Tag Archives: newt gingrich

by | April 26, 2013 · 5:51 PM

Celebrity Issue Advocacy is Politics

There is a great Politico article out that discusses the intertwined nature of celebrity and public office.  It is a rather complex article with some insightful analysis about how celebrities engage in the political realm and politicians who embrace celebrity endorsements.  One main point from the piece is about how celebrities are now taking up issue advocacy instead of running for public office.  This quote sums it up:

“To their credit, the lives they lead today is very different from their predecessors in the studio system [who had] managed lives, their images protected. … Very few people were aware of how tough it is and how incredibly hard and difficult it is to go through the day-to-day ardors of a campaign. … Maybe that’s why so many [politically active celebrities] come up to the water’s edge and decide not [to] jump in.”

Later, the piece quotes George Clooney about his decision not to run for office (which I thought was hilarious):

“I didn’t live my life in the right way for politics, you know,” he told Newsweek in 2011. “I f—-ked too many chicks and did too many drugs, and that’s the truth.”

While I agree with most of the points addressed in the article, I think it has a very narrow definition of “politics.”  The political science definition is “who gets what and how.”  Meaning, the entire process to move an issue forward is by definition a political action.  So, anytime a celebrity advocates for an issue, they are engaging in politics.  Issue advocacy by celebrities is not a new trend by any means.  During World War II, celebrities put forth propaganda to support the war effort for the U.S. government.  The U.N. has a vast library of celebrities endorsing numerous causes in the 1940-50s  The article mentions Ronald Reagan making a career of going after communists, but he also advocated against socialized medicine too.  Who can forget Jane Fonda going to North Vietnam  or the many writers and celebrities who visited the USSR?  Not to mention benefit concerts for HIV/AIDS, natural disaster relief, and cancer research.  These issues rose to prominence because of celebrity endorsements and can actually advance issues much faster culturally than any congressmen.

I would also add the rise of celebrity politician who leave office and become political stars of their own.  Sarah Palin is great example of this.  She left her post as governor after half a term and receiving notoriety from being John McCain’s running-mate in 2008.  Her personality and charisma have brought her numerous adoring fans and a very loyal following that has translated into a SuperPac that endorses candidates, two reality shows, and, until recently, a contract with Fox News.  Not to mention millions of Twitter and Facebook followers.   Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former House Majority Leader Dick Army have received large followings for books and political action groups.  Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have moved onto issue advocacy with their respective foundations.  I can go on.  While in office, these politicians certainly accomplished quite a bit, but I would argue their political capital has gone up even more since they left and their power has increased because of their supporters.

Celebrity is a very strong political force because there is very little accountability to constituents and mainly requires photo-ops and monetary donations to causes.  It’s a unilateral form of political action, except without all the bureaucracy.  It makes a lot of sense that celebrities and former politicians would embrace fame to advance causes for the common good.

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | April 23, 2013 · 5:51 PM

Bringing Back “Crossfire” Will Not Save CNN

Crossfire hosts

Dylan Byers at Politico reports that CNN is in talks to bring “Crossfire.”  There’s also a twist.  The show would be hosted by two notable political faces, Stephanie Cutter (former deputy Obama campaign manager) and Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the House and 2012 GOP contender).  This news sparked some interesting noise on Twitter:

 

Or my favorite…

 

The concept of Newt Gingrich doing anything on television is entertaining to me, but it seems the entire show is out-of-date. The whole twenty-four hour media complex is “Crossfire” on a constant stream that you can never, ever turn off. Every time I turn on Fox News, MSNBC, or even CNN there are two pundits from opposite sides of the political spectrum arguing with each other over the news of the day. When “Crossfire” premiered in 1982, it was a somewhat novel idea. It today’s world where punditry has replaced journalism the idea just seems passe.  If CNN wants to be competitive, it needs to find an angle on news that neither Fox or MSNBC is taking.  They want to be the “middle of the road” network, but they need to find a way to stimulate that group.  Bringing back their “greatest hits” isn’t going to accomplish that goal.

Leave a Comment

Filed under media

Tagged as , , , ,

by | February 4, 2012 · 1:54 PM

Is Newt Gingrich Hypomanic?

By Luke Brinker

In an amusing segment on his HBO show last week, Bill Maher suggested Newt Gingrich may well be a narcissist. It’s possible, but it turns out there’s another disorder listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) that encompasses both Gingrich’s inflated sense of self and his extremely erratic, bizarre behavior. There’s ample reason to believe that Gingrich, whose mother was bipolar (thus significantly increasing her son’s chance of mental illness), is himself an untreated hypomanic. Here, according to the DSM, are the key symptoms of hypomania. (It takes three for a patient to be considered hypomanic.)

Pressured speech.

Gingrich, widely considered an eloquent debater – not that eloquence makes sound arguments – doesn’t exhibit this.

Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity.

Where to begin? This is a man who has proclaimed that it’s “people like me who stand between us and Auschwitz.” 

In papers uncovered during his ethics investigation, the House Ethics Committee happened upon one page of notes in which Gingrich fancied himself the “definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.”

Gingrich has also described himself as a “transformational figure,” “essentially a revolutionary,” and “very different from normal politicians.” For a nice round-up of Gingrich’s self-described “grandiose thoughts,” Mark Halperin’s The Page features a blistering Romney press release listing Gingrich’s many delusional musings.

Decreased need for sleep.

This comes with the territory of running for president.

Flight of ideas or the subjective experience of thoughts that are racing.

How about the time when Gingrich answered a debate question by moving swiftly from an endorsement of a “Reagan/John Paul II/Thatcher strategy towards Iran” to a condemnation of “what Obama’s done on Agenda 21 as the kind of interference from the United Nations that’s wrong”?

Easy distractibility.

Lunar colony, anyone?

Increase in psychomotor agitation.

Thankfully, I’ve yet to observe this in the former House Speaker.

Involvement in pleasurable activities with a high potential for negative social or physical consequences.

Need we even rehash Gingrich’s oft-mentioned marital history?

It’s comforting to know that this is a man who more than a quarter of Republicans want to have access to the US’s nuclear weapons.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | February 1, 2012 · 10:28 AM

The Most Important Florida Exit Poll Number

By Luke Brinker

Mitt Romney’s rout of Newt Gingrich in yesterday’s Florida primary dealt a severe blow to Gingrich’s hopes of mounting a strong challenge to Romney’s nomination. A look at the exit poll data shows why. Romney won whites and Hispanics by decisive margins, dominated Gingrich among women, and won every age and income group. Romney even bested Gingrich among Tea Party supporters, upon whom Gingrich is staking the future of his candidacy.

Notable blocs among whom Gingrich beat Romney included voters whose most important issue was abortion, those who described themselves as “very conservative,” and those who thought “true” conservatism was the most important quality in a GOP nominee. But none of those measures were the most interesting aspect of the Florida exit polls. That honor belongs instead to the question of whether voters wanted more candidates to enter the race. Fifty eight percent said they were satisfied with the current field, while a sizable 38 percent said they would like to see someone else enter the race. (To understand why this is no longer realistic, click here.) Romney won 51 percent of those satisfied with the current crop, but he and Gingrich were much closer among voters who want a new candidate to toss his or her hat into the ring. Romney won 38 percent among this group, versus 37 percent for Gingrich.

If a sizable chunk of Romney supporters want a new candidate, doesn’t that portend ill for the putative front-runner? Actually, the numbers are far worse from Gingrich’s perspective. That Gingrich had such large support among voters dissatisfied with the current field suggests that many of those voting for Gingrich are doing so not out of a deep affinity for the former House Speaker, but as a vote of protest against the allegedly moderate Romney. That’s not exactly a recipe for staying power, particularly given Gingrich’s considerable personal and political baggage.

Many Romney supporters wish there were more candidates from which to choose, but this mostly reflects the falling-in-line effect. Few Romney voters love their candidate, but they judge him to be the strongest possible nominee against Barack Obama. Most of them probably realize that it’s logistically impossible for a new candidate to enter the race and secure enough delegates to claim the GOP nod in Tampa this summer. They may wish Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal or who-have-you had opted to run, but they’re mostly resigned to backing Romney, and unlike the fickle hard-right voters who have gone from Palin to Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Santorum to Gingrich again, they’re not liable to change their votes.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, Mitt Romney

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | January 28, 2012 · 5:22 PM

5 Things that Impact Election Races

By John Stang

Luke wrote yesterday about how money can have an impact on the political system, tracing he historical roots of the problem.  With the rise of Super Pacs as a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the idea of money affecting political races can be seen right before our eyes.  I wanted to point to some factors that can tun opinion very quickly.  None of these are the only reason for changing races, but they can have the most impact:

1. Do as the “Establishment” does:  Every election cycle, regardless of party, there is this boogeyman (sorry, I mean wise pooh-bahs) that hide in the shadows to decide who the nominee of each party is going to be.  At least, that is how the media portrays them.  In reality, its just bunch of rich donors that  are staunch supporters of one party or another, and, here’s the kicker, they organize and vote in primaries.  For the Republicans, this is the Bob Dole/George H.W. Bush types that run the old fashion party of business and are supporting Mitt Romney.  Usually, they support the next guy in line. Newt Gingrich is trying to court the populist side of the party by explaining how he’s been victimized by the “establishment” conspiracy.  For Democrats, the establishment can include old hands in the party, like the late Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd.  As a college student in the Virginia, I notice that many of the Southern Democrats do vote based on the “establishment.” Ted Kennedy was also a key endorsement for Obama in 2008.  Sometimes the establishment can’t stear an election, aka Christine O’Donnell or Sharon Angle.  I would argue that 85% of the time though, the establishment will have the upper hand in choosing candidates.  After all, they are the party leaders and the most organized.

2. 24 hour news and the blogosphere:  There are 2 ways that I see 24-hour news channels making a difference in a race.  First, the incessant repeating of stories over and over again.  If it’s negative, then that politician will have a deep hole to climb out of because if man hear’s a story in a repetitive fashion, it goes unquestioned; this makes it like a free negative campaign ad for the other politician who is not implicated in the story.  Second, the pure partisanship of a network can make a difference.  Fox News has the power to shape conservative thinking because it takes conservative talk radio and blog information and regurgitates it as news.  MSNBC tries to do the same thing, although liberals do not consume media in such a hierarchical fashion, so it does not work as well.  Although, liberals will often link information from blog to blog, getting the message out very quickly.  Watch sometime how Fox talks about Newt Gingrich versus Mitt Romney, there is clear populist tone.  Now, that is not to say it works all the time.  I would contend that not all conservatives or Republicans watch Fox, but it can spark anger on issues that are critical for Gingrich’s base, like hating the main stream media.

3.  Character Assassination Attempts:  More and more, people are starting to look at a candidates character to decide their presidential quality.  We’ve developed idiotic tests like “who would you rather have a beer with?” or “who do you want answering the phone at 3 am?”  Often, these tests have very little to do with policy debates and look like a TMZ profile.  Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Bain Capital, and Willie Horton all discuss the integrity of a particular candidate.  While voters might vote on other things.  In the back of their minds, these mundane attacks can seal the deal.

4. When the time is right, will you be ready?:  Timing is everything in politics.  The correct placement of ads, good wording in a speech, or even shaking the right person’s hand all have the chance to change the outcome of a race.  There is a reason that Rick Santorum surged in Iowa at the last minute, he had not been brutally attacked and the Evangelicals swarmed around him.  Newt Gingrich also had a good debate performance in South Carolina close the vote, while Mitt Romney flopped at the wrong time.  The reverse could be true in Florida.  Some attacks are effective or misfires, even if they look good on paper, depending on the mood of the people.  If it comes off at just the right moment, everything can change.

5. Shrewd Calculators:  Remember, voters are not oblivious to the national scene.  They have two choices. Either pick the candidate that matches their values or the one who can win, sometimes it’s all the same package deal.  Gingrich has the momentum and Romney looks like the man to win the general election.  If someone is very active in politics and is an active party member, then like a sports bet, he can chose who has the better chance of winning.  Not everyone votes like this, but consider that primary voters are the more hardcore vote.  Sometimes, that means they vote with their gut, but they also want their party to win too.  Informed voters can be almost as calculating as a political consultant.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election

Tagged as , , , ,