged” side of the fence.

So far, Dubya has kept his grooming ops close to home. Splitting wood at his ranch is hokey but that’s his life style. Slamming onto the deck of a ship to congratulate the troops, well that just “plane” looked good. If you were a member of that crew and saw Navy One grab the hook, you would be in tears. He looked natural in the flight suite because he use to fly F102’s in the Texas Guard.

IMO Clinton enjoyed the limelight (perfectly normal). When he came to Dayton, he used the public airport and drove around the area. It was more visible to the public (and tied up everything). When Dubya came to Dayton he went to the military base, and then helicoptered to his speech. Not very flashy, but more businesslike. They both keep true to the image they want to project.

It’s all part of the job.

[lander2k2]

Originally posted by Huerta88
…. in fact, the concept of loyalty to a party, per se (rather than to specific causes or issues) has always struck me as odd and clique-ish.

Beautifully said, Huerta88.

On the OP, does the fact that politics is so PR driven bother anyone? We have these guys running the greater activities of millions and billions of people and their main focus is how to look good for the camera and manipulate opinions. This is not particularly a dig at Bush. I’m not sure that he is any more focused on PR than any other politician, but the simple fact that his ability as a statesman has virtually zero influence on his election chances is at best comical, and at worst dangerous.

I would think it appropriate that the president be, at the very minimum, a top 5% genius, an outstanding economist with a record for accurate forecasts, a proven manager that has directed large workforces successfully, and a well principled, philosophically grounded individual. That the present system of politics requires none of that is atrocious. Classified ad reads: President wanted: Must have full head of hair, be able to smile spontaneously, be able to read teleprompters, and be willing to say whatever it takes to win emotional support.

In a culture where info-tainment cultivates short attention spans and in a system where those short attention spans determine who leads the country, how can you expect to wind up with anything but a smiling PR monkey as a president?

[Magiver]

Originally posted by lander2k2
Beautifully said, Huerta88.


I would think it appropriate that the president be, at the very minimum, a top 5% genius, an outstanding economist with a record for accurate forecasts, a proven manager that has directed large workforces successfully, and a well principled, philosophically grounded individual. That the present system of politics requires none of that is atrocious. Classified ad reads: President wanted: Must have full head of hair, be able to smile spontaneously, be able to read teleprompters, and be willing to say whatever it takes to win emotional support.

In a culture where info-tainment cultivates short attention spans and in a system where those short attention spans determine who leads the country, how can you expect to wind up with anything but a smiling PR monkey as a president?

Well put. I've been soap-boxing that for years. If you're a natural born citizen over the age of 34, the step right up and win an all expense trip on a private 747.

I would challenge your comment about statesmanship because it is used more as a litmus test for political consensus. I think a good statesman is someone who does the right thing, even when it is unpopular. That's also the definition of a good citizen.

[elucidator]

Dukakis! Dukakis! What "military record" has he got that can possibly compare with GeeDubya's valiant defense of the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft!

Perhaps I am the teeniest bit disinclined towards the shallow little twit (perhaps, mind you) but I thought the recent Gloat on the Boat one of the most ham-handed productions I've seen in many a year.

[Conflict of Interest]

As usual, elucidator has to throw his/her vemom. Did you complain just as much when President Clinton made his many tips to ships at sea to give speaches?

More to the point of this thread tho, I think all politicians have to become masters at PR. That's how they get elected. The nation is too large and too populated for anyone to go everywhere. So they use the mass media. And who wouldn't want to show their best face when asking for your vote.

But you are right to a certain extent Huerta88, I think conservatives have shown themselves to lack this skill for some time. Nothing wrong with doing it now tho.

[John Mace]

"their main focus is how to look good for the camera and manipulate opinions"

I don' think even the OP implied this was their main focus, and I don't see how that could ever be substantiated, even if it were true.

This is hard to argue on the facts. I suspect that each administration "improves" on the PR record of the previous administration. And I have no idea whether "conservatives" or "liberals" are any more or less inclinded to view this suspiciously. Both parties seem to be expert at doublespeak and sloganeering. It's a rare president that I can stand listening to for more than a few minutes before the puke-o-meter goes off the scale. Actually, this is true of most politicians. Powell is one who comes to mind who doesn't fit in that stereotype.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by elucidator
Dukakis! Dukakis! What "military record" has he got that can possibly compare with GeeDubya's valiant defense of the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft!

Perhaps I am the teeniest bit disinclined towards the shallow little twit (perhaps, mind you) but I thought the recent Gloat on the Boat one of the most ham-handed productions I've seen in many a year.

Well, from prior posts I would say your dislike of Bush does tend to shift your gears into sarcastic overdrive. I myself, have to remove a lot of adjectives when I refer to Clinton.

And I have friends in the guard. The equipment they operate are not toys. Whether they see combat or not, it is serious business. Your comment about the President was a slam against the Guard.

Also, President Bush is the CIC and a former fighter pilot. Welcoming the troops back from war in this fashion was appropriate given his technical background. It wasn't for your benefit, it was for theirs. Sorry it looked good on TV. Personally, I would encourage you to write to the major TV networks and complain about it. Maybe they can run some more opeds about it.

[lander2k2]

Originally posted by Magiver
I would challenge your comment about statesmanship because it is used more as a litmus test for political consensus. I think a good statesman is someone who does the right thing, even when it is unpopular. That's also the definition of a good citizen.

I’m not sure if I misunderstood you or vise versa. I agree with your definition of a statesman. Perhaps I worded my idea poorly.

I meant to say that no modern politician is a statesman by virtue of the fact that their job depends on being appealing PR figure-heads, not leaders, economists, diplomats, or managers, but PR figure-heads. Political consensus does not always rally behind good sense if history is anything to go by. A competent statesman makes decisions based upon what they evaluate to be the wise move based upon their experience and principles. Politicians make decisions based upon what will be make them look good and get them elected.

And, yes, that is definitely also the definition of a good citizen.

[Magiver]

lander2k2
Damn, I have to agree with you again. Go over to the flag debate and shred me so I can feel alienated and unloved again.

[Mandelstam]

This article might be of interest: Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Hights (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html).

[lander2k2]

Magiver:
Can't seem to find any flag debate. Link it up for me and I'll see if I can find good reason to shred you.

[Magiver]

Sorry, can't debate what I can't quote. It is titled, "is pledge - anti-American?"

[Sam Stone]

The thing about the Bush Administration is that it's Professional. It's full of businesspeople who know what they are doing. All presidents try for this kind of PR - The Bush administration has just done it more professionally than others.

This extends to more than just photo-ops - in fact, the meticulous detailing around those photo-ops is indicative of how the whole White House operation is run. Meetings start on time - or else. People come prepared - or else. It's serious business. In the Clinton White House, on the other hand, meetings often started half an hour after they were supposed to. And Clinton was known as a 'night person', and would leave people hanging if meetings started too early. Then he'd stay and work 'till midnight. It had sort of the air of a college campus, not a business.

It's not surprising that Bush is efficient at these things. He is, after all, the first President to come to the office with an MBA. Which is possibly the most useful degree a President could have. And he's surrounded himself with heavy hitters who get the job done and don't take crap. It's a machine.

This is not all good, IMO. I think the same control-freak impulses that make the White House run like a clock these days are also the same impulses that cause this White House to be very secretive, and heavy-handed in things like homeland security.

[Payton's Servant]

well, in spite of what Rush limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the right wing/conservative/republican ilk have been bleating and screeching about, the NYTimes and the rest of the (falsely labeled) "liberal media" have been kissing Shrub's ass even before the election back in 2000.

Shrub's admin, is one of the most secretive in history, just watch Ari Fleisher decieve and dodge his way through yet another "informative:rolleyes: " White House briefing.

[lander2k2]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
The thing about the Bush Administration is that it's Professional. It's full of businesspeople who know what they are doing. All presidents try for this kind of PR - The Bush administration has just done it more professionally than others.

Businesspeople? They’re politicians. Business is business and politics is politics. Business is not politics. Business owns politics. I’ll concede that they’re professional—professional politicians. They make money in politics.

[Sam Stone]

I meant that most of them came from business. As opposed to academia. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Snow, and Bush are all from business backgrounds.

[elucidator]

Cheney has been an apparatchik of the Republican party almost all of his adult life. He was tapped to be CEO of Haliburton by a collection of other CEO's who figured he had the "right stuff" for the job. In no way did his connections to government figure in the equation. No. Uh-uh. It was his experience and executive acumen.

It is a central premise of Republican ideology that big businessmen are the best source of governance talent. After all, they own the country, it's only fair they should run it.

[december]

Originally posted by elucidator
Cheney has been an apparatchik of the Republican party almost all of his adult life. Using the word "apparatchik" is a nasty way to merely say that he was loyal to his party. This is true of most people in politics. He was tapped to be CEO of Haliburton by a collection of other CEO's who figured he had the "right stuff" for the job. In no way did his connections to government figure in the equation. No. Uh-uh. It was his experience and executive acumen.I agree that his government connections helped him get this job. OTOH he obviously did have management talent. He had been chosen as the youngest White House Chief of Staff ever, and AFAIK did a fine job in that position.It is a central premise of Republican ideology that big businessmen are the best source of governance talent. After all, they own the country, it's only fair they should run it. You're confusing stockholders with management. The Evil Rich own the country. CEOs like Dick Cheney earn more than you and I do, but they are still just hired hands to the Wealthy OverlordsTM.

[elucidator]

While my contempt and disdain for RepubCo (a wholly owned subsidiary of Moloch, Inc.) is well known, apparatchik is intended as a descriptive, and not as a pejorative. It is intended to imply such concepts as "functionary", not necessarily something like "party hack".

But just when I was thinking the Bushistas couldn't get any more blatant in thier marketing oriented manipulation than the Gloat on the Boat, there's this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html

"On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut."

Reminds me of his Ol' Daddy, talkng 'bout how he like to kick back with a bag of pork rinds and listen to country music. As a recovering redneck, I suppose I ought to be flattered that my kind of folks are held important enough to be pandered to. Were it not for the obvious implication that they think we are stupid enough to buy this kind of baloney. I hope they're wrong. But most recent evidence indicates that they know exactly what they are doing.

[lander2k2]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I meant that most of them came from business. As opposed to academia. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Snow, and Bush are all from business backgrounds.

You really think they were businessmen who happened upon politics, or just career politicians who used their conections to get jobs in between stints in office?

[John Mace]

Lander:

You may be correct about that, but Sam's point is still well taken. All things being equal, I tend to trust the guy who has spent at least SOME time in business (ie, the real world) as opposed to career politicians like Clinton and his "ilk", to parphrase Peyton.

[Huerta88]

I still haven't heard from any conservatives palpably uncomfortable with the PR program. They have to exist. I would be really uncomfortable with "my guy" allowing himself to be marketed this way. Even if (especially if) he were a decent, principled, non-flashy guy with the "correct" ideas.

This quote from the article is especially troubling:

"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see," Mr. Bartlett said. "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."

That's coming about as close as one can to saying "substance doesn't matter, but we can dupe the idiots who don't have time to listen to an 'entire broadcast.'"

I continue to think conservatives in particular (if only because of their espoused belief that government is to be limited, and to serve as a means to an end, not an end in itself) should be troubled by the circular view of the Presidency as a stage to promote the President.

Or, as several have suggested, are we too far down the road toward infotainment and pandering to the Oprah audience that neither party will ever be able to stake out their claim as the non-glitzy, non-cult-of-personality camp?

[Captain Amazing]

Maybe, but I'd consider Cheney a "career politician". He was in government service, either in Executive Branch agencies or in Congress consistantly from 1969-1993, which is most of his career.

It is true, more generally, though, that Clinton's cabinet came more from academia.

[elucidator]

There have always been honest conservatives who play straight and with a full deck. There has always been a worthy argument, the fate of the Republic being a game worth the candle. I suspect that they are growing increasingly disgusted with all of this: if not this puerile war, then the glory-mongering and mendacity that accompanies it.

If GeeDubya fails in his quest for a 2nd Installment, it may very well be because the McCains of the party won't vote Democrat, but they won't go out of thier way for GeeDub either.

[minega]

Actually i believe the opposite is true. I am no expert on US affairs, but his straight-talking style seems at odds with the packaged slick guy you seem to suggest as do his famous Bushisms.If they wanted to package him, they would teach him to speak English at the very least. I am no fan of the guy, but he does seem the closest un-politician(if that is a word which i doubt)president in U;S history. They wouldnt let him shoot off all that Christian talk either, damn the man sounds genuine! Then again, maybe this comes with the package....

[John Mace]

Huerta:

I wouldn't call myself a conservative, but I'm sure a lot of people probably would characterize me that way, and I did vote for Bush in '00. I did state in my earlier post that the PR stuff turns me off. But I see it as a secondary (or terciary) issue. It's too pervasive in politics (or any human endeavor) to just say you're going to ignore anyone who smacks of PRisms. What are you supposed to do? When do we get the chance to vote for someone untatined by PR activities? Personally, I see it just as much a problem with the press, and the electorate, than with the pols. If there were no market for it, the pols wouldn't do it. If the press didn't pander to it (which is saying the same thing as there not being a market), the pols wouldn't do it. I look at where the pols stand on the issues, and if they make a fool of themselves from time to time, well that's just life.

As for the carrier landing, I actually thought it was pretty cool. If I had been on the ship, I'd've ben happy to have Bush fly out like that and greet us. And, fankly, it's his opponents who are the one responsible for keeping this in the limelight. How many "conservatives" on this board have ever brought it up as some great achievement? Probably none. How many "liberals" have brought it up as a means to trash Bush? Plenty. Shut about it and it'll go away (at least until the next election campaigne).

The only high level guy right now who seems genuinely uninterested in the whole PR angle is Powell. I'm sure there are some Dems out there, too, but none come to mind immediately. If Powell were to run for pres, the GOP machine would take over and you'd see him doing some silly things, too, most likely. Maybe he'd keep his speeches a bit more free of inane cliches, but I bet we'd see him spouting his share of catchy slogans with the rest of them.

[PhiloVance]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Maybe, but I'd consider Cheney a "career politician". He was in government service, either in Executive Branch agencies or in Congress consistantly from 1969-1993, which is most of his career.

You have a cite? seems to me he was defense sec. for George Bush I, which occurred somwhere in the 80's, which incidently would intersect with those years.

As for my preference, I would prefer someone who had a business and government background. Failing that, I would prefer business over academia. Many, not all, academians do not live in the same world as ordinary people. YMMV

[Apos]

My impression is that Bush isn't doing more of this, but he (or his team) is better at it.

I agree. Rove is masterful at this, and him and others's revitalizted the party. They're really got control of stories: what issues become the issues, how they're framed, when to announce something, and how, and so on. The recent tax bill is case in point. The "sunset" clause, like the original tax cut, is designed to decieve the public and hide all the costs. But it's also too hard for most people to understand exactly how, and Democrats certainly can't explain it, let alone stand up to it.

There's also the difference in polling. Clinton's administration used polling to find out what policies would be popular with the people. Bush's administration has used polling mainly to figure out how to sell the policies that they want: what presentation will be the most popular: how should we frame this issue for maximum impact? And of course, flatly dening all the while that polling is something they do big time: that's what Democrats do.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by PhiloVance
You have a cite? seems to me he was defense sec. for George Bush I, which occurred somwhere in the 80's, which incidently would intersect with those years.

Well, I'd consider that "employed by an executive branch agency"

[Captain Amazing]

What I had meant to say was that he was a government employee in one way or another from 1969-1993.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by PhiloVance
As for my preference, I would prefer someone who had a business and government background. Failing that, I would prefer business over academia. Many, not all, academians do not live in the same world as ordinary people. YMMV

Agreed. A lot of people equate smart with effective. Too often the "geniuses" think they know everything and therefore need to control every detail. A good CEO (and I like to think of the pres as a CEO) is a generalist who knows how to pick the right specialists. I believe that is why Bush has been fairly successful so far. Not to say that he's the best generalist around by a long shot, but he's smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything. I don't think you could say that about Clinton, although Clinton certainly had his degree of success.

[Blalron]

A relevant quote from George W. Bush's professed hero comes to mind:

Woe unto you.... hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Matthew 23:25

[Yookeroo]

Am I the only one bothered by the good businessman = good leader assumption? Seems to me the goals of a businessman and the goals of a president aren't exactly the same. Nor do the talents needed seem to be the same.

[elucidator]

Not by a long shot. Its a favorite mantra of the Pubbies, like "I've had to meet a payroll...." and so forth. Of course they scorn academics, academics (like Wellstone) are constantly pointing out the lack of Imperial clothing.

Guess we're just lucky Ken Lay ain't Vice President. On the other hand, why would he bother? Rich folks don't have to actually drive the cars they buy, they hire help for that.

[PhiloVance]

Originally posted by Huerta88:
I don't want to start a general Bush Sucks/No He Doesn't war here.


:D No need to worry, elucidator will do that for you. :D

[elucidator]

The camera pans in to the White House, where Barbara Bush is suddenly awakened by the Ghost of Christmas Future

BB: Whaaaaa....who are you? What do you want?

GCF: I've come to tell you. Your son shall be President as well!

BB: Could well be. Jeb's always had a good head on his shoulders, people like him and...

GCF: Not he.

BB: Well, Neil's had his problems lately, what with those banks failing and such, be a while yet before he can....

GCF: Not he either.

BB: Well, that just leaves.......George Jr??!!!

(The camera pans back from the White House, as peals of laughter roll out.....)

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Yookeroo
Am I the only one bothered by the good businessman = good leader assumption? Seems to me the goals of a businessman and the goals of a president aren't exactly the same. Nor do the talents needed seem to be the same.

I don't think anyone said that. I believe that there are many similar qualities that are needed for both. And businessmen have experience working under physcal constraints. Career politicians too often just go to the money tree to pluck whatever they need.

Here are some of the qualities of a good businessman that apply:

Vison
Thinking Strategically (and not just tactically)
Leadership (being able to inspire people)
Discipline
Accountability
Integrity
Being able to pick people who are capable of getting the job done.

I could go on. And don't throw up Lay as an example (Elucidator). His bankrupt company is proof that he was a BAD businessman, just as Nixon is an example of a failed politician. Let's look at someone more like Welch of GE or Grove of Intel.

Now, please put some meat in your post and tell us the qualities of a GOOD businessman that aren't applicable. So far all you've spouted is an opinion. Too many people on the left automatically assume that businessman = bad, and then go from there.

[Blalron]

Businessmen are only concerned with advancing the interest of a soul less corporation. That's the bottom line. If that means laying off 10,000 workers in order to raise the price of the companies stock, so be it. It's just business.

Politicians, on the other hand, ought to be concerned with the general wellbeing of the citizens they serve.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Blalron
Businessmen are only concerned with advancing the interest of a soul less corporation. That's the bottom line. If that means laying off 10,000 workers in order to raise the price of the companies stock, so be it. It's just business.

Politicians, on the other hand, ought to be concerned with the general wellbeing of the citizens they serve.

A good businessman uses layoffs as a last resort. It can sometimes be a good short term tactic, but more often a poor long term one. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. A good businessman knows when it's necessary for survival vs just good for the next quarter. And when times are tough, a good businessman knows you cut back expenses. Very few politicians seem to be able to do that. When was the last time the Federal Budget ever had a year over year decline? When was the last time the economy had a year over year decline?

Don't confuse businessmen who rise and fall in a few years. Sure, there are the slashers out there, but those guys are rarely, if ever, the ones you see on Fortune's most admired list. You should no more judge all businessmen by what Lay did than to judge all pols by what Nixon did.

[Blalron]

A Tobacco Executive may be EXCELLENT at bringing in money for his company and defending it from lawsuits. After all, that is his job.

But that doesn't mean he has the qualities I want in a politician.

[John Mace]

Blalron:

I'm certainly not saying that every businessman, or even every good businessman, would make a good politician. But you seem to be saying that none would be good in politics. Is that true?

A good politician needs to have more skills than a good businessman, because business isn't a democracy. The CEO has much more freedom to implement his ideas. A politician does have to be able to get people to work with him even if they don't work for him. So, I'd say the qualities of a good biz guy is a subset of those needed by good pol, especially a good president. But it's a damn good subset.

What are the qualities that you want in a politician? And, BTW, a coporation is no more soulless than the people who make up that corporation. One could just as easily speak of the "soulless" governemnt.

As someone said earlier, a good academician doesn't necessarily need to have many skills that make a good, and effective politician. I don't see much overlap there.

[Payton's Servant]

Saying that Shrub was a good business man is like saying that Milli vannili were brilliant singers.

He majorly f***ed up his first oil business venture and was well on his way to bankruptcy until he went crying to Daddy, and Daddy had his rich oil friends bail Shrub out.

And I won't go into the illegaities in terms of stocks that Shrub was a direct participant in.

[lander2k2]

The White House efforts have been ambitious — and costly. For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.

Does the tax payer foot these kinds of bills? Or do the funds come from campaign contributions?

The state troopers called to ask for donations again today. At least I haven’t heard form the city police or the county fire/rescue service for a couple of weeks.

IMHO opinion, PR driven politicians—whether they be businessmen, lawyers or Hollywood actors—are one of America’s biggest liabilities. Not only is looking good given too much attention by those who should be running a country, too much money is being spent on it as well.

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by lander2k2
Does the tax payer foot these kinds of bills? Or do the funds come from campaign contributions?
To judge from the article, much or most of it is coming out of a general WH operational budget. While it's true that they would have to spend the money on some form of press-office activity, I think it's indisputable that all Americans are paying more than they would absent the ex television producers on the WH staff.

Incumbency has its advantages, and campaigning on the public dime has always been one of them. In the past, though, that's taken more the penny ante form of abusing congressional franking to send out thinly-veiled campaign pitches. Bush (really, his advisors) seems to have taken it to a higher (lower?) level of PR "professionalism."

[John Mace]

Lander:

I don't think anyone would praise PR driven politicians. And I certainly agree with you on the abuse of tax payer money, although with a standing pres, it's often hard to seperate legitimate expenses for travel, security, etc from simple grandstanding. But like I said, above, I tend to ignore the PR stuff and focus on what their positions on the issues are.

Suppose there are two candidates. One you agree with on about 80% of the issues, but he's kind of a publicity hound. Likes to have his picture taken kissing babies and all that. The other candidate you agree with on about 30% of the issues, but she shies away from any hints of PR stuff. Who do you vote for?

A bit of a contrived scenario, I'll admit, but are there any nationally recognized pols that you think handle the PR angle appropriately? Maybe I've just got cynical and no longer expect to see any pols acting in a truly dignified manner.

[lander2k2]

John Mace:

I commend your principles in focusing on the positions and issues of the politicians without regard for the politicians’ PR stunts. It would seem the best way to approach a choice of candidate given that you still have faith in the democratic process.

The fatal flaw I see in that, however, is that the amount of genuine enunciation of positions and issues is woefully lacking. All I ever hear from any politician when a difficult question is asked is hedging and question avoidance. Politicians specialize in verbal window dressing. Nothing of any substance is ever addressed. Its seems to be a guiding principle in politics to reveal as little as possible about your position—any position—in case something you say proves to be wrong in the future. Anything that conceivably could be used as ammo by the opposition to make one look bad is avoided at all costs. Politicians that give detailed explanations and real, honest opinions are about as common as hopping cattle.

Which comes back to my primary gripe with this: PR monkeys running nations is folly, pure folly. I sometimes watch politicians give speeches and feel like a passenger on an airliner that has a circus clown in the captain’s seat—airhead attention whores who don’t even understand the concept of integrity and seem to barely recognize that human lives depend on them.

On your two candidates scenario, my answer is that I would vote for neither. In my book, the political system is a write off. It would be a waste of time to stand in line at the polls. I will spend the time instead working on building a better lot for me and my family despite the monkeys running the greater show.

[John Mace]

"It would be a waste of time to stand in line at the polls. I will spend the time instead working on building a better lot for me and my family despite the monkeys running the greater show."

Agree 100%, or perhaps 95%. Which is why I always vote absentee (no waiting in lines) and have strived to structure my financial situation and other aspects of my life so as to make the gov't as irrelevent as possible. Having political views outside the mainstream means rarely seeing those views put into practice. I do, however, still value the fact that this country is free enough that is possible to dismiss a good part of what our gov't does and still get on with ones life for the most part.

It is often difficult, and somtimes impossible to understand where a politician stands on a particular issue by listenning to him or her speak. But any pol with a voting record cannot lie to anyone who does a little digging. Deeds, not words.

[Blalron]

"It would be a waste of time to stand in line at the polls. I will spend the time instead working on building a better lot for me and my family despite the monkeys running the greater show."

That's why my State has vote by mail. Now the only excuse people in my State have for avoiding their civic duty is laziness.

[lander2k2]

.....laziness, or a recognition that they are wasting the 37c on postage.

Voting by mail is a great idea for what it is worth. Wonder how long before we see voting online?

[John Mace]

Lander:

Somehow I expect the comment about wasting the postage. It's unfortunate that you feel so frustated that even the simple task of voting seems not worth it. Have you considered write-ins or 3rd party voting?

Surely there must be someone out there you can muster the effort to vote for, even if it is just yourself.:)

Anyway, in CA there are so many ballot initatives that even if I'm not thrilled about the candidates, I still see the need to vote. And many of the initiatives are at the local level, where your indivitdual vote counts more. If you opt out of the national election voting, you often opt out of voting all the way down to the county and town level.

[lander2k2]

John Mace:
I completely respect your stance on voting. It just isn't mine. I've made my opinion on the shortcomings of the American political system clear in various threads.

The time it takes to make voting worthwhile is more than just filling out a ballot. As you have mentioned there is the research and consideration of the candidates positions, which in itself would be a somewhat of a time-consuming task considering the research it would require just to honestly understand what a candidate stood for.

But I would see even the simplest and efficient voting methods to be a waste of time in light of the futility I see in casting a vote.

Just MHO.

[Huerta88]

Originally posted by lander2k2
John Mace:The time it takes to make voting worthwhile is more than just filling out a ballot. As you have mentioned there is the research and consideration of the candidates positions, which in itself would be a somewhat of a time-consuming task considering the research it would require just to honestly understand what a candidate stood for.

But I would see even the simplest and efficient voting methods to be a waste of time in light of the futility I see in casting a vote.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/01/rational-ignorance.html

If people take a rational ignorance approach, it's still unclear whether this leads to more or less pandering (you could argue that in the limit, pandering would be irrelevant if the electorate tuned out altogether). Probably more, though.