Donna Brazile @ CNN: SOTU as Prom

Always insightful, author, strategist, and professor Donna Brazile talks about the sudden, good-natured "civility" exhibited by Congress for tonight's State of the Union in an OpEd column today at CNN - How State of the Union became a prom. There remain two problems she's glossing over as she concludes, charitably...

"We don't all have to agree with each other, but for the good of the country, it's important that we sit together as Americans. After all, this could be good for the country, too."

Professor Donna Brazile, CNN Conributor

25 Jan 2011

First, it's patently political posing -- plain old posturing -- a ploy for the attention and implied praise of the pundits that probably won't impact one Congressional debate or vote, but will probably garner that holy grail, media coverage for most of the players.

Secondly, focus on the mechanics, or logistics, or whatever you want to call this staging of seating arrangements, inevitably detracts from time people spent reflecting on the President's actual message. Granting that GOP strategists are delighted to direct public attention to anything but President Obama's hour in the limelight, particularly in the wake of his speech dealing with the tragedy in Tuscon, it seems curious that their Democratic counterparts are being pulled in.

The narrative of tonight's State of the Union speech is fast becoming "they played so nicely together." Count the minutes in the coverage leading up to the State of the Union and particularly the post-speech dissection, bearing in mind that every minute spent on how members of Congress arranged their seats is akin to watching the royals - "Congress-watching" lacks substance, although it's probably easier for most pundits on the spur of the moment than genuine analysis.

I don't need to relive Joe Wilson's "You lie!" moment, but I've watched politics too long to fall for this pre-planned mugging for the cameras and the echo-chamber media, either. When they control the information the GOP wins the messaging battle; who wins if they can distract from the President's powerful post-Tuscon message by getting the media to talk about who sat with whom, and possibly draw a few extra eyeballs to the dueling GOP/Tea-Party responses?

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave

Former U.S. Representative David Stockman (R-MI), who served as Ronald Reagan's first director of the Office of Management and Budget, used the forum of the Sunday New York Times to unmask and rebuke Republican members of Congress and their elite messaging strategists who cling to claims to be fiscal conservatives.

"Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Describing current and recent GOP tax rhetoric "a mockery of traditional party ideals," Stockman says these policy doctrines have led to four "great deformations" of the U.S. economy over the past four decades, starting when the Nixon administration ignored the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance our accounts with the world while "Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one."

"By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier."

David Stockman
31 July 2010

Doubtless this is why so many who lately vote against Republican policies and politicians describe themselves as socially liberal yet fiscally conservative. The GOP has been abusing the trust of their base, successfully waging a PR war on the truth: relying on either the inattention, and/or gullibility of voters who have fallen for their appealing "brand ideology" without realizing this rhetoric is entirely at odds with actual GOP goals and actions for the past 4 decades.

That's the real threat to the Republican Party, which is now gleeful for media coverage of Tea Party events so far to the political right they may fool swing voters into thinking the GOP looks as though they occupy the middle-ground. Stockman's Op-Ed article is a must read for all who take politics seriously enough to vote.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The problem with polls, and the media (including the blogosphere.)

Polling can always tell us whatever the person who constructs/conducts the poll was investigating - if we're given the raw data and a good description of the sampling procedure. But in practice even the data is usually glossed over in favor of a sound-bite summary tending to support the interests of the person and/or network doing the reporting on it.

Unless you know about how the sample of people was selected you really can't know anything more than what's reported about a poll. You can't know, for instance, if its findings are useful in any logical sense, because you don't know who the sample represents.  I can ask 21 people a question, and come back with really convincing looking numbers, but if I select who 15-20 of those people are it will darn sure tell you what I want you to think I learned.

An example of shaping a poll

Imagine I go to a GOP Town Hall meeting, and survey 15 people wearing shirts or carrying signs that say either "Nobama," or, "Joe Wilson was right!" I'll ask them one simple question:

Are you a) "for" Obama's government takeover of our health care system that he's pushing through the congress under the name of "reform" or b) "against reform" that will make changes that undermine the free market system that has given us the best health care in the world and cost the tax payers even more money?

OK, I've plausibly got 15 "b) against reform" responses now in my hypothetical example.  I'll ask 6 additional people, more or less randomly selected, and let's say they most of them magically favor reform (not likely, is it? But for the sake of argument, I'm getting 4 out of 6 favorable replies.)  I didn't even tack on the line about paying for illegal immigrants.

Now I'll report back for you based on that (fake) survey:

"In a [hypothetical] survey conducted Wednesday, only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while  nearly 81% said they were 'against change.' That's more than 4 out of 5 in our survey who are hoping their representatives in Congress will stop the President's take-over of business."

If you believe what anybody in the media tells you without understanding both the sample and the data, all you know is what the reporter's boss wants you to believe. If you choose to believe on that basis - which you just might if it agrees with your political leanings - rather than examining the poll itself, then you're gullible indeed.  The good news is: the politicians on your side and the ratings-hungry networks (who are on the side of earning a living from ad revenues) both love you. They'll go out of their way to validate your "wisdom and insight" into the issue.

If the poll isn't conducted on a random sample, but merely open to those who respond...? Well, my friends, that will tell you a bit about the people who responded, of course, but one must be wary of extrapolating to draw any useful conclusions about a larger population. We call it spin. But knowing that they're gaming us doesn't stop the echoes.

How the media deliberately spreads misinformation

In fact, it won't surprise me to find this utterly fake survey example quoted elsewhere within days, if not hours.  Can't you see it, at DIGG maybe, or on another blog, or even on Fox?

A post at a prominent, liberal-leaning blog on Wednesday described a survey which concluded that, quote, "only 19% of those responding favor the proposed reforms to health care, while nearly 81% said they were 'against change.'" In other words, that's more than 4 out of 5 who want their representatives in Congress to stop the President's assault on insurance providers and let capitalism work.  

There you go, it's been lifted carefully out of context, and the quote is nearly character for character what I made up in the "report" above, and then the media echoes will persist even though the numbers are clearly unreal.  You see, now they're not reporting on the survey, they're reporting on the reporting, which is just an excuse to keep repeating the misleading numbers.

Misinformation mars the debate. I could easily have made the example go the opposite way, of course, but I don't want somebody to echo a story that falsely represents support for reform.  In fact, worded carefully surveys do reveal that over 90% favor "at least some reform."  But then, who wouldn't favor "at least some" unless they were making money from the insurance industry? It's like asking who wants lower taxes without considering how you'd pay for those government services you realize you benefit from.

You know that commercial media outlets rely on advertising revenues. So, do you follow the money? Better yet, why do you trust who you always have to report on things you care about?