Does Political Spin Really Work?

[Utah]

I constantly find myself reading election articles in the paper and saying, "did that jackass really say that when we know the truth to be different?"

It got me to thinking, "does this spin really help? Are people really to stupid to see through what they are saying?" I am sure the politicians would tell you that it works, but I wonder.

I remember when Jesse Ventura ran for governor. He had no experience and he just isnt that bright. However, he was so damn refreshing to here and I believe he won the election just be speaking openly and honestly. I wonder what would happen if a presidential candidate spoke openly and honestly . Would it help or would it be suicide?

[Kopefire]

"open and honest" is, frankly, a matter of perspective.

I'm not saying that much of the spin doesn't manage to cross the line into outright fabrication (on both sides), but it's hardly the case that it's always the case that what they are saying is completely false.

A good example is found in nearly any debate about taxes.

A democrat will complain about the tax breaks all going to the rich -- never minding the fact that there's about 44% of the population that doesn't pay any taxes at all (or pay negative taxes) and they're defining "rich" as any household with two people working decent mid-level management type positions, so basically all college educated middle aged couples.

The republicans will enter the debate and talk about how their tax plan is helping the middle class .. ignoring the fact that that is true only for about the upper-third of the middle class, and coporations are really helped out much more and small business guys are totally screwed.

Neither party is lying . . .but they aren't spending the time to nuance their statements either.

As to if it would work in a national election .. .no. Jesse won because he was able to exploit name recognition and all the stupid 18 and 19 year olds thought it would be fun to vote for him.

In a national election, someone speaking as unintelligently on the issues as Jesse regularly did would be killed. There's too many cameras, and too many schooled reporters who would make a mockery of such a candidate.

[wacki]

At first, I would say yes political spin works. I know too many morons that believe so much crap. I think political spin works, because people are more inclined to believe what they want to hear, and not believe what they don't want to hear.

But you have a good point with Ventura.

[Kopefire]

I don't think there's much to the Ventura poitn at all.

Jesse had a few things going for him -- lots of young voters, but mostly he was everyone's second choice in a three-way race against 2 reallly mediocre candidates.

Both party candidates were running a "well it's my turn so elect me" campaign, and had a lot of dissatisfaction wtihin their party. So a good percentage of voters choose Ventura as a "protest" vote.

I think the person most surprised at Ventura's election was Ventura.

[adios]

A perfect example if the Day in the Life of Joe Republican thread. It may be marginally effective in garnering voters sitting on the fence but it's effective in maintaing a cadidates political base.

[adios]

Excellnet post.

I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion about taxes but /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
A democrat will complain about the tax breaks all going to the rich -- never minding the fact that there's about 44% of the population that doesn't pay any taxes at all (or pay negative taxes) and they're defining "rich" as any household with two people working decent mid-level management type positions, so basically all college educated middle aged couples.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you totally. You can't give a tax break to someone who pays zero in taxes (well I guess a negative income tax could be expanded). Andy may come in and state that in reality the U.S. has a flat tax when you take into account SS contributions as well as other taxes. But I've pointed out that the Earned Income Credit in many, many cases compensates for SS contributions (besides it's supposed to be for retirement which people are supposed to get back) and that state tax systems are overwhelmingly progressive.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there's much to the Ventura poitn at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do, everyone I talked to during his campaign said it was a neat experience to hear him talk. And the media seemed to be in love with him. And even more in love with his wife.

[Gamblor]

What does Europe think every time Yasser Arafat, archterrorist and one of the early members of the Muslim Brotherhood (a 20th century organization devoted to imposing Islamic rule over all of Asia and a forerunner to Al Qaeda), gets up and asks for peace and cohabitation with Jews?

[Cyrus]

"Does Political Spin Really Work? Does this spin really help? Are people really too stupid to see through what [the politicians] are saying?"

No, spin doesn't work because the average person in America is more smart and educated than the average person in all other western democracies. Americans, overall, make a point to learn about what goes on in the world and are not focused only on national issues - hence their deep understanding of everything from Middle East politics to the national pastime of Indonesia. The above-average education of the average American helps explain why the average American is not swayed by TV talking heads, why politicians are in constant fear of the famous and healthy American dissent and why books outsell tabloid magazines any given day.

As to the country's politicians, they make sure that the citizens are kept objectively informed by admitting to errors, disregarding partisan loyalties and being indifferent to their personal fortunes. This situation is helped by the fact that American voters have a chance to choose between candidates from the whole spectrum of political ideas, a choice that is denied to citizens of other western democracies who must choose among two or three parties sharing essentially the same ideology. What losers.

Of course, it helps that journalists and the media in the U.S. all take aim at the education of their readers, viewers and listeners and rarely succumb to frothy entertainment or mindless yahooism. The American citizen has only to open a newspaper, tune in to a radio station or turn on the TV to obtain reliable, plentyful and serious information, free of religious or political bigotry, about all that matters in the world. A superpower needs its citizens to be like this.

This is why spin in America never worked and never will.

[Cyrus]

"What does Europe think every time Yasser Arafat, archterrorist and one of the early members of the Muslim Brotherhood gets up and asks for peace and cohabitation with Jews?"

Arafat took part as an "equal" in numerous negotiations with the Israeli governments, under the guidance of the United States. There was a time when he was called, as you do now, a terrorist, by the Zionists in charge of Israel anf the Americans --- and no one else in the world. Even if Arafat actually was, as alleged, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood when very young, Arafat very quickly established himself as the leader of the (strictly secular) Palestinian Liberation Organisation, while the Fatah group he belonged to himself, was careful to distance itself from any kind of religious fundamentalism. Quite revealing of Arafat's "fanatical Muslim fundamentalism" is that he is married to a ..Christian woman.

You could conceivably accuse Yasser Arafat of having being a Marxist (he wasn't) but a Muslim terrorist? Never.

In this context, it should be known (although it isn't, due to spin) that the Palestinians have historically been among the most advanced Arabs, in matters of education and culture, which is why they were picked to staff many Arab leaders' consuls and ministries. Education is the arch-enemy of fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Arafat was a moderate leader of a genuine national liberation struggle. It is against Israel's interest that such people represent the Palestinians -- because this would mean that the Israelis would have to finally sit down and negotiate, which in turn means to compromise.

It is to Israel's interest that the "representatives" of Palestinians are faceless suicide-bombing fanatics, with whom any kind of negotiation is impossible. (A situation, which, in turn, perpetuates Israel's land grabs and confers the status quo upon us as a "given fact of life".)

Hence, the Israeli belligerence. And Israel's sense of omnipotence and utter contempt for anybody else in the world, including those suckers at Washington who were recently bitch-slapped by Ariel Sharon's brusque rejection of the Bush Roadmap To Peace. The Washington boys' face stings red but they will smile and say their "thank you's" as always.

--Cyrus

[Utah]

Respectfully, I completely disagree with Kopefire.

I voted for Jesse, and I wasnt a stupid 18 year old and I actually liked the other two candidates for a change.

At the time, Jesse did not have huge name recognition. He was just a minor local celeb. Stupid 18 year olds do not have any desire to run out and vote. Jesse clearly tapped into something with his open and honest style.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Jesse Ventura ...just isnt that bright.

The man was a Navy SEAL. That would place him in the 95th percentile of politicians, intelligence-wise.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, but he only received mere scratches in actual combat, and never performed any acts of great heroism, unlike our Fearless Leader did in the National Guard.

[andyfox]

If a politician just said what he thought, he might win and he might lose, depending on what he thought.

But spin works. Every day of the week. And twice on Sundays.

[Gamblor]

Quite revealing of Arafat's "fanatical Muslim fundamentalism" is that he is married to a ..Christian woman.Quite revealing of Arafat's "fanatical Muslim fundamentalism" is that he is married to a ..Christian woman.

Check your sources again, Cyrus.

Suha Arafat: Militant in High Heels (http://www.ishipress.com/suha.htm), met Arafat in Paris. Smitten, he hired her to do public relations for the PLO in Tunis, where she nominally converted to Islam before they married.

In this context, it should be known (although it isn't, due to spin) that the Palestinians have historically been among the most advanced Arabs, in matters of education and culture, which is why they were picked to staff many Arab leaders' consuls and ministries.

That is akin to saying Cuba is the most democratic of all totalitarian dictatorships in Central America; so for next time, a little context, please!

It is to Israel's interest that the "representatives" of Palestinians are faceless suicide-bombing fanatics, with whom any kind of negotiation is impossible.

That's funny, every time the terrorism lulls and the violence dies down, Israel is prepared to immediately step the the table as evidenced by Wye River and Camp David!

God, as if this week wasn't hard enough for Jews.

[Daliman]

Of course it does. GWB is not only president now, but is leading in the polls. This is a guy who I wouldn't want running my McDonald's. Zero history of success in the business world, zero history of success politically.

[Cyrus]

Arafat married a Christian woman - who converted to Islam. Do you know of many "Muslim fundamentalist terrorists", as you are trying to paint Arafat, who have done anything similar?

Your arguments trying to make Arafat as some crazy and powerful radical is old hat. Arafat has actually (and unfortunately) become practically powerless, the fruition of decades old, long-term Israeli strategy, a strategy that wants to see power invested on radical Muslims rather than secular moderates. The kind of radicals with which one cannot negotiate. The kind that justifies breaking off all contacts with Palestinians and killing off the American "Roadmap For Peace".

...And tell me, did you really have to invoke that kook's website to make a point about Arafat's wife? The man (http://www.ishipress.com/) is a Jerry Falwell fan who claims people have stolen a million dollars from him! He is a cab driver, by the way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Utah]

ero history of success in the business world

Umm...he did pretty well with the Rangers. And, for whatever reason (e.g., his fathers connections) he has been successful.


zero history of success politically

Many consider becoming governor of the largest state and then becoming president of the United States political success.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
ero history of success in the business world

Umm...he did pretty well with the Rangers. And, for whatever reason (e.g., his fathers connections) he has been successful.


zero history of success politically

Many consider becoming governor of the largest state and then becoming president of the United States political success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, he traded away Sammy Sosa for the rangers, and only GOT that job as a favor to GHWB.

As far as success politcally, I stand corrected, as I misspoke. I should have and MEANT to say, he has no accomplishments EXCEPT for getting elected.

[andyfox]

"he did pretty well with the Rangers"

From Byron York's 1999 study:

Compared to other teams around baseball, the Rangers were not exactly a money machine. The team was saddled with one of the worst stadiums in baseball; Arlington Stadium, located between Dallas and Forth Worth, was a former minor-league park, and although it had been modernized in the 1970's, it had none of the big-league amenities — like luxury boxes — that make present- day sports facilities so profitable. For Bush and the new owners, building a new stadium would be the first, and perhaps the most important, step to success.

They envisioned a fabulous new facility, a beautiful retro design like those being built in Baltimore and Cleveland. It would have a great field, stores, places to eat, a museum — a real showplace. But the cost of such a park was estimated at $189 million, and even though they were among the richest men in Texas — and the United States — the new owners didn't want to pay for it.

So they came up with what they called a public-private partnership to finance the project. The deal was essentially this: the Rangers supplied the team, and the city of Arlington supplied the money. Bush and the other owners asked the city to give them $135 million, by far the largest share of the cost of building the stadium — and they hinted they might take the team elsewhere if the city refused to pay. The team pledged to kick in the rest.

Arlington Mayor Richard Greene aggressively promoted the deal, saying it would bring $100 million dollars a year in new revenue to the city's economy. He proposed that the city get the money by adding one-half cent to its sales- tax rate. And he promised that the Rangers would put in $30 million "up front, like a down payment on a house," to get the deal going.

A referendum was held in January 1991, and it was a smashing success for Bush and the Rangers. Voters turned out in record numbers to overwhelmingly approve the tax increase. Then it emerged that the Rangers would not produce their money up front, but rather over time, in the form of a $1-a-ticket surcharge, paid by the fans. The Rangers also got a loan from the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, the government body that handled the financing, to cover part of the rest. On top of that, the team negotiated what was in essence a rent-to-buy agreement; the Rangers would pay about $5 million in rent and maintenance each year for twelve years, but that money would be applied to an agreed-upon purchase price for the stadium. Not by coincidence, the agreed-upon price was $60 million, which meant that at the end of the twelve-year agreement the team could buy the facility for nothing.

And there was one more thing. Not only did Bush and the Rangers want the deal to include the land that was home to the old Arlington Stadium and its parking lot, they also wanted an adjacent 200 acres for commercial development. They got that, too. When the state legislature passed a bill okaying the use of tax money for the stadium, it also gave the city the power to condemn the extra land so it could be developed by the new team owners. Normally the government has the power to take land only for some compelling public need, but in this case, the land was taken and given to a private interest — Bush and the Rangers.

The new stadium was called The Ballpark in Arlington, and it was just as beautiful as the owners had said it would be. It opened to rave reviews in April 1994, as Bush was running for governor of Texas. Not surprisingly, he lavished praise not only on the stadium but on the deal that created it. Everywhere he stopped, he called it a "win-win" proposition for the team and the taxpayers — and himself. "Am I going to benefit off it financially? I hope so," he told reporters. "But I also hope that the $100 million that comes into Arlington will help Arlington schools and helps Arlington streets and police."

Today, five years later, there are real questions about whether those wonderful benefits have actually materialized for Arlington. Bush and his defenders point out that the city's tax revenues have increased significantly, so much so that the bonds used to finance the stadium will be paid off early. But Mark Rosentraub, a professor at Indiana University at Indianapolis and author of the book Major League Losers, says the Arlington boom wasn't caused by The Ballpark. "There have been no economic benefits from the stadium," Rosentraub says. "In fact, if you go to (north) Arlington and go to the area around the stadium, there has not been much that has happened. The economic success that people report is all the result of growth in south Arlington. There has been no growth in north Arlington."

But even if one assumes for the sake of argument that The Ballpark has been a big economic boost for Arlington, does that mean the taxpayers should have paid for it? Since it was intended for their own benefit, couldn't the owners have paid for it themselves — borrowed the money, built a stadium, and made a profit? It's a question the Bush campaign is not particularly eager to answer. Asked by The American Spectator, spokeswoman Karen Hughes responded, "The Ballpark is a great example of a public-private partnership that was a win-win relationship for everyone involved." When the question was repeated, the answer was repeated as well.

As popular as The Ballpark has become, there are still some opponents to the way it was financed. "It was a sweetheart deal," says Bill Eastland, a businessman and anti-tax activist who led the opposition to The Ballpark funding deal. (Eastland is also the brother of former American Spectator Publisher Terry Eastland.) "As the details came out, it became very clear that the Rangers were being given a ballpark completely paid for by the taxpayers." Adds Mark Rosentraub, "The issue is whether or not private enterprise ought to be subsidized to the extent to which The Ballpark was subsidized — and if that subsidy produces immense financial returns, to what extent the public ought to receive significant financial returns."

However one chooses to frame the issue, it is indisputable that The Ballpark had a huge impact on George W. Bush. Last year, he and his partners sold the Rangers to Dallas investor Tom Hicks for $250 million. Bush's part was worth $15 million (it may ultimately be even more, according to Hughes, because some profits still have not been distributed). It was, to say the least, a healthy profit on his original $606,000 investment. But why were the Rangers so much more valuable than they had been when Bush and his group bought them? Because of The Ballpark. "The team's value is attributable to the revenue streams of the new stadium," says Rosentraub. Bill Eastland says it more simply. "When Hicks comes along and buys the team, do you know what he's buying? He's buying the damn Ballpark."

[Abednego]

your post is irrelevant

[Gamblor]

Those terrorist fan club members. So sexy.

Do you know of many "Muslim fundamentalist terrorists", as you are trying to paint Arafat, who have done anything similar?

Hey, they don't care what she was, he only cares about what she is now: A Muslim is a Muslim, or don't you read the news (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067394/)?

Could you imagine the scandal if the saviour of the Palestinian Cause was married to an infidel?

Your arguments trying to make Arafat as some crazy and powerful radical is old hat.

So? At the time the Palestinian "national identity" was forming, he was crazy as well as radical. Whether or not he has any power now is strictly his own doing - after all (and turn your sarcasm detector on, quick!), he was welcomed with open arms in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon before he ever got back to Israel. Patterns.

And tell me, did you really have to invoke that kook's website to make a point about Arafat's wife?

The website I used was to avoid having our dear friends, the lurkers, register for a news service if they wanted to read the article.

There are upwards of 20 sites on google all with copies of the same article, so unbunch those panties.

Apologies for the tone. I hate being obnoxious. I'm beginning to sound like you.

[whiskeytown]

it wouldn't work....his party would crush him.

Both Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the status quo...this includes an obscene amount taken in kickbacks/lobbist funds/pork.

So they don't rattle their own cage too much. And if someone else does, they bury that guy...

said example...Howard Dean and John McCain....two straight shooters who got crucified, not by the opposing party, but by their own partymates.

Jesse barely pulled it off - and he got a ton of youth vote...if it happened in a presidental election, it would happen that way...as an independant...not as a party hack.

RB

[IrishHand]

Of course spin works. You tell someone something enough times and they'll start to believe it - a principle which was established by a visionary political party about 70 years ago and is used to great effect now in this media age.

This county's political process is what it is in large part because the average American is so willing to believe either one side or the other without making the slighest effort to actually become informed about the issue. Those same Americans also believe that the Democrats and Republicans offer the full spectrum of options, even though on a "world democracy" scale, the Democrats probably fall right of center, with the Republicans well into the right.

As an aside, I enjoyed Cyrus' post - a much more entertaining version of what I just wrote. /images/graemlins/smile.gif