According to a recently leaked memo circulating the Republic National Committee, GOP candidates seeking RNC support may have to prove their conservative credentials by adhering to ten core principles.
It's important to note that this information was leaked to press, and only represents an one of many ongoing discussions within the RNC. Regardless, there is actual support for this measure and it very well could become a reality. Any GOP'er with a history of straying from three or more of these principles would be ineligible for any RNC funds or support.
This idea reeks of the GOP's newfound penchant for party purity at all costs, even political irrelevancy. This may be all well and good for Republicans running in the Southern states, but it's a death knell for politicians running for office outside this region. Conservative ideology, as represented by the ten distilled blanket statements, are of only limited appeal depending upon the locale. It's natural for politicians to tailor their campaigns according to the specifics of an area, having to adhere to a preordained set of ideals would make this practically impossible.
The GOP needs to figure out whether it wants to be a small gathering of the pure with little political impact or a big-tent party representing a variety of interests. The current political atmosphere is in dire need of a functional opposition, an unlikely event as long as a resolution to their crisis of identity continues to elude the number 2 Party.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Is Fox News helping or hindering the GOP?
My curiosity, in regards to popular conservative powerhouse Fox News, has been satiated at last. I tuned in for short periods of time over a few weeks whenever I could find the time. It took longer than I had originally surmised, but I did gain the added perspective that motivated me to watch in the first place.
FNN's political relevance, which had been steadily rising for years, rose to new heights in the wake of last November's elections. Skyrocketing demand for the channel's conservative-flavored output in the face of a new Democratic majority proved ample justification for a continuous stream of vigorous opposition. Becoming the opposition's unofficial mouthpiece was a natural progression for the network and a perfect means of capitalizing on widespread discontent.
As a consequence of its prominence within the political arena, FNN is now, more than ever, public enemy number one for many Democrats. Of course this has been the case since its original inception, but there is definitely a sense of greater scrutiny and coordinated methods of attack. Its been a boon for ratings, but has it been good for the cause? This leads me to the point of this entry, that Fox News has zero consideration for the fate of the GOP.
The only thing FNN truly cares about is higher ratings and profit. The appearance of congruity between the interests of Fox News and those of the Republic Party are only an illusion. FNN will undertake any action deemed beneficial to ratings. Whether this means fostering the divide between parties or the one currently growing within the GOP. It's a business not a party organization, Republicans would do well to consider this lest a time comes when their interests no longer coincide.
My take on FNN's programming is for my next entry.
FNN's political relevance, which had been steadily rising for years, rose to new heights in the wake of last November's elections. Skyrocketing demand for the channel's conservative-flavored output in the face of a new Democratic majority proved ample justification for a continuous stream of vigorous opposition. Becoming the opposition's unofficial mouthpiece was a natural progression for the network and a perfect means of capitalizing on widespread discontent.
As a consequence of its prominence within the political arena, FNN is now, more than ever, public enemy number one for many Democrats. Of course this has been the case since its original inception, but there is definitely a sense of greater scrutiny and coordinated methods of attack. Its been a boon for ratings, but has it been good for the cause? This leads me to the point of this entry, that Fox News has zero consideration for the fate of the GOP.
The only thing FNN truly cares about is higher ratings and profit. The appearance of congruity between the interests of Fox News and those of the Republic Party are only an illusion. FNN will undertake any action deemed beneficial to ratings. Whether this means fostering the divide between parties or the one currently growing within the GOP. It's a business not a party organization, Republicans would do well to consider this lest a time comes when their interests no longer coincide.
My take on FNN's programming is for my next entry.
Friday, October 30, 2009
GOP identity crisis: Hoffman vs Scozzavava
Earlier today, Dede Scozzafava, the GOP candidate running in New York's District 23 special election next week, abruptly withdrew her candidacy for the hotly contested House Seat. Her decision to drop out was entirely unsurprising in light of the mass revolt of Party support over the past few weeks.
The moderate Republican was initially thought of as the only viable conservative candidate with a chance of winning. The NRCC's candidate of choice set off a storm of displeasure among certain party members setting the stage for a greater intra-party battle.
The GOP has been struggling with identity issues ever since the November elections. Almost a year later and the Party still remains a fractured mess. Ultimately, the crux of the conflict comes down to a question of purity. On one side of the issue are the uber-conservative members who blame all previous problems on the Party's straying from their core principles. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the path to future prosperity lies in enlarging the party's appeal.
It's disheartening to see moderates, such as Scozzafava being pushed out as "not right enough" for a vocal radical base who represent views far removed from the majority of Americans.
The NY election has become the latest battleground in the war over the GOP's future direction.
The moderate Republican was initially thought of as the only viable conservative candidate with a chance of winning. The NRCC's candidate of choice set off a storm of displeasure among certain party members setting the stage for a greater intra-party battle.
The GOP has been struggling with identity issues ever since the November elections. Almost a year later and the Party still remains a fractured mess. Ultimately, the crux of the conflict comes down to a question of purity. On one side of the issue are the uber-conservative members who blame all previous problems on the Party's straying from their core principles. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that the path to future prosperity lies in enlarging the party's appeal.
It's disheartening to see moderates, such as Scozzafava being pushed out as "not right enough" for a vocal radical base who represent views far removed from the majority of Americans.
The NY election has become the latest battleground in the war over the GOP's future direction.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Obama vs Fox News and week of nonstop FNN
The Obama administrations ongoing spat with popular conservative news outlet, Fox News, shows no sign of abating any time soon. At least, that was the general impression of events according to the outcome of a recent meeting between Obama advisor David Axelrod and Fox News President Roger Ailes.
The long-brewing conflict has been steadily rising in intensity over the last few months as party relations continue to sour. At the heart of the disagreement is the Obama camp's claim that Fox News has been actively spreading misinformation as the network solidified its position as the voice of the opposition. This represents a marked difference from merely reporting the news through a conservative ideological lens. The accusation strikes to the core of Fox News' identity as a source of genuine journalism.
The administration's response to these assertions has been to extend the "proverbial" cold shoulder to the network. Administration officials have shown little hesitation expressing their criticisms in an open forum. In addition, the President recently opted out of an appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's almost impossible to ascertain the direct consequences of these actions considering the network's preexisting penchant for highly critical Presidential coverage.
Having spent barely any time tuning into the channel myself, I'm not really sure where the truth lies. So before making any judgments on the matter, I've decided take this opportunity to better acquaint myself with the conservative behemoth that is Fox News. Over the next week I'll tune into the network every chance I can. This way I can finally gain some much needed context on the topic media bias. Whatever mysterious knowledge I glean during this time, be it inspiring revelations of truth or dark visions of insanity, will be posted to my blog.
The long-brewing conflict has been steadily rising in intensity over the last few months as party relations continue to sour. At the heart of the disagreement is the Obama camp's claim that Fox News has been actively spreading misinformation as the network solidified its position as the voice of the opposition. This represents a marked difference from merely reporting the news through a conservative ideological lens. The accusation strikes to the core of Fox News' identity as a source of genuine journalism.
The administration's response to these assertions has been to extend the "proverbial" cold shoulder to the network. Administration officials have shown little hesitation expressing their criticisms in an open forum. In addition, the President recently opted out of an appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's almost impossible to ascertain the direct consequences of these actions considering the network's preexisting penchant for highly critical Presidential coverage.
Having spent barely any time tuning into the channel myself, I'm not really sure where the truth lies. So before making any judgments on the matter, I've decided take this opportunity to better acquaint myself with the conservative behemoth that is Fox News. Over the next week I'll tune into the network every chance I can. This way I can finally gain some much needed context on the topic media bias. Whatever mysterious knowledge I glean during this time, be it inspiring revelations of truth or dark visions of insanity, will be posted to my blog.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Sorry Obama, No Olympics for YOU!
Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee chose Rio de Janeiro, Brazil as the site of the 2016 Olympic games. The annual contest for Olympic hosting duties usually falls pretty far below my radar this changed however, after the President decided to intervene personally and champion his hometown of Chicago for 2016 games.
The issue came to a speedy resolution after Chicago was disqualified during the first round of voting. The embarrassing defeat could have easily been confined solely to the city of Chicago, but thanks to his own efforts Obama now shares in the loss of face. By petitioning the Olympic committee in person, Obama was in effect, placing the outcome on his own shoulders.
The defeat made Obama, and by relation the office of the president, appear weak both at home and abroad. It's hard to justify such a risk for the minimal benefit of securing the Olympics for America yet again. This outcome only feeds the public's perception of an aloof and unconcerned President. And in today's 24/7 media saturated environment, the appearance of propriety is paramount to successfully implementing one's agenda.
It was unwise for the President to risk the negative publicity when there are so many other serious problems jockeying for his attention. The multitude of crises plaguing our nation allow the President little latitude for time spent on less severe distractions. Whether this is fair to the President or not is beside the point, this is the reality of the moment and not even Obama can afford to ignore it.
Although in this instance my criticism is focused on the President, I feel just as much disdain, if not more so, for the all the celebratory remarks right-wing commentators immediately flooded the airwaves with. It's deeply troubling to see members of the opposition explode into fits of ecstasy the instant Obama suffers any kind of setback. The difference, and reasoning behind this entry's main topic, is simply a matter of expectations. I expect this behavior from the right-wing pundits, but Obama's behavior I hold to a higher standard. It's rare to see the President miscalculate events to such a degree. This is not to say his conduct so far has been flawless, but only that his mistakes of the past are, more often the not, the result of a calculated risk in pursuit of a worthy reward. At least this is the impression I've gotten of Obama's behavior up to this point.
The President has set out on an ambitious agenda with far-reaching implications for the future of our country. Seeing a possible reversal of political fortunes and backed up by an army of angry protesters, the opposition is doing whatever they can to torpedo any proposed legislation. With stakes this high even the the most minute of misjudgments will ricochet across the media landscape in an eye-blink and potentially tip the scales irrevocably in the direction of failure.
The issue came to a speedy resolution after Chicago was disqualified during the first round of voting. The embarrassing defeat could have easily been confined solely to the city of Chicago, but thanks to his own efforts Obama now shares in the loss of face. By petitioning the Olympic committee in person, Obama was in effect, placing the outcome on his own shoulders.
The defeat made Obama, and by relation the office of the president, appear weak both at home and abroad. It's hard to justify such a risk for the minimal benefit of securing the Olympics for America yet again. This outcome only feeds the public's perception of an aloof and unconcerned President. And in today's 24/7 media saturated environment, the appearance of propriety is paramount to successfully implementing one's agenda.
It was unwise for the President to risk the negative publicity when there are so many other serious problems jockeying for his attention. The multitude of crises plaguing our nation allow the President little latitude for time spent on less severe distractions. Whether this is fair to the President or not is beside the point, this is the reality of the moment and not even Obama can afford to ignore it.
Although in this instance my criticism is focused on the President, I feel just as much disdain, if not more so, for the all the celebratory remarks right-wing commentators immediately flooded the airwaves with. It's deeply troubling to see members of the opposition explode into fits of ecstasy the instant Obama suffers any kind of setback. The difference, and reasoning behind this entry's main topic, is simply a matter of expectations. I expect this behavior from the right-wing pundits, but Obama's behavior I hold to a higher standard. It's rare to see the President miscalculate events to such a degree. This is not to say his conduct so far has been flawless, but only that his mistakes of the past are, more often the not, the result of a calculated risk in pursuit of a worthy reward. At least this is the impression I've gotten of Obama's behavior up to this point.
The President has set out on an ambitious agenda with far-reaching implications for the future of our country. Seeing a possible reversal of political fortunes and backed up by an army of angry protesters, the opposition is doing whatever they can to torpedo any proposed legislation. With stakes this high even the the most minute of misjudgments will ricochet across the media landscape in an eye-blink and potentially tip the scales irrevocably in the direction of failure.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Prospects for a public option grow dimmer
Earlier today, an important Senate committee dealt proponents of the public health care option a stinging setback. The Senate Finance Committee voted against including a government funded plan in the eventual bill.
The fight for such an option has become a pivotal battle ground in the fight for health care reform. I've yet to make up my own mind on the merits of a public option. Sifting through the lies, exaggerations and misinformation has become an almost herculean task.
My support of health insurance reform is rooted, not in any altruistic desire to cover the uninsured, but in the knowledge that our current system is completely unsustainable. While wages have remained virtually the same over the last ten years, insurance premiums have risen like clockwork. Consequently, profits for the insurance industry have risen an astounding 450% over the same period of time.
While resolute in my support for broad industry reforms, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of a heavily subsided government option. I am, however, open to the possibility of changing my mind. There may be valid reasons for including a public option and even if not, I'd still like to hear the other side of the argument. I feel nothing but disdain for those willing to take to the streets in opposition to something they know little about.
Let's put the outrage on hold until all the facts are known, shall we?
The fight for such an option has become a pivotal battle ground in the fight for health care reform. I've yet to make up my own mind on the merits of a public option. Sifting through the lies, exaggerations and misinformation has become an almost herculean task.
My support of health insurance reform is rooted, not in any altruistic desire to cover the uninsured, but in the knowledge that our current system is completely unsustainable. While wages have remained virtually the same over the last ten years, insurance premiums have risen like clockwork. Consequently, profits for the insurance industry have risen an astounding 450% over the same period of time.
While resolute in my support for broad industry reforms, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of a heavily subsided government option. I am, however, open to the possibility of changing my mind. There may be valid reasons for including a public option and even if not, I'd still like to hear the other side of the argument. I feel nothing but disdain for those willing to take to the streets in opposition to something they know little about.
Let's put the outrage on hold until all the facts are known, shall we?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
A delayed reaction to Wilson-gate is better than none at all
Last week, the mass media's endless appetite for sensationalism was again satisfied thanks to South Carolina's own Joe Wilson. Representative Wilson's timely interjection into the President's address gave news outlets a perfect excuse to ignore the very real (and evidently uninteresting) issue at stake and instead focus on the kind of politically fueled controversy American's love to watch.
We know now, thanks to the public statement he released shortly after the fact, that Rep. Wilson regrets his actions and that he's learned a valuable lesson in humility. Besides, it was never his intention to rudely interrupt the President, he just momentarily lost control of himself because he cares so very much.
Despite his public admission of regret, there's no doubt that Wilson isn't a little pleased with the way events have panned out. What politician wouldn't welcome the national attention and public outpouring of support? He's a hero for all the Americans who share in his vehement disdain for the President and these supporters have flooded his campaign with cash.
Ok, I admit it. I'm more than a little skeptical of Wilson's claim that his outburst was an entirely spontaneous reaction. It's unfathomable to me that a grown man, an elected official, who is listening along all of Congress to a Presidential address would just unthinkingly blurt the first thing that popped into his brain, no matter how passionately his feelings on the subject may be.
It's just too difficult to believe that an elected official could have such little control over his own actions in public. Wilson's outburst makes far more sense as the calculated gambit of an ambitiously clever politician. Many politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have been co-opting the health care debate as a means of furthering their own selfish interests, whats one more name in the pile?
Lacking any other reasonable explanation, we're left to conclude one of two things. Joe Wilson, Representative of the great state of South Carolina, is either another in the long line of opportunistic politicians more than willing to trade on populist anger for their own advancement, or a man possessed of a frighteningly low level of self-control has somehow become a powerful state official.
If anyone reading this entry has a more reasonable explanation, please contribute your thoughts. I'm curious to hear a less cynical observation.
We know now, thanks to the public statement he released shortly after the fact, that Rep. Wilson regrets his actions and that he's learned a valuable lesson in humility. Besides, it was never his intention to rudely interrupt the President, he just momentarily lost control of himself because he cares so very much.
Despite his public admission of regret, there's no doubt that Wilson isn't a little pleased with the way events have panned out. What politician wouldn't welcome the national attention and public outpouring of support? He's a hero for all the Americans who share in his vehement disdain for the President and these supporters have flooded his campaign with cash.
Ok, I admit it. I'm more than a little skeptical of Wilson's claim that his outburst was an entirely spontaneous reaction. It's unfathomable to me that a grown man, an elected official, who is listening along all of Congress to a Presidential address would just unthinkingly blurt the first thing that popped into his brain, no matter how passionately his feelings on the subject may be.
It's just too difficult to believe that an elected official could have such little control over his own actions in public. Wilson's outburst makes far more sense as the calculated gambit of an ambitiously clever politician. Many politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have been co-opting the health care debate as a means of furthering their own selfish interests, whats one more name in the pile?
Lacking any other reasonable explanation, we're left to conclude one of two things. Joe Wilson, Representative of the great state of South Carolina, is either another in the long line of opportunistic politicians more than willing to trade on populist anger for their own advancement, or a man possessed of a frighteningly low level of self-control has somehow become a powerful state official.
If anyone reading this entry has a more reasonable explanation, please contribute your thoughts. I'm curious to hear a less cynical observation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
