Media Criticism

I have been away for the last week for several reasons including burnout from writing for several blogs at the same time. My major reason for taking a week away from Media Criticism was a desire to get perspective on the state of the 2008 presidential race. I know I am not the first person to say the following but I don’t think I have made comments as cynical as the ones in this post.

I was watching coverage on MSNBC, CNN and listening to coverage on NPR of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary over the last week. The daily posts that I submit for this blog and others do not allow me to see the forest for the trees in many cases especially with my hyperactive coverage of the presidential race since last summer. I have to say that it doesn’t matter if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins any one of these primaries. It also doesn’t matter which candidate gets the most delegates by the end of the primary process. There will be unseemly machinations and underhanded deeds performed by handlers on both sides during the party’s August convention.

We are all aware of Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a lurker and a political figure who works in shadows and gray hues to achieve her goals. Barack Obama speaks a good game but the fact that his past is relatively unknown compared to Clinton and John McCain creates an aura of invincibility around the candidate. Every politician is a pig at the trough, pushing aside competitors in search of the biggest reserve of slop. The situation would be the same if John McCain was in a pitched battle with one of his Republican competitors. There is no difference in the process of nominating candidates from either party and marginal differences in the policies they would pursue when in office.

I am going to continue analyzing alternative newspapers and media of all types with tomorrow’s post beginning a series on independent radio stations. The political realm seems to dirty and unrewarding to waste time talking about on a daily basis. I think I have reached a point where I have gone from a political junkie to someone who realizes that political junkies are to promoting good policy as fantasy football players are to enjoying individual football games.

I want to insert a little bit of local politics in my occasional series on the 2008 elections. The April 1st local elections in Wisconsin feature an important battle for the identity of the city of Franklin. This city is located southwest of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and faces many of the same problems as smaller cities throughout the United States. The future of community development, corporate investment and the face of Franklin rests between incumbent mayor Tom Taylor and challenger Basil Ryan.

Tom Taylor has been mayor of Franklin since 2005 and involved in city politics since his election as alderman in 1999. Basil Ryan is a former alderman from 2000 to 2003 and butted heads with Taylor frequently during his time in Franklin city government. There is plenty of dirt being thrown between the two sides with Ryan pointing out Taylor’s exorbitant pension from Milwaukee County and Taylor pointing to Ryan’s legal troubles related to his property management business. The low turnout expected for the April 1st elections means that dedicated voters may look past all of these accusations.

The city of Franklin faces development problems in the near future. The overuse of tax incremental financing (TIF) districts throughout Franklin means that an influx of families and businesses will happen in a chaotic fashion. The debate over selecting appropriate businesses to invest in Franklin without sacrificing the city’s identity will continue whether Taylor or Ryan wins the election.

I know that many people under the age of 50 don’t get too involved in local politics but I think every voter needs to get involved. The character of a community includes permanent residents as well as college students, temporary workers and others eligible to voice their opinion on ballots. It is a close call in my mind who should be mayor of Franklin but I am leaning toward Basil Ryan due to his focus on sound planning and an intensive focus on budget issues.

One of the great myths promoted by mainstream media is that most Congressional races are out of reach for challengers. The reason why most voters don’t select challengers is that they do not have ready access to information on these candidates. Many candidates for state offices cannot afford a full-time operation including storefront offices, updated websites and street teams. Every voter should be willing to conduct their own candidate research but media outlets do not make the task any easier.

I will use the race for Wisconsin’s First Congressional District as an example. Every analyst, political science professor and pundit I hear speaking about this race gives it to incumbent Paul Ryan. There is no allowance given for Ryan’s close connection to the poorly-held George W. Bush (more lap dog than friend) nor the vigorous debate going on among candidates for the Democratic primary in September.

Two of the four challengers, Marge Krupp and Paulette Garin, have websites as well as support from local organizations. Nine-time candidate Dr. Jeff Thomas and second-time candidate Mike Herbert do not have a Web presence at the writing of this post. Krupp has help from a professional political consultant though her goal for $1 million before the general election seems unlikely. The four Democratic candidates held a debate in Elkhorn (about an hour southwest of Milwaukee) in late February that received little attention. The fact that Paul Ryan is given the election eight months ahead of Election Day has not stopped people for going door-to-door for all four candidates.

I think Marge Krupp will end up winning the Democratic primary due to the desire (almost desperation) for a polished candidate to face off against Ryan. I like Paulette Garin due to her stances on health care and Iraq but the momentum seems to favor Krupp. The general election will be tough to win for Krupp but I think she will give the incumbent a tough race. I think that Krupp may benefit from the trend toward Democrats at the top of the ballot including stories by local newspapers and TV stations about up-and-coming candidates. In the end, I hope that Ryan can be deposed from his position by a vice-presidential bid or a successful candidacy by one of these Democratic candidates if only to prove that incumbency is not king.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been the subject of some heated elections over the past two years. The 2006 contest between Linda Clifford and Annette Ziegler involved a commercial comparing Clifford to a werewolf and allegations that Ziegler ruled in cases where she had conflicts of interest. The 2008 Supreme Court race between Michael Gableman and Louis Butler is exposing the same problems as the Clifford-Ziegler showdown.

The videos above and below are attack ads by non-partisan groups in support of a Supreme Court candidate. The Greater Wisconsin Committee ad shown above indicates that Gableman has been appointed to judiciary positions in the past through political favors and overt partisanship by a flailing Republican Party. Wisconsin Club for Growth is playing up Butler’s work as a public defender to show that Gableman will prosecute rapists, murders and thieves to the fullest extent of the law.

The natural tendency in assigning blame for these third-party ads is complaining about money in politics. It is important to look at the idea of electing judges to short terms (10 years) when looking at the infiltration of partisanship in a non-partisan position. Wisconsin’s choice to elect state Supreme Court justices is flawed from the start. Every nonpartisan election down to the school board features some elements of partisanship. Voters in states like Wisconsin where justices are elected instead of appointed need to blame the causes instead of the symptoms of ugly politics.

I dislike the election of state Supreme Court justices because it favors a greater evil to remedy the lesser evil of judicial insulation from long-term cultural changes. I prefer a court insulated from all outside influences even if some members are appointed by governors who oppose my political beliefs. I think that incumbent Louis Butler will win on April 1st if only because Gableman has resorted to ugly ads using his own money (I am efforting a copy of a Gableman ad where Butler and a criminal are placed side-by-side).

The Eighth Congressional District in Wisconsin was one of the targeted races during the 2006 midterm elections. The seat was opened when Representative Mark Green ran for governor in the same year and lost. Dr. Steve Kagen, a millionaire allergist from the Fox Valley, defeated Republican candidate and former State Assembly Speaker John Gard by a narrow margin. The narrow margin of victory for Kagen means that Republicans will push to regain the seat in the 2008 election.

John Gard is running once again for the seat which represents Green Bay and portions of the Fox Valley. This area has expanded rapidly over the last few years as the Fox Valley becomes an important business corridor in the state. I lived in Green Bay from birth through college graduation and know that the area is inherently conservative. Kagen and other Democrats who have run in the area lean toward the middle to gather up the votes of Democrats and disgruntled Republicans. This moderation is beneficial as part of a party sweep through local, state and federal bodies. The problem with being a moderate Republican or Democrat in a tight race is taking advantage of the top of the ticket.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairman Howard Dean can speak about appealing to voters outside of the party all they want. Voters who chose Democrats in 2006 may vote for the party’s presidential candidate but turn against lower office holders. Gard has a number of factors on his side in 2008: money from a desperate party, maverick voters in every part of the Badger State and the virtue of not having a vote in Congress the last two years. Kagen has been less than impressive as a rookie representative and the Congressional Democrats may be overconfident in their assessment of the fall races. I think that the race will come down to a few hundred votes and Gard will emerge the victor.

This post is part of a series I will run over the next few months covering elections throughout the country. I have decided to highlight a few races in the Milwaukee area that demonstrate one of the underlying threads in local politics throughout the country. The city attorney race and the county executive race in Milwaukee show the ongoing tension between expanding government roles and deferring to other offices.

I am not sure the prominence of city attorneys in other communities but Milwaukee’s city attorney has been overlooked in recent years. The challenger to incumbent Grant Langley is state representative Pedro Colon who wants to expand the attorney’s office to fight Milwaukee’s growing crime problem. Langley has countered that the office has a limited mandate for crime fighting and wants to streamline the department with another term. Colon has stepped up his campaign beyond the bounds of handshakes and door knocking with a brief ad showing in the Milwaukee television market. I think that the race will be close though the tide of change in Milwaukee politics may sweep Colon over the edge due to the low profile of the office.

The hotly contested county executive office in Milwaukee features state senator Lena Taylor and incumbent Scott Walker. The main consideration in this race is the county’s budget problems including decreased funding for parks and the county bus system. Lena Taylor has hit Walker on his poor leadership of Milwaukee County while Walker has countered that Taylor is unfamiliar with the intricacies of running a county budget. There is a potential problem for voters who think that Walker will run for governor in 2010 and leave the county high and dry. I think Walker will likely win the county executive’s race though Taylor is a rising star in the state’s Democratic Party.

I will speak about the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, the state’s Congressional races and other tight contests around the country in upcoming weeks. I invite my readers to submit their suggestions for races they would like covered.

I have been busting the chops of CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer throughout the presidential primary season. Brown is vapid, Blitzer is a terrible debate moderator and the network brings on supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain when thoughtful analysis is needed. CNN lucked into a good debate this evening from Austin, Texas due to the potential problem of a prolonged nominating process for the Democratic Party.

Any network who hosted this debate would have witnessed a heated contest between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Obama has momentum built upon since Super Tuesday while Clinton and her surrogates have made Texas the last line of defense. Anyone who thinks that a loss in Texas means that Senator Clinton will drop out does not understand her desire to reach the White House. I would like to take this sentence to say that I don’t think Clinton should drop out after Texas if she keeps it close in delegates after March 4th. My opinion is probably not the same as the opinions of Democratic operatives desperate to campaign against John McCain.

The words “silly season,� “plagiarism� and “experience� popped up frequently in the Austin debates. Hillary Clinton was flailing desperately at many points in the debate though she was strong early in the debate. Barack Obama seemed to build up steam throughout the debate as the line of questioning got more contentious. I liked Hillary’s promotion of green jobs as part of the stimulus package though her platitudes after the fact mean nothing in the end. The 90 minutes of debate got ugly in some parts and showed Democrats what they have to look forward to if the nominating process goes long.

I think that it is alright to air out these problems in public. The Democratic Party should swing through all 50 states and numerous territories to give every voter the chance to make up their mind. The successes of the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections need to be confirmed by a presidential candidate that reflects the identity of rank-and-file voters. Democrats may not want a race that goes to the convention but it may be the best way to solidify the party’s strength for the next generation. A little clearing of detritus and old-style thinking caused by public scrutiny can make a party stronger than a party created by blind consensus.

I read through an entry from last week on the Columbia Journalism Review website that highlights a point I made last week about the power of the presidency. The presidential candidates promise all manner of vague changes to the federal government but they bypass the problem of passing legislation through Congress. Columbia Journalism Review had an article about the generalizations made by the presidential candidates on local environmental issues during the course of their campaigning.

I suggest that every voter who thinks that candidates like Obama, Clinton and McCain can bring change should read this article. Curtis Brainard outlines local media efforts to draw out responses to environmental issues at a local level from national candidates. Each newspaper started out with good intentions but ended with “round-up� stories and concessions that the candidates had no specific plans for ecological areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. While Brainard concludes that a mixture of factors contribute to candidate ambivalence about local environmental issues, I think that the main issue falls in the separation of responsibilities within our government.

The president is the leader of our military forces first and a cog in the checks-and-balances machine; everything else after that is gravy according to the Constitution. There is no need for presidential candidates to lay out individual strategies for each state because that would be a massive overreach for the executive office. The ultimate responsibility for environmental problems lies with governors, state legislatures and members of the U.S. Congress. It is ridiculous to ask presidential candidates to get specific on a local watershed when we should be asking for specifics on conservation and clean fuel programs with a national scope. Journalists and voters need to demand detailed policies from the right people. I wouldn’t be impressed if a candidate like John McCain had a specific plan for the Fox River Valley in Wisconsin; I would be annoyed that he wasn’t thinking about issues within his purview.

I wrote last week about my experience on the partisan side of politics so I thought it would be good to show that I am a non-partisan observer at heart. I spent my entire day immersed in the Wisconsin primary starting with my work at the polls in Franklin, Wisconsin and ending with some result collection in Pewaukee which is a suburb 25 minutes outside of downtown Milwaukee. These experiences offer an interesting view of the electoral process from the inside out.

Wisconsin has relaxed rules on balloting, registration and identification at the polls. I know that some electors in Franklin were surprised that they did not need to show an ID card to check-in at the polls. You can use any identifying document with your current address to register at the polls. These lax rules may give the impression that our polling place was messy, chaotic and unruly. The hard work of people like Sue, Bill, Kurt and Bob helped keep Ken Windl Park humming along efficiently. I left at 5:00pm and we had nearly a third of our electors through the polls with the busiest three hours ahead.

My work as a precinct reporter for Edison Media Research involved traveling out to Pewaukee to pick up optical scan results for both party primaries. This polling place was less-used than the Franklin station but the election inspectors were great at dealing with a late rush of traffic before 8:00pm closing. I had some interesting conversations with voters as the polls were closing about matters more sophisticated than who we voted for. My experience at the polls today was positive from start to finish and I am heartened that my fellow Wisconsinites are willing to take up the responsibilities of democracy just as readily as they accept its fruits.

I was nerding it up on Saturday night by working on a project while watching the coverage of the caucuses and primaries. I heard some of the most ridiculous analysis of caucuses in places like Washington and Kansas as well as the all-important primary in Louisiana. People like Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer were making Senator Obama’s victories in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska sound like a general election sweep. These primaries aren’t important in the grand scheme of things because they involve such a small number of people yet the media is helping perpetuate the idea that these victories are important in the long run.

I know CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others need to fill time with something during their 24 hours of programming. The problem comes when voices of reason like Roland Martin on CNN and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC are drowned out by professional political junkies who only care about the story instead of the result. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would make fine presidents but they wouldn’t make massive changes during the presidency. John McCain is an American hero but his first term would be marred by disagreements with a Democratic Congress upset with another Republican term in the Oval Office. These primaries reveal that our nation is caught up in a hype that will never be matched by results.

Every hour of primary coverage should begin with a disclaimer stating that any comments made about the presidency do not represent facts or common sense. President Obama or President McCain would need to get through the thicket of 435 House members and 100 Senators with their own aspirations. I think that the media needs to spend more time covering these races because they are more important in the long run than the presidential race. Democrats need to reach the 61-seat mark in the Senate to thwart efforts by Republicans to block legislation. A larger majority in the House would provide momentum for a more progressive agenda. Senator McCain would need a miracle to get anything done in his first term as president since it is unlikely that the House will turn Republican.

The presidential candidates can promise all they want but the reality is that they will need additional seats in the House and Senate to fulfill their campaign promises. We all need to cool down about the pageantry surrounding the presidency to deal with hard facts. We can listen to speeches about “change,� “experience,� and “straight talk� all we want but Congress holds the keys to America’s future. I hope we all learn about our congressional races as well as our state legislative races to shape the face of governance in the 21st century.