Mudslinging and the classics- Read this

[cbelt3]

Anyone familiar with this classic speech about political fundraising and financial propriety ? I just reread it for the first time in years, and it still stands out as a classic. Note also that, like gasoline, politicians used to be pretty inexpensive...

Now consider the current campaign's mudslinging and complaining.


"My Fellow Americans:

I come before you tonight as a candidate for the Vice Presidency and as a man whose honesty and integrity have been questioned.

The usual political thing to do when charges are made against you is to either ignore them or to deny them without giving details. "

[$tevie]

That is a classic. Nixon totally pulled his ass out of the fire with that speech, and forced Eisenhower to bend to the will of the people and keep him on the ticket. It's sort of hard to understand how a man who so early on understood the power of television later had such a debacle in his debate with Kennedy. I have read that people who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while TV viewers thought Kennedy won, which is an interesting piece of trivia to me. ANYHOW, getting back to Checkers, look at the salary of a US Senator back then and you realize how long ago this was!

First of all, a Senator gets $15,000 a year in salary. He gets enough money to pay for one trip a year, a round trip that is, for himself and his family between his home and Washington, D.C.

[Pops]

[quote $tevie] I have read that people who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while TV viewers thought Kennedy won, which is an interesting piece of trivia to me.
I've read that somewhere, also. I don't think it's just trivia, but has the potential for so many serious scientific studies. I've always believed that creating mental imagery while reading or listening to orally read material is deeper than simply forming a mental "picture" or "voice" - that it changes the way one processes the information. It'd make (probably has made) great thesis fodder.

But.... what do I know?

[guitarist]

Pops, there's merit to that.

Nixon's skill at it was interesting because he wasn't gifted at it, he just worked hard at it. In Law school his nickname was "Iron Butt", because unlike his brighter academic peers, he kept his grades up by brute effort, long hours studying in the library. He was regarded as socially awkward, not graceful, but studied, and formal. The kind of guy who never took his jacket off or loosened his tie. Not a natural extravert. His chief of staff prepared a call sheet for him, where there would be cues, to remember people's names, their wives names, pets, kids, etc, so he could appear personable when he worked the phones. No talent. Sheer effort.

The effectiveness of verbal imagery is understood to be effective. A lot of politicians memorize facts and figures, but don't necessarily excel at connecting it to voter's concerns. I read an essay by James Carviille, praising Bill Clinton's first Presidential campaign, calling him a rare political thoroughbred, marveling at his natural ability to conjure up concrete, tangible connections between abstract ideas and the reality of an average person's daily experience. He could think on his feet, adjust and respond to his surroundings, and paint word pictures until he's won over even the most disinterested person in the room. God that guy could talk (that was his weakness, too) but he was also an observant listener.

Where another politician might recite jobless numbers and labor statistics, Clinton would tell a story about an individual worker, or family, use their experience as an example. Often remembering countless names and personal details about countless people he'd met and talked to in the crush of a busy campaign, and bring a specific story illustration to the tip of his tongue and introduce it into a debate effortlessly.

It's one thing when a politician can carefully craft an effective story, to achieve a goal, win sympathy, save his career, etc., but even more scary (or impressive) when a politician can practically do it in his sleep, with little or no effort at all.

[OWC Jamie]

If minimum wage was $0.75 in 1952, then $15K for a salary was about 10x min wage.

If 2008 senate salary is $170K then that's about 12x minimum wage.


not exactly peanuts.



Edit:
CEO pay is what; 200x the average worker ?

[deckeda]

[quote $tevie] ... It's sort of hard to understand how a man who so early on understood the power of television later had such a debacle in his debate with Kennedy. I have read that people who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while TV viewers thought Kennedy won, which is an interesting piece of trivia to me. ...
He knew of the importance but didn't have all of his ducks in a row, which could be interpreted at NOT fully understanding the importance of it.

During that televised debate, Nixon had more problems than just Kennedy's good looks and smile. Nixon didn't enjoy the benefits of proper TV makeup that Kennedy did, didn't have something to counteract the heat from the lights, and so he looked like a sweaty, shifty mess in comparison. Right or wrong, viewers wouldn't have known about that disadvantage.

[guitarist]

There's a lot of interesting trivia about that debate.

Nixon was at a disadvantage, he'd injured his knee, and was in pain, and pale-looking. And he perhaps underestimating Kennedy's (false) healthful appearance, and oddly declined to be made up to compensate for his unfavorable skin tone and heavy-looking beard shadow. Thinking makeup might be equally unflattering, but in a different way, he didn't accept make up. Or felt that it's just unmanly to accept an offer of makeup. TV was still a fairly new medium. He would learn how to manipulate the power of television as his career matured, but on this occasion, he made cosmetic decisions that he no doubt later regretted.

Kennedy, on the other hand, and been boating or something, and was sporting a tan. Also, JFK was jacked up on cotosteroids, for Addison's disease. (plus numerous other medications, he was in very poor physical health) People on steroids have a characteristic facial changes (refer to photos of him as a young senator, his face was thin and drawn) steroids makes a person's face slightly red and puffy, the appearance of a healthy glow is artificially enhanced. Plus, Kennedy just had more attractive facial features, and a natural grace on TV that Nixon didn't.

[deckeda]

Plus, he had just banged Marilyn Monroe offstage before the debate started.






It's possible I made that up.

[guitarist]

No doubt, Kennedy had access to sex and drugs far better than his opponent, It would take the younger generation to nearly the end of the 1960s to coming anywhere near matching or exceeding Kennedy's sex and drug intake. And that's only 'cause Rock & Roll was there to help it along!