Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Taibbi: Political Absurdity Hits the Iowa Caucuses

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted October 2, 2007.


The media following the presidential campaigns in Iowa depict voters as gravely caring about meaningless issues like "likeability" and "electability."
Advertisement

I was back on the campaign trail for only about four hours before I started to feel unhappy again; this was back a few weeks ago, on actor Fred Thompson's kickoff tour (see "Running on Empty" in the current Rolling Stone), specifically on a bus run between Des Moines and Council Bluffs on the afternoon of Thompson's first day of campaigning.

Thompson had had a rough start to his presidential experience. His people had chosen to start things off by having a cow-eyed former Miss Iowa named Carolyn Haugland sing the national anthem for the large crowd of press and supporters gathered at a Des Moines convention center. Haugland is something every state should have -- a right-wing beauty queen with a Hannitoid political blog ("That's when it dawned on me," she writes, "Bin Laden isn't just a terrorist. He's worse -- a liberal!") who eschews post-pageant catalog work for stridently patriotic campaign performances. Her anthem would have been fine, except that she has a mild lisp. She ended up sounding like Robin Williams doing Elmer Fudd doing Bruce Springsteen doing "Fire." "Oah de wam-m-m-pahts we watch ..." she belted. "Wuh so gaow-want-wee stwee-e-e-e-ming. And de wockets wed gware ...!"

From there Thompson's handlers cued his campaign video, entitled The Hunt For Red November. The signature propaganda piece in a campaign that labors openly to blur media fantasy and political reality, the video is additionally confusing in that it starts off with a photo array of Democratic candidates Edwards, Hillary and Obama, interspersed with a dramatic "Hunt For Red November" title frame set against a frankly "Red" background. I thought they were trying to say something about the "Reds" on the other ticket, and so did someone in the crowd behind me. "Do they mean communiss?" I heard someone whisper in an Iowan twang.

So I ran to Todd Harris, the Thompson campaign's press guy, just to check. He seemed pissed by the question. "No," he sighed. "Red November, red state. Republican."

"Right," I said, "but in the original movie, it was Red like Lenin Red, and you've got Hillary and Edwards there all covered in red ... Do we want a Red November, or do we not want a Red November?"

"We want it. Now it means Republican," he said, trying to smile, then walked away.

After that Thompson gave his first stump speech, an understated thing designed to cast him, in stark contrast to the other flawed candidates of his party, as a pure nice-guy conservative. A good actor, Thompson's aw-shucks demeanor and near-constant emphasis on his humble roots and decided lack of megalomaniacal instinct makes his stump speech into a kind of political version of the late Phil Hartman's famous "I'm just a simple caveman!" SNL skit, which when you think about it is a near-perfect sales pitch for Red State voters.

The other reporters were bitching about how vapid it was, but I thought it was going over well -- until a woman just a few feet to my left collapsed unconscious on the ground with a fainting fit near the tail end of Thompson's presentation. Seeing the fracas in the back of the room, the candidate cut his speech short abruptly, forcing his campaign-opening rhetorical salvo to end not with hoots and cheers and resounding applause but ambiguously, with whispers and murmurs and frantic rubbernecking at the back of the room.

The woman got up after about ten minutes and walked away, apparently OK.

After the speech, I retreated along with the rest of the reporters to a cavernous filing room a floor below and immediately fell into a glum mood. The presidential campaign ritual in this country has obviously devolved into a deeply flawed phenomenon, one that tends to produce incompetent or inappropriate leaders and fails to really touch the population on any level anymore beyond disgust and resentment. Two straight (well, one-and-a-half straight) victories by the lunkhead George Bush are only part of the evidence on that score. Even more ominous were the 2006 midterm elections, a revoltingly idealism-free spectacle in which 80 percent of the money spent on television advertising across the country during the campaign season was devoted to negative ads.

The numbers released by the CQ Political Moneyline group following that race are startling. In 2004, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $13.8 million on ads for congressional races; 99 percent of that money was on "positive" ads. In 2006, they spent $14.4 million, but only 17 percent on positive messages; an amazing 83 percent went for attack ads.

The Republican numbers were similar. In 2004, the NRCC spent $19.5 million on ads, and the split was 54-46 percent positive-negative. In 2006, they nearly doubled the money spent, burning $33 million, and the numbers were 89-11 percent in favor of attack ads. By 2008 the process of turning national elections into a vote against this or that much-loathed candidate should be more or less complete.

This is why I hate showing up at functions like this Thompson thing and seeing everyone, from campaign staff to press reps to audience members, looking so content of disposition and cheered of conscience, like they're joining up with a neighborhood can drive. Like there isn't something totally fucked up and insane about the whole thing. In the filing room after the event, the reporters sleepily puttered around the buffet table in between sessions at their computers sending the nothing details of Thompson's nothing speech out into the world; there were chuckles as CBS radio reporter Peter King screamed his way through 15 or 20 takes of a four-sentence remote report on Thompson's debut, while a pair of TV guys in the back joked about the culinary shortcomings of this campaign. "I hope it isn't warm cheese cubes again tonight," one cracked, as he stared at a sad little plastic miniplate of warmed jalapeno jack. "I hate warm cheese cubes."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: matt taibbi, election 2008, fred thompson, iowa

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
fantastic
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Oct 2, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I come to expect from Taibbi. It's no wonder our society is ill-informed as it is considering the complete and utter implosion of any sense of reasonable political or world coverage....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole system needs a complete overhaul
Posted by: vox persona on Oct 2, 2007 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we have now is winner by best prepackaged, PR/focus group driven, pandering, money raising plutocrats, who spend more time fundraising than governing. Take the money out of politics, shorten the campaigning season (hard to do with the First Ammendment), and try to attract leaders who run for all the right reasons. I get the feeling that those I see run are doing it just to be in the history books, so students living far in the future will have to memorize their names.
We already elected the guy polls said was most 'likeable', how did that work out by the way? We need new criteria, plus a higher brain function of an electorate. The average voter should be able to name at least 5 Supreme Court justices, 5 Senators, and all 3 branches of government. I know that's too much to ask, and a free country includes idiots voting, I just wish we could scrap it and start fresh with a new system of candidate selection. Otherwise, history will just repeat itself again & again & again....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Same Old B.S.
Posted by: Tom Degan on Oct 2, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meaningless campaigns, shallow candidates and non-issues. This is what it has all come to. This dreadful situation being what it is, one can understand why so huge a percentage of the American people don't even bother to vote on Election Day. Is Thompson really "the only one who can beat Hillary"? It is such an absurd question one wonders how to even repond to it? Of this you may be absolutely certain: The GOP, while pretending to be intimidated by the prospect Ms. Clinton's nomination, is secretly praying for it. Will they cough up for the electorate another feeble-minded, failed B movie actor? Don't be suprised.

The other day I was at a used record store in New Paltz, NY called Jack's, when I came across an LP called "Davis Frost Talks To Bobby Kennedy - factory sealed, never opened! It was recorded only a week or so before the late senator was gunned down in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Listening to that record that night, I was almost overwhelmed by the substance of the man; a substance that has disappeared from the American political landscape. It was almost too much to bear. I drank myself into blissful unconscienceness.

Sweet dreams, kiddies....

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Same Old B.S. Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: The Same Old B.S. Posted by: peacefullaim
Too long, too rambling, too repetitive
Posted by: anothername on Oct 2, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A correction is needed. Iowa has caucuses not primaries to select its presidential candidates. While the results are the same (i.e., someone emerges with the most votes), the processes are very different. I do not know if this leads to a difference in how people observe candidates, however. Perhaps the caucus process in which arguments must be made to persuade a fellow caucus goer to join in support of another candidate forces Iowans and voters in other caucus states to analyze their choices more. It is a hypothesis that I would have fun testing, if I had the financing to do so.

The title Alternet chose was as unclear as the Red November film. Is the problem with how campaigns play out in Iowa or is it with how the media covers the candidates in Iowa?

Why was the commentary about Miss Iowa an assault on her singing instead of how she represents the numerous minor celebrities candidates pull in to try and boost their own popularity? That is why John Edwards’ older daughter and the actor who plays the plumber on Desperate Housewives were in Des Moines over the weekend. They didn’t bring high-quality inquisitiveness about the candidate. Instead, the campaign was blatantly promoting the dual appearance as a means to attract young voters to Edwards.

A question I have been asking in recent days is why do we give the microphone to people who already have the microphone? That is what the media does. It stands in the back of a room as a candidate talks then moves to a side room so the candidate can repeat the speech in the form of Q&A. The media trails the candidates because one of those candidates is expected to be the next president and that time spent on the campaign trail together will form a bond, theoretically, and first-hand knowledge that will be useful, theoretically, when the reporter is part of the White House press corps.

In my own reporting on the Iowa caucuses I have encountered those Iowans who immediately wipe their faces of any emotion when they see a reporter approach. These Iowans then demonstrate an ability to say nothing while giving soundbites that would make a press secretary proud. On the day that most media were giving attention to the steak fry hosted by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) where six presidential candidates spoke, I was talking to people in a non-political environment about their opinions. One woman I talked with made me smile. At first she didn’t want to talk despite having a Ron Paul bumper sticker at her booth. Then, very quickly, she started talking in a wandering stream of thought. She had not been politically aware until 9/11. Since then she has been reading a considerable amount of background on the attacks and on the subsequent military action in Iraq. She was surprised at what she was discovering but had not yet processed it to be confident and firm in her opinion or about whom she would support for president. It was a delight to see somebody discovering the power of citizen awareness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Campaigning
Posted by: robchapman on Oct 2, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This author does a good job speaking with the voice of the oh so jaded onlooker, whose only goal in life is finding a cheap thrill.

What he misses entirely is what political campaigning is all about. Candidates need to see their people, they need to see the local politicos, they need to see the party faithful, they need to see the local bigwigs and opinion leaders.

If at all possible it is good when they can see some of the "regular" people, too.

They need to see these people because they are the ones who will go into the community and mobilize the VOTERS on election day.

This is important because VOTERS are the only ones who count and election day is the only day we have to count them.

Secondarily, the candidates want to meet people because they need supporters to explain and defend their policies if they get elected and have to govern.

There is plenty to be disgusted with in this system: the economic inequities; the lack of provision for medical care for millions; the environmental ghastliness of our consumer society; and our racism which plays itself out domestically and in foreign policy.

There are a lot of ways, both private and public to take a stand against these problems and in many cases even to help clean up the mess.

Politics, the authoritative allocation of resources is only one of the many ways to clean up this mess.

But politics is the most powerful one.

That is why for a lot of serious minded people- candidates, activists, contributors and voters- it remains the only game in town.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Campaigning Posted by: Eat Politicians
» Wish it were so. Posted by: american
You can thank television, again...
Posted by: Trazom on Oct 2, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would postulate that thanks to television, presidential election results have invariably tilted toward the "nicest looking" person, or the sweet-talker, or both. How else can one explain Bush term 1 (and Bush term 2), or Clinton, or Reagan, etc etc.

Thomas Jefferson supposedly had flaming red hair and was quite effeminate looking. Abraham Lincoln was, well, a very gawky and odd looking individual. Who knows if either one of them would have seen the light of day if there had been television back then.

I hate to be so reductionist, but how else can we explain what has happened in the last 50 years?

Seeing is believing, and nothing else matters apparently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT'S NOT SHOW BIZ
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 2, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish the candidates would stop trying to entertain us, and stop acting like a regular guy/gal. You are not "one of us". Prove to me that you are smart, impress me with your past accomplishments, act the part of the person you want to be. Namely the President of The U.S. I don't want the "Cable Guy" running the country. How about random picks for real debates. 2 people and some serious battling. Everyone is too damned agreeable. It's phone and insincere. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thompson on Thompson
Posted by: mike1997 on Oct 2, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I the only one who finds it odd to be reading a Rolling Stone political writer focusing in on the Thompson campaign while rather obviosly chanelling Thompson the Rolling Stone politcal writer? Oh Hunter where are you when we need you? Fear and loathing on the Campaign Trail '08.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thompson on Thompson Posted by: outsideagitator
Taibbi what's your point?
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 2, 2007 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're being the embodiment of the absurdity you write about! Like anyone needs a clearer picture of it! We get it. lol

It just doesn't seem like you're interested in doing anything about it. Why write one little paragraph about Paul & Kucinich? You emulate the very behavior of the system you criticize. Which makes you a part of that system, and thus worthless. So what's your purpose? To feed the fat'n happy dumbed down masses? To make them feel smart because they have some vague "almost spiritual" notion that there might be something wrong with this twilight zone political reality?

If you don't like covering these fake hack campaigns with their fake supporters and their fake issues, then why do it? Why dont you do something useful, like pick up a Ron Paul sign, and actually stand for something. Or are you too fat'n happy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The beat goes on.
Posted by: christastropher on Oct 2, 2007 8:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it hard to say anything of substance after even reading about the coporate media. It is so vacuous and mind destroying that if you ever need to commit intellectual suicide, just listen to these folks for a bit. If it all wasn't happening before my eyes I'd never believe it. I mean, if I could go back in time even just 5 years back and detail to my younger self how the mainstream media has become the equivalent of mental valium for the large majority of the population, I don't think that I would even believe myself. Damn these pawns, pushers, and apologist for the government's propaganda! Truth is not a commodity but a necessity and it is the one thing that will stop this folly, but all the truth in the world won't help if people refuse to listen to it! When a candidate is fawned over like some fucking movie star and the media treat them as such instead of the future "leader(s)" of our nation, especially in these perilous times, then the net result is that we get what we currently have, which is an elected figure-head (Bush) and the people who are really running the show (the rest of the neo-con twits). For if the supposed president isn't asked to present their positions in any substantive manner, or to display any hint of intelligence, then we all may very well find that once again the person we voted for (I know, after 2000 that's just a joke, but please humor old Christastropher...) is not the one who is forming the policies and that the ones who are are not able to be held accountable by the public. Damn it!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help me!
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Oct 3, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
S.O.S. I need your help. I am poor, oppressed, disenfranchised and have NO press credentials or Ivy League degree. This is no joke. In the name of God, send Sean Penn and Matt Taibbi to rescue me in a rowboat ASAP!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prescient Tabbi.
Posted by: american on Oct 5, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Of Kucinich and Paul:] "Since neither candidate is a worn-out whore, and neither candidate has cast a single vote for any of the numerous completely avoidable political catastrophes that befell the country in the last four-plus years, both will be described as "fringe" and "unserious" figures who should rightfully be assigned to the "second tier" of presidential hopefuls."

How do you know this? How is (um, I mean will) the media arriving at an adverse endorsement conclusion vis a' vis the people ostensibly resulting from pairing plainly available information about candidates records and policy outcomes? Why no commentary on how seriously fucked up this is?

"There is a dark irony waiting to announce itself as a factor in this campaign -- a trap [?] that our press corps was almost certain to fall into from the moment the Bush presidency exploded in a nightmare of incompetence and horrifying corruption. Having observed all the awful missteps of the last seven years, missteps that came as a result of having indulged and enabled a preposterous figure like George W. Bush, the national press ought naturally to have learned a whole host of painful lessons."

Please explain how so. (Bold) I don't know if a press that indulged and enabled wants to learn any lessons.

"that the mainstream political press has become, in some circles, as much of a villain as the establishment candidates themselves."

I'll say. Thing is, you are a part of than mainstream political press. Here is why: your cynicism. The "mainstream" seeks no change. Cynicism offers no hope. No hope, no hope for change.

I think you are an entertaining writer Matt, but like all successful writers, i.e., the ones who get to keep their jobs, you know that you can't draw conclusions that actually may cause change. That you are assigned to covering bland campaign events for the chosen politicians is evidence enough of that.

I would like to see you apply your talents toward examining AIPAC's influence on the Iraq war or on it's influence on agitating Iran. Go ahead, I double dare you.

See you in the unemployment line!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prescient Tabbi. Posted by: outsideagitator
The Taibbi of 2004
Posted by: JackieGiles on Oct 6, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember the Taibbi of 2004 who joined the chorus of Dean bashers, well before the post-caucus "Scream" that we now hear reported (will somebodyplease burn that tape?) as though it was the death-blow to Dean's campaign. Taibbi traveled with Dean, ridiculing the decor on the plane and echoing the "anybody but Dean" mantra of the other, pro-war voting, Dem candidates. Taibbi was throroughly into the money chase/horse race/damn the issues mentality. He bought into the "madman Dean" stupidity as though Dean's anger at a phoney war was evidence of insanity.
Taibbi helped defeat a smart, highly competent and reasonably progressive governor who had the "bad judgment" to be for health care for all, openly against the Iraq War before it started, and to (gasp) say that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer. So who did we get? John Kerry who waited too long to show his mild annoyance at the lies of the Swift-Boaters and wimped out of a fight over the stealing of Ohio by Bush's guy, Blackwell who orchestrated it.

I'm waiting for somebody with Taibbi's admitted talent to denounce the notion that raising the most money means a candidate deserves their party's nomination or the presidency. Except for the genuine grassroots, small contributor phenomenon of Dean's 2004 campaign, what it usually means is that the top money-grabber has the most wealthy pals and corporate lobbyists in his/her corner because he/she is , in every sense, in their pockets.

The fact that John Edwards is lagging behind Clinton and Obama in the money race and has accepted federal matching funds, is another reason for me to support him. Add to that his ability to admit and regret his mistake in voting to let Bush invade Iraq, his commitment to health care and to trying to save the middle class and his plan to leave only enough troops in Iraq to defend our Baghdad embassy, NOT to continue the war by "fighting Al Quaeda" as Hillary says she'd do.

Want a new angle?Try discussing which candidate will make the best or worst president and why that might be so. It may not be sexy, but it's what really matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Taibbi of 2004 Posted by: Grozny_Guy
Pablum
Posted by: frank69 on Oct 9, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Commentary on this year's crop of candidates is just like so much mush. I may just write in my own name come election day 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]