Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal's main editorial was entitled "Ethanol's Water Shortage." That title says it all.
It turns out that a Cornell ecology professor has determined that each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water.
As a result, Kansas and Nebraska are near a lawsuit over water rights. A North Dakota ethanol plant application was withdrawn when, according to the Journal,
"it became clear that the plant's million-gallon-a-day appetite would drain too much from a local aquifer."
Another method of measuring various energy sources, power density, finds oil to be more efficient than, say, solar, because it merely requires a hole in the ground, rather than acres of panels.
Solar power, which is 1,000 less dense than oil, is still 10x denser than ethanol. Peter Huber, of the Manhattan Institute,
"predicts a world-wide leveling of forestland as farmers turn vegetation into fuel,"
according to the Journal article. Even worse, the article cite two scientists, Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen, who wrote in Science magazine,
"in order to replace just 10% of gasoline and diesel consumption, the US would need to convert a full 43% of its cropland to ethanol production. The alternative approach- clearing wilderness- would mean more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than simply sticking with gasoline, because the CO2-munching trees cut down to make way for King Ethanol absorb more emissions than ethanol saves."
But, wait! Wasn't greenhouse gases and carbon footprints why we are going from oil to ethanol in the first place?
Let's hope, as the Journal editorial notes, that Congress figures this out before the last, big ethanol legislation pushes through. It's just too awful to contemplate- water shortages, more CO2, runoff, water pollution, higher food prices, etc. All in the name of replacing a very efficient fuel source- oil.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth: Federal Deficit Shrinks Significantly Under Bush
Has anyone noticed that, despite the rhetoric from members of both political parties, the Federal deficit is shrinking?
For instance, in last week's Republican Presidential 'debate,' Congressman Ron Paul incorrectly stated that the deficit was increasing to horrific levels. Typical hand-wringing stuff.
In reality, though, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that for fiscal 2007, the Federal deficit had declined to $162.8B, from $248B in 2006. This was a 34% reduction in the annual deficit.
Ever the party of economic lies, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said,
"As we approach the end of President Bush's term in office, he is desperately trying to remake his image as a fiscal conservative. But it's too little, too late. He will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever."
Wow. That's big. But, wait. Wasn't that special 'most fiscally irresponsible' title reserved for the Gipper two decades ago? Didn't Tip O'Neill used to bellyache about Reagan borrowing 'a trillion dollars and throwing a party?'
If that's all he, and our current President, had done, how did our economy continue to grow with such low inflation?
The truth, inconvenient as it may be, is that, despite fighting a war, President Bush has managed to bring down the deficit in three straight years.
Yes, there's that Nobel-class phrase- an inconvenient truth.
Personally, I think it's more a President vs. Congress thing, rather than just a party difference now. The recent Republican-dominated Congresses demonstrated their weakness for spending every buck the Federal government could tax into its coffers.
I honestly think it's a few, rare Presidents that can manage to keep their perspective, spending where necessary, without succumbing to every big-ticket liberal program that crosses their desk.
Even if President Bush should have vetoed more extravagant spending earlier in his administration, that does not alter the fact that he still has presided over three years of achievements- declining annual deficits- that Congress refuses to acknowledge.
For instance, in last week's Republican Presidential 'debate,' Congressman Ron Paul incorrectly stated that the deficit was increasing to horrific levels. Typical hand-wringing stuff.
In reality, though, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that for fiscal 2007, the Federal deficit had declined to $162.8B, from $248B in 2006. This was a 34% reduction in the annual deficit.
Ever the party of economic lies, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said,
"As we approach the end of President Bush's term in office, he is desperately trying to remake his image as a fiscal conservative. But it's too little, too late. He will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever."
Wow. That's big. But, wait. Wasn't that special 'most fiscally irresponsible' title reserved for the Gipper two decades ago? Didn't Tip O'Neill used to bellyache about Reagan borrowing 'a trillion dollars and throwing a party?'
If that's all he, and our current President, had done, how did our economy continue to grow with such low inflation?
The truth, inconvenient as it may be, is that, despite fighting a war, President Bush has managed to bring down the deficit in three straight years.
Yes, there's that Nobel-class phrase- an inconvenient truth.
Personally, I think it's more a President vs. Congress thing, rather than just a party difference now. The recent Republican-dominated Congresses demonstrated their weakness for spending every buck the Federal government could tax into its coffers.
I honestly think it's a few, rare Presidents that can manage to keep their perspective, spending where necessary, without succumbing to every big-ticket liberal program that crosses their desk.
Even if President Bush should have vetoed more extravagant spending earlier in his administration, that does not alter the fact that he still has presided over three years of achievements- declining annual deficits- that Congress refuses to acknowledge.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Economic Visions: Conservatives vs. Liberals
You can write a lot about the differences on economic topics between American political conservatives and liberals.
However, in my opinion, there is one truly fundamental difference. I described it last week in this post on my companion business blog. In part, I wrote,
"I think this, frankly, is the central economic issue of the day.Government does not plan the economy. We don't, by and large, run a socialist or fascist economic system in America.
Instead, the idea is that government sets certain conditions of law, safety, taxation, etc., then lets individuals, either solely or collectively, decide how to operate within those parameters to pursue their dreams and achieve economic prosperity."
Conservatives understand that government sets up conditions for people to pursue their individual economic well-being and amass wealth. How that's done is up to the person, or groups of self-organized persons. Therefore, what government attempts to provide is opportunity, not work or jobs, per se. And certainly not the same job, in the same place, in perpetuity.
American political liberals, including most Democrats, and certainly the more extreme ones on both coasts, seem to play on economic misfortune, assuring the poor that by taxing the rich, the liberals will help the poor with some of that transferred wealth. The implication being,
'You are too poor and inept to help yourself. Just keep voting for us, and the subsidies will continue to flow.....'
When they aren't busy taxing the 'rich' to fund welfare payments to the 'poor,' these Democrats are trying to codify industrial policy, via, for example, legislated universal health care, mandated insurance policy coverages, various tariffs and subsidies. All of which serve to frustrate and distort the market pricing of goods, services, and, often, their inputs.
If these confounding legislative activities ceased, and market prices drove business activity, then people would be more easily able to understand and follow the flow of business activity to where it most profitably will occur.
The specific products produced on US shores may change, but it's always going to be in the interest of savvy entrepreneurs to use educated, productive Americans to provide goods or services at competitive prices, or on competitive service terms. In fact, it's not the dollar volume of American manufacturing production that has decreased over the past decades- it's just the number of jobs.
We've gotten more productive, and that's a good thing. The Democrats would insist that each old, less productive worker be retained and paid as before, no matter that there were more productive alternatives elsewhere.
We cannot manage an economy by attempting to control and price inputs. That simply drives business people away, to more flexible locations.
Instead, government needs to simply set consistent conditions for the conduct of business activity, then let those who risk capital figure out what will make them money.
Jack Welch actually managed to articulate a clear, succinct explanation of this last week in an interview on CNBC. When asked his opinion of Hillary's programs and candidacy, he shot back something like,
'I don't think her programs (to nationalize health care and insurance) will work. When have you ever seen government do something better than the private sector can do it?'
American has historically succeeded economically because of its flexibility and hospitality to new ideas. That's why immigrants come here to make a better life. And most do. Hispanic, Southeast Asian, Korean, Chinese. Before them, Germans, Scots, Irish, Poles, and Italians.
In the long run, I really don't think the liberal economic message, most recently articulated by Hillary, will sell. People like to believe they can escape poverty, provide better opportunities for their children, and earn a share of the American Dream
Candidates like Edwards, Obama and Hillary try to tell Americans that they are failing, hopeless, and bound for poverty. The truth is that our country's political economic fabric has done the opposite- it's provided the opportunity for literally millions of immigrants and citizens to move themselves from poverty to economic self-sufficiency, by participating in the globe's most dynamic, attractive economic zone.
As Roger Ailes noted in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, about which I wrote in this post,
"If you watch some news -- I always say to my people, when I see something particularly horrible about America that I think is a little out of proportion to what is actually going on, I call up the desk and say, "Do you have any pictures of people lined up at the border trying to get out?" They say, "What do you mean?" I say, "I just watched that and hell, we've got to get out of here, America's a terrible place. We need to get out fast. There must be guys stacked up at the airport trying to get out of here." No. It turns out everybody's trying to get in, and nobody's trying to get out. We've got to keep that perspective in mind when you cover the news. It doesn't mean you don't cover the bad news about America. You do. It means you don't get up in the morning hating your country. And so, until somebody shows me lines at the border trying to get out, I think there's some good news."
And that, dear readers, is how you know that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, and Harry Reid have the wrong idea about America, business and economic development. People are not lining up at our borders to leave, because economic conditions are so bad.
Instead, one of the biggest recent Congressional tussles has been how to set an immigration policy to deal with the rush of illegal entrants to our country, all trying to create their own version of the American Dream.
Really, it's a good, "high class" problem to have. So long as we continue to have a government that only sets economic conditions, rather than legislates business operations, this will continue to be true.
However, in my opinion, there is one truly fundamental difference. I described it last week in this post on my companion business blog. In part, I wrote,
"I think this, frankly, is the central economic issue of the day.Government does not plan the economy. We don't, by and large, run a socialist or fascist economic system in America.
Instead, the idea is that government sets certain conditions of law, safety, taxation, etc., then lets individuals, either solely or collectively, decide how to operate within those parameters to pursue their dreams and achieve economic prosperity."
Conservatives understand that government sets up conditions for people to pursue their individual economic well-being and amass wealth. How that's done is up to the person, or groups of self-organized persons. Therefore, what government attempts to provide is opportunity, not work or jobs, per se. And certainly not the same job, in the same place, in perpetuity.
American political liberals, including most Democrats, and certainly the more extreme ones on both coasts, seem to play on economic misfortune, assuring the poor that by taxing the rich, the liberals will help the poor with some of that transferred wealth. The implication being,
'You are too poor and inept to help yourself. Just keep voting for us, and the subsidies will continue to flow.....'
When they aren't busy taxing the 'rich' to fund welfare payments to the 'poor,' these Democrats are trying to codify industrial policy, via, for example, legislated universal health care, mandated insurance policy coverages, various tariffs and subsidies. All of which serve to frustrate and distort the market pricing of goods, services, and, often, their inputs.
If these confounding legislative activities ceased, and market prices drove business activity, then people would be more easily able to understand and follow the flow of business activity to where it most profitably will occur.
The specific products produced on US shores may change, but it's always going to be in the interest of savvy entrepreneurs to use educated, productive Americans to provide goods or services at competitive prices, or on competitive service terms. In fact, it's not the dollar volume of American manufacturing production that has decreased over the past decades- it's just the number of jobs.
We've gotten more productive, and that's a good thing. The Democrats would insist that each old, less productive worker be retained and paid as before, no matter that there were more productive alternatives elsewhere.
We cannot manage an economy by attempting to control and price inputs. That simply drives business people away, to more flexible locations.
Instead, government needs to simply set consistent conditions for the conduct of business activity, then let those who risk capital figure out what will make them money.
Jack Welch actually managed to articulate a clear, succinct explanation of this last week in an interview on CNBC. When asked his opinion of Hillary's programs and candidacy, he shot back something like,
'I don't think her programs (to nationalize health care and insurance) will work. When have you ever seen government do something better than the private sector can do it?'
American has historically succeeded economically because of its flexibility and hospitality to new ideas. That's why immigrants come here to make a better life. And most do. Hispanic, Southeast Asian, Korean, Chinese. Before them, Germans, Scots, Irish, Poles, and Italians.
In the long run, I really don't think the liberal economic message, most recently articulated by Hillary, will sell. People like to believe they can escape poverty, provide better opportunities for their children, and earn a share of the American Dream
Candidates like Edwards, Obama and Hillary try to tell Americans that they are failing, hopeless, and bound for poverty. The truth is that our country's political economic fabric has done the opposite- it's provided the opportunity for literally millions of immigrants and citizens to move themselves from poverty to economic self-sufficiency, by participating in the globe's most dynamic, attractive economic zone.
As Roger Ailes noted in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, about which I wrote in this post,
"If you watch some news -- I always say to my people, when I see something particularly horrible about America that I think is a little out of proportion to what is actually going on, I call up the desk and say, "Do you have any pictures of people lined up at the border trying to get out?" They say, "What do you mean?" I say, "I just watched that and hell, we've got to get out of here, America's a terrible place. We need to get out fast. There must be guys stacked up at the airport trying to get out of here." No. It turns out everybody's trying to get in, and nobody's trying to get out. We've got to keep that perspective in mind when you cover the news. It doesn't mean you don't cover the bad news about America. You do. It means you don't get up in the morning hating your country. And so, until somebody shows me lines at the border trying to get out, I think there's some good news."
And that, dear readers, is how you know that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, and Harry Reid have the wrong idea about America, business and economic development. People are not lining up at our borders to leave, because economic conditions are so bad.
Instead, one of the biggest recent Congressional tussles has been how to set an immigration policy to deal with the rush of illegal entrants to our country, all trying to create their own version of the American Dream.
Really, it's a good, "high class" problem to have. So long as we continue to have a government that only sets economic conditions, rather than legislates business operations, this will continue to be true.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Post- "Debate" On Fred Thompson
Sure enough, the major topic on CNBC, in nearly every interview involving politics, was the guest's opinion of Fred Thompson's performance in the Tuesday afternoon economics "debate" in Michigan.
The various CNBC anchors continued poke fun of Thompson, and bait guests with questions, clearly hoping they would judge Thompson to have failed to provide satisfactory responses.
How the network felt that two clearly leftist interrogators, Chris Matthews, former aide to Tip O'Neill, and Maria Bartiromo, would fairly handle a slate of Republican candidates for President is beyond me.
Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have people like Larry Kudlow, John Rutledge, and/or Brian Wesbury moderate the debate?
The two of them practically bludgeoned any candidate who did not agree with their pre-conceived notion that America is nearly in, if not already in, a recession. Having chosen an economically mis-managed and depressed state in which to have the debate, the two then baited the candidates to challenge the public-at-large's misconception about our country's economic health.
As this post, on my companion business blog, notes, I'm sorry to say Mitt Romney caved and declared a national economic emergency over one state- Michigan.
Thompson, however, got it right. He noted, if a bit obliquely, that economic opportunity does not mean a guaranteed job in your current locale.
But perhaps the best news regarding the debate was delivered by a pollster who appeared on Larry Kudlow's program following the debate. Despite Larry's hectoring about economic issues, the pollster, whose name I wish I could now recall, but cannot, said something to the effect of,
'Look, Larry, those are valid economic questions. But most Americans are not economists. They simply don't think that way. They aren't politicians, either. They just don't sit there and say, "hey, here's an economic problem- let's see which candidate has a viable program or plan to solve it."
Instead, they just vote for the person who they feel can be trusted to behave in a way that is similar to their own values and preferences.'
Which is pretty much what I wrote in this post last month. And this is why I believe Thompson has real potential among voters. Like Reagan, he's sensible, mature, and straight-shooting.
That said, on the basis of their economic-related statements, and focus on Hillary's weaknesses, I'd be okay with either Giuliani or Romney winning the Republican nomination as well.
The various CNBC anchors continued poke fun of Thompson, and bait guests with questions, clearly hoping they would judge Thompson to have failed to provide satisfactory responses.
How the network felt that two clearly leftist interrogators, Chris Matthews, former aide to Tip O'Neill, and Maria Bartiromo, would fairly handle a slate of Republican candidates for President is beyond me.
Wouldn't it have made much more sense to have people like Larry Kudlow, John Rutledge, and/or Brian Wesbury moderate the debate?
The two of them practically bludgeoned any candidate who did not agree with their pre-conceived notion that America is nearly in, if not already in, a recession. Having chosen an economically mis-managed and depressed state in which to have the debate, the two then baited the candidates to challenge the public-at-large's misconception about our country's economic health.
As this post, on my companion business blog, notes, I'm sorry to say Mitt Romney caved and declared a national economic emergency over one state- Michigan.
Thompson, however, got it right. He noted, if a bit obliquely, that economic opportunity does not mean a guaranteed job in your current locale.
But perhaps the best news regarding the debate was delivered by a pollster who appeared on Larry Kudlow's program following the debate. Despite Larry's hectoring about economic issues, the pollster, whose name I wish I could now recall, but cannot, said something to the effect of,
'Look, Larry, those are valid economic questions. But most Americans are not economists. They simply don't think that way. They aren't politicians, either. They just don't sit there and say, "hey, here's an economic problem- let's see which candidate has a viable program or plan to solve it."
Instead, they just vote for the person who they feel can be trusted to behave in a way that is similar to their own values and preferences.'
Which is pretty much what I wrote in this post last month. And this is why I believe Thompson has real potential among voters. Like Reagan, he's sensible, mature, and straight-shooting.
That said, on the basis of their economic-related statements, and focus on Hillary's weaknesses, I'd be okay with either Giuliani or Romney winning the Republican nomination as well.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Fred Thompson & The Debate
As I write this, I am listening to the left-leaning anchors on CNBC, particularly Carlos Quintillana, poke fun of Fred Thompson.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
The line I've heard most often today- perhaps 5 times already- is something like,
'You know, it's been 11 years since Thompson's been in a debate. Does he still have it? Can he still hold his own?'
Give me a break!
The guy is a successful actor. He's used to presenting himself as needed. The liberals used to delight in poking fun of that two-term President, Ronald Reagan, too.
Yep. Both times that he beat their best candidate.
I find it odd that liberals are given credibility for having anything of value to say about Thompson.
Just a few minutes ago, when Erin Burnett repeated another oft-heard Thompson knock,
'I've heard he has a reputation for being lazy,'
Quintanilla replied something like,
'I don't know, maybe because he's an actor?' and then mumbled some follow-on comment.
My guess is that the CNBC personality was in high school when Thompson was in the Senate representing Tennessee. I doubt Quintanilla even knows much about Thompson's background.
Between some conservative political pundits demanding that Thompson essentially produce a new, fresh plan and solution for every national ill, and liberal political pundits joking that he can't actually speak, it seems these professional observers have set quite the high bar for this candidate.
In total, these observers may constitute 40 votes come November, 2008.
My guess, coming about 90 minutes prior to the Dearborn Republican Presidential candidates' debate, is that Thompson will hold his own, and then some. He's been to the big games, played on the national political and legislative stage for years.
That said, it should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully, in toto, these candidates- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney- will provide the American voting public with attractive, optimistic, credible tax and spending policies which will provide stark contrast to the gloom and tax agendas of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.
More Out of Touch Ramblings from Peggy Noonan
This Friday's Wall Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan, one-time Reagan speech writer, may have hit a new low for being out of touch with reality.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
She lauded Chris Dodd and Joe Biden for having good sense and a grasp of complex issues. She boosted Obama for his 'thoughtful look.'
Oh my God! What in the world has gotten into Noonan?
These are not "good" candidates. Dodd and Biden are relatively minor, attention-seeking, long-in-the-tooth Senators of the Dole and McCain model. They run on the same "it's my turn, dammit!" platform.
Being a longtime insider, I don't think Noonan can really see this anymore.
The Democratic party doesn't have a 'really good' candidate. They have various damaged candidates scrambling after a soon-to-be-vacant Oval Office with no incumbent running.
The good news, though, is that if one of them gets in, it's a fair bet that they will only enjoy at most two years of Congressional majority, before the whole gang gets carried away with spending, liberal legislation, etc., and get the Republicans back in control of the House and Senate.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Campaign 2008: Hillary, Fund Raising and the Web
The other day, I was discussing Presidential candidates with a quasi-liberal friend. The conversation began when I mentioned having watched President Bush's recent address involving vetoing the SCHIPP bill. I'll have a separate post on that.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
However, in the course of the address, Bush demonstrated very nuanced knowledge of the tax code and economics, as he explained why his hosts, who file as a SubChapter S corporation, represent a large class of taxpayers who file as individuals with small businesses.
As I discussed the liberal media's distortions and omissions in regard to Bush's record and intellect, I opined that perhaps the new wrinkle coming in the 2008 campaign will be the declining role of money.
Even my friend welcomed this.
My reasoning is as follows. More than four years ago, the internet has become the primary medium for video content distribution of political messages. It's free, controllable, and takes little money to even produce content.
Fred Thompson, a front-running Republican candidate, did not even bother to run his announcement speech on network air time. Instead, he appeared on Jay Leno's show, then ran the announcement speech on his website. I would guess it's on YouTube by now, as well.
Does it still matter that Hillary is ahead on fund raising? When I read the hand-wringing reports that Republican candidates are being out-raised and outspent by Democrats like Obama Bim Baden and Hillary, I wonder if this is the blind spot of the 2008 campaign.
After all, is big, old media really going to report on its own demise? Not likely.
Where will you hear of this shift of substantial resources and effort to the web for content and message distribution?
Not on the networks, I'd bet. And just maybe on cable news.
No, this may be a totally stealth transformation of Presidential campaign operations.
In a way, it would be just desserts for all the campaign finance 'reform' hoopla to which we've been subjected for 30 years.
I'm not saying having money to spend is inconsequential. In a tight race between two similarly-qualified and supported candidates, network and cable air time might indeed give an edge to the better-financed candidate. Even if just for street money, to get out the vote.
But I don't believe, and neither does my Democratic friend, that money can elect a bad candidate. And she doesn't even believe Hillary will win the general election, if nominated.
So suppose Obama is too green, Hillary fractures somewhere on the campaign trail. Could just money really elect John Edwards over Giuliani or Thompson?
Or even elect Hillary, if she begins to break down in the home stretch?
No, I think we may be seeing a major turning point in the democratizing of Presidential elections, without any notice from the major media. Ubiquitous computers and high-speed access allows anyone to search and find information, videos, messages, from all the candidates. On their own time, without media filtering.
If the 2004 election woke everyone up to Howard Dean's internet-based fundraising, perhaps the 2008 election will awaken the professional political campaign managers and handlers to their weakening influence.
If message distribution and consumption heads for the individual-oriented, wild west of the internet, will managed campaigns ever recover their ability to control, shape and disseminate all aspects of their candidate's utterances? Won't the omnipresent oppositions digital camcorder on the campaign trail give each candidate raw footage of each opponent?
Imagine the video messages that could fly between the two party's candidates a year from now, as each edits and presents the other's video appearances on various websites and YouTube.
The last place you may look for live campaign 'news' may be the networks. Or, as my friend opined, perhaps they will basically be reduced to covering the internet campaign duels between the competing websites.
Honestly, I think I can hardly wait for that day. The demise of the political pundits, the campaign managers, and network anchors. And the rise of individual voters to simply surf, view, and decide on their own, without so many filters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
