Zeleny mentions that many Democratic representatives, such as Glenn Nye, Walt Minnick, Suzanne M. Kosmas, and Mark Schauer are not discussing their involvement to a specific political party, but instead they are making it a point to tell the public that although they were once supporters of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's policies, they are now as furious and opposed to the current crisis as their own supporters. It seems that at such a important time to recognize successes and faults, Democratic candidates are ashamed of what has happened to the country and are not being loyal to the primary goals and values of their party. "A look at the advertising themes and images being employed by democrats shows all the ways they are trying to personalize their contests and avoid being defined as ideological partners of President Obama's or as part of the Washington establishment." (Zeleny) These democratic political figures do not want to be associated with Obama and Pelosi, and make it apparent to their republican opponents that their policies and beliefs differ from our presidents.
These vulgar advertisements against one another has created 'ad wars'; the American government has become too focused on their image in the public than representing their policies to the public. There are other ways of reaching out to the public other than attacking the current administration. Some Democratic candidates, such as Governer Chet Culver of Iowa have been pleading the public for a second chance. "I’ve made my share of mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and I’ve listened to your concerns and I’ve grown on the job,” said Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa “I hope you give us the chance.” (Zeleny New York Times) Taking ownership one's mistakes and asking for forgiveness from the public shows a higher level of maturity and responsibility than making attacks on the current administration, and how their policies are not of agreement with others. After all, there will always be disagreements in politics.
-Rebecca Schneider
Article Source:
ReplyDeleteZeleny, Jeff. "The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. .
I like the point you brought up in regards to Laracey's "going public" ideology about how current day presidents disregard the older ways of communication with the public through congress and newspapers by now going over them and using the media to their advantage. It reminded me of during the primaries for the 2008 campaign Obama and Clinton had an Ad war of their own when Clinton released a commercial evoking emotions of the public to whom would be better suited to answer a call at 3 - am. This led to a counter-response by the Obama campaign by releasing an ad of their own talking about how Obama would be better fit at international affairs then Clinton would. These ads were interesting because for one, the ad helped boost momentom for Clinton's campaign and can be credited to her primary wins in Ohio and Texas, but it is also interesting that during this campaign Obama attacked Clinton on her stances on foreign policy while then taped her for Secretary of State just months later. However, I do think that the current trend of going public is more about the candidates personality rather than concrete issues as evidence by these ads.
ReplyDeleteClinton's Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ_z9Tpdl9A&feature=player_embedded)
Obama's Ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BvyF351RS8&feature=player_embedded)
In political campaigns, an ad war or an attack ad is an advertisement whose message is meant to attack another candidate or political party. Attack ads generally criticize an opponent's political platform, usually by pointing out the candidate’s or political party’s flaws and contrasting them against its own platform.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article, “In Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own Party”, this is just the case. Rebecca mentions how, “democratic political figures do not want to be associated with Obama and Pelosi, and make it apparent to their republican opponents that their policies and beliefs differ from our presidents”. Attacking the President and Peloski, many democrats who were once on their side, now separate themselves from their own political party. Messages, such as these, can persuade or negatively impact the Democratic Party. With elections coming up in the near future, could we see a take all by the Republicans?
While many citizens look up to their political leaders, could the message they are sending change the way many democrats vote this election season? Only time will tell; however, this wouldn’t be the first time the media persuaded the minds of American citizens. In the text, “Presidents and the People”, by Mel Laracey, the author brings up the role of Federalist Papers. “Written to convert Antifederalist opponents of the Constitution”, Federalist Papers played the role of modern ad wars (20). Shaping the views of many Americans, Federalist Papers supplied citizens with information pertaining to the government (49).
In comparison to attack ads, the Federalist Papers persuaded or made many American citizens re-examine their understandings and beliefs in regards to the government. Attack ads or ad wars are guilty of doing the same thing. They grab the viewer’s attention and yet persuade them to possible lean toward another candidate because of the negative information they present the viewer.
In the video posted below, we can see just how much the Democrats have backed down from supporting Obama. In a kind of humorous way, the video has clips from during the Bush presidency and yet none to back up Obama today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcVvNF3g1l4
I agree with the last statement you made about how the current trend of going public is more about personality then issues. If you look through the years at how Public Relations has evolved you'll notice a significant trend in how either political figures or public figures in general soon began acquiring press secretaries. The first known Press Secretary worked for President Andrew Jackson. The evolution of these Press Secretaries for Political figures is astonishing because they were originally used to spread the word on pet projects that the candidates were into but soon turned into a way of attacking an opposing figure. The complete opposite of what it was intended for.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that Democrats are launching ad wars within its own party clearly show that the party is disorganized. It's more important for teh public to here what the candidates believe in and how they can make a difference in Congress. Sadly, attack ads grab the attention of most voters more effectively. The route Chet Culver is taking by admitting mistakes and taking responsibility should probably be what every politician should do, and it will be interesting to see how effective it will be. Will the voters of Indiana appreciate the governor's honesty and stick with him, or will they be turned off by his mistakes? If Culver is able to get re-elected without launching ad wars that would be very impressive and say a lot about how much loyalty to one's own party plays in this election.
ReplyDeleteThe Deomcratic party has been and is now at a very large crossroads nationally. They have been trying for years to preserve the balance between the liberal base, and the much more populous and moderate center. I think that this article mistakes these ads as an image rather than a policy shift. Now all of a sudden American voters are looking the their elected officials and saying "Where were you? What role did you play in all of this?" It's not about image, but a legitimate distaste and distrust for people letting Speaker Pelosi let her ultra-liberal leanings seep into a lot of the legislation that was passed.
ReplyDeleteThe line was drawn in the sand with the healthcare town hall meetings, and why some didn't take it seriously is quite beyond my understanding. But now we're here, and a lot of these incumbents are in trouble unless they decide to come out with a good explanation. This year is about more than just disagreements. It is about long standing problems that seem to be coming into a much needed spotlight.
I found it interesting that Zeleny suggests that Democrats are trying to "personalize their contests and avoid being defined as ideological partners of President Obama's or as part of the Washington establishment" as some sort of new political tactic for the upcoming primaries, but this is something that some Republicans have been doing for the past few years.
ReplyDeleteIn one particularly memorable (and viral) campaign ad for the Alabama governor’s race the candidate, Tim James, makes claims against “other politicians”, not explicitly stating Democrats or Republicans are the problem, just that HE is the solution.
However, other republicans have been attempting this in order to gain votes from the growing conservative, independent, tea party movement. This, in turn, as caused a split in the party, not dissimilar to the one Democrats faced early in the 2008 election. However, this spilt in rooted on more ideological grounds. In her interview with GMA, Meghan McCain, discusses this split between traditional “old school” republicans and the new more socially liberal “R.I.N.Os”, like herself. This split between voters (on both ends of the political spectrum) is leaving candidates scrambling in the middle.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7402565%E3%80%88=en-us/19363665
I think it was very poignant when you said "the American government has become too focused on their image in the public than representing their policies to the public." In my opinion I see the separation of Democrats from our current administration as an almost dishonest representation of the candidates true beliefs. In retrospect it is easy to vote for the policies toted by Obama when you can simply denounce them later in order to get re-elected. I believe the true feelings of these Democrats align themselves with past policy, but the expectation gap has caused the American people to become so frustrated patience is unaffordable. I think it's a little sad that people will forego the looming threats of the future for absolution of immediate problems. Even sadder is that these immediate threats, such as the economy, could take years to resolve anyway, so we are merely stalling progress for the sake of progress. The bottom line is this, it may not be pretty, but no true change can ever take place without increasing taxes. Until we as a collective people understand that and are willing to sacrifice certain luxuries, change will always occur at a snail's pace and the powers that be will always be criticized for it.
ReplyDelete"A look at the advertising themes and images being employed by democrats shows all the ways they are trying to personalize their contests and avoid being defined as ideological partners of President Obama's or as part of the Washington establishment." (Zeleny) These democratic political figures do not want to be associated with Obama and Pelosi, and make it apparent to their republican opponents that their policies and beliefs differ from our presidents."
ReplyDeleteThis is unexcusable behavior from political figures. While one democrat is entirely entitled to sharing different beliefs on policy than their elected leader, I think backing down for re-election is dispicable, and makes the Democratic party so much weaker.
When reading Larecy, we are introduced to the original "Ad-wars." Pages 50 and 51 follow the mass rivalry between Alexander Hamilton's opinion in The Federal Gazette and various important writers for the National Gazette such as Madison Monroe and Thomas Jefferson.
Both were concerning due to that time period fear of "public fighting." However, it was the policies that were attacked-- where someone stood within their own party. If today, our candidates fought not against each other but for their policies, it would be undoubtedly more productive. Cowards, like those who are bad mouthing their parties leader, could simply state that unfortunately they've had these beliefs from the start and they are ready for a change in policy and it could be proven and then taken more seriously.
When the original "Ad-wars" were happening Washington commented "from the complexion of some of our newspapers, foreigners would be led to believe that inveterate political dissensions existed among us, and that we were on the very verge of disunion, but the fact is otherwise."
Apparently the times haven't changed. I feel if anything we would be taken more seriously if candidates fought against policies rather than people. It would be much clearer, and Washington could stop rolling over in his grave.
-Kailyn Corrigan