Suddenly, the delete function doesn’t work. Grrr….

Do you really want this man running our country?

Is there a split in the religious right? Are the hard-core homeschoolers splitting from the informed conservatives? Who’s supporting this man? Am I missing something here? Experience tells us that there’s a segment of the religious right with tunnel vision regarding gay marriage and abortion. While these are crucial topics to the moral fiber of our country, there are lot more issues to worry about. Gay marriage isn’t really that important if a terrorist drops a bomb on this country and kills a significant numbers of Americans.

For the first time in my life, I have no idea what my fellow conservative Republicans are thinking. I’ve yet to meet a Huckabee supporter. Where are they? This seems to be a split between the fundamentalists who stay within the Christian bubble and those of us interact with the rest of the world.

The talk radio/web-centric arm of the conservatives look much more informed here. Perhaps that’s the difference. If publications like Charisma endorse Huckabee, but you never listen to the pundits or read a blog, Huckabee would probably appeal to you. How can you not like a Baptist preacher when you’re a busy/secluded Christian voter who looks for the most Christian or pro-life candidate?

The ONE Campaign is an example of what happens when you have limitless funds, an army of celebrities, the pop culture god known as Bono, a slough of politicians, youthful exuberance and a savvy social media campaign.

Tonight, I saw this ad on Fox and was impressed by it. Staying nonpartisan is hard to do, especially with poverty, the darling issue of the Democratic party.

I really like the campaign buttons although the singing reminds me of this ad:

Is Coke a sponsor of ONE?

So Gallup released their most admired poll for 2007. Hillary topped the list for women and President Bush surprisingly received top honors for men.

This is a rather pointless poll. It only promotes Gallup as a polling company and provides fodder for the top picks to issue silly press releases.

What are the parameters for being the most admired person? Are they famous? Maintain a positive public opinion? Contribute to society in some significant way? This was a phone survey conducted during the busy holiday season (Dec 14-16), and the winners strongly correlate to people receiving high media attention.

Furthermore, what does it mean to be admired? I’d like to see Gallup’s questions on the survey. What reasons did people give for admiring these figures? I admire Hillary’s political prowess, but do I support her? Her machine is incredible, but Hell would freeze over before I would vote for that woman. Next look at Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice. She’s always in the news, but it’s not always positive. She’s usually pictured meeting with various heads of state and visiting other countries, but the coverage is regularly negative. Is her 3rd place due to the fact that she’s a strong, African-American woman in power or the constant news hits?

What about Angelina Jolie ranking higher than Laura Bush? Jolie is constantly in the media. You can’t walk through the check out at the supermarket without seeing news of Angie & Brad. traipsing all over the world and adopting kids. When was the last time you saw Laura Bush in the headlines? Jenna received more media attention on her book tour than her mother.

Oprah, however, received some of her first negative press in the past year that didn’t involve her struggle with weight. There was the scandal of A Million Little Pieces followed by the troubling news from the abuse at one of her schools in South Africa. It’s almost like people are relieved to finally knock Oprah off her pedestal after all these years.

Apparently breaking the “marble ceiling” didn’t help Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She came in eighth.

My roommate has had a crush on John Edwards for a while. She even owns a “John Edwards is hot” t-shirt. I admit that he’s better looking than Rudy or McCain, but I’ve never been into the Metro/middle-aged Frat boy look.

Tonight, I walked into my apartment and saw the current Newsweek on the table in the entry. I stopped dead in my tracks.

Thought #1: Daniel Craig looks hot on the cover of Newsweek!
Thought #2: Wait. Why is Daniel Craig on the cover of Newsweek?
Thought #3: OMG! That’s John Edwards.
Thought #4: GFTS, you just thought that a liberal looked like a major hottie. Is this allowed? Do I have to surrender my Fred 08 membership card?
Thought #5: Ewww…

When did John Edwards become Daniel Craig?!?

Maybe he paid an extra $500 for the hair cut this week. Perhaps he loosened the Savile Row suit? Whatever he did, it looks good.

Thinking that I was going crazy for admiring the looks of a liberal/socialist, I asked my roommate if she had seen it.

GFTS: Umm…have you seen the cover of Newsweek?
DC Roomie: Oh yeah.
GFTS: John Edwards looks seriously good.
DC Roomie: When I saw it, I stopped and stared.
GFTS: He has a gritty Daniel Craig thing going on.
DC Roomie: (grinning cause she also likes Daniel Craig) Yep. I was just on the phone talking about how hot he looked.
GFTS: Is it the black and white photo? The suit? What is it?
DC Roomie: I’ve been telling you for a while that John Edwards is hot.
GFTS: Clive is still better looking, but I have to admit that he doesn’t look bad on the cover.

While sorting through the shock of finding a liberal attractive, I thought about the goals of this cover.

Pro: Takes the focus off Elizabeth. Makes you remember that he’s actually running for office. Not the other way around. (Actually, I would enjoy a Fox news show that paired Ann Coulter with Elizabeth Edwards. That would be entertaining.)

Con: Rather than take the time to read the article, I suddenly feel like watching Casino Royal or Layer Cake.

Cover stories are great, but unless there’s a Huckabee-like media blitz, they really don’t change opinions. The article doesn’t mention anything new. He’s repeating the same themes that his campaign developed in 2004. He lost then, and now he’s coming in third in Iowa. His stump speeches cover the same points as this article. There aren’t any provocative details or reason for Democrats to take a second look at Edwards. Perhaps that’s why Elizabeth is the dynamic figure in his campaign. She’s crazy and obnoxious (in my opinion), but she’s saying original thoughts that don’t reflect focus group approval. Themes work when you’re winning, but if you’re consistently pulling in low poll numbers, maybe you should try something new. Newsweek sums it up nicely:

At times, irritation shows through his usually sunny exterior. A powerful, engaging speaker before large crowds, he can become prickly and defensive in private when the conversation strays from his campaign themes.

Incidentally, the only reason I read the article was to see if there were any other good pictures of Edwards in the spread. Only stock photos from the campaign trail. For the record, no heterosexual male politician should ever assume the stance on page 30-31. It reminds me of that Peter Pan guy.

This week, Huckabee keeps popping up in conversations. As a conservative in liberal land, people keep asking my opinion on the former governor. (I’m possibly the only Republican that a lot of my co-workers know.)

I’d find it amusing, but for some reason Huckabee really bothers me. This time last year, my old roommate and I decided he was the candidate to watch. I can’t help but wonder if the Thompson campaign supernova actually helped Huck.

Several people, far better than me at political commentary, have analyzed the Huckster this week:

Defusing the Huckabomb. Patrick Ruffini
Huck-a-boom. Expat Teacher
Their Lack of Faith is Disturbing. EM Zanotti

Why don’t I like Huckabee? He is a more radical version of the campaigning Bush. Given what President Bush turned out to be, how can we not fear candidates in the same mold? Ok, that’s a stupid question given America’s love affair with populist candidates like Bill Clinton and Obama.

I may be pro-life, but states should decide things like marriage and abortion. I’m also an Evangelical Christian, but we have freedom of religion in this country. Huckabee’s recent comments on Mormonism remind me too much of Bob Jones’ legalism. I dislike Romney, but it’s because of his expansion of health care in Massachusetts, not his religion.

Given the conversations that I’ve had with a few conservatives, I know that I’m not the only one out there puzzled over who to support. I don’t think I’ve ever dreaded a primary so much. My roommate’s philosophy is to vote for the hottest candidate regardless of the party. That doesn’t work so well within GOP circles. When all else fails, I usually vote for the guy with the coolest name. That brings me back to Huckabee.

This just came through Congress Daily:

AND THE WINNER IS. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee was elected Republican Conference chairman today, replacing Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who moved up to Minority Whip, aides and lawmakers said. Alexander defeated Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina 31-16. Kyl was elected unanimously. The shuffle was prompted by Minority Leader Lott’s announcement that he would resign from the Senate by the end of the year.

Once again my Senator is in a leadership position. Will he remember that there are a lot of angry conservatives back in Tennessee who want conservative issues pushed? Will he have a backbone?

Progress Nashville thinks that public policy campaigns should be regulated like lobbyists.

This train of thought has been around a long time. The Public Relations Society of America has a decades-old debate over the licensing of marketing and public relations professionals, similar to the way a doctor or attorney must be listed with a state government. There are pros and cons. I would love to see the words “public relations” or “marketing” only used by those of us who went to school and learned how to properly conduct strategic communications. I hate the concept of “PR girls” who hand out beer at bars. However, there’s a pesky thing called the First Amendment that gets in the way. Can you really limit who sends a press release or calls a member of the media?

What’s to stop John Citizen from seeing a need in the community and launching a campaign that affects public policy. It’s called grassroots, and you can’t curb the freedom of speech. Anything that limits campaigning for policy change would severely limit the First Amendment. At what point do you start regulating? When groups officially organize? Hire professionals? When someone takes an ad out in the paper, creates a web site or distributes an e-alert? Where does public policy marketing officially begin? There’s no clear line that can be developed the way that a lobbyist meets with an elected official.

While I earn my living working on public policy campaigns, I understand how deceptive they can be when large DC-based groups invade a state or community. It’s annoying to see major ad buys in the local paper or TV that wouldn’t be there if you member of congress wasn’t a crucial vote, or a company has an interest in state-level policies. (think Comcast vs. EPB).

I understand Progress Nashville’s frustration.

Lobbying has been around a long time, as has targeted marketing. What’s dangerous is that those who represent are being subjected to marketing efforts about which we are unaware back in the districts and don’t have the opportunity to refute. These are also efforts that may take place weeks or months before legislation is introduced.

I argue that it’s up to the citizen to stay better informed. While it’s a slow process, politics are growing more transparent. This is why state and local blogs are so important. If you’re concerned about who’s influencing your member, start a blog and read the news. CQ, the Hill, Politico, WaPo and all the DC press are online. Set up google alerts to see what groups are targeting your member. Rather than push for limitations on free speech, exercise your right as a voting citizen to hold your congressional member accountable.

We can’t expect those who represent us to live in a vacuum, but perhaps we should require those who run public issue campaigns in the Washington area to follow the same rules as lobbyists who work the halls of Congress and register and report their activities.

Those of us in DC (and beyond), still report a lot of those “marketing” activities. The FEC requires disclosure of grassroots lobbying expenditures, of which Progress Nashville refers. The Supreme Court recently ruled on Wisconsin Right to Life vs. FEC, which covered policy and activism groups working on federal elections.

If someone really wanted to make an impact, a great project would be tracking activities of PACs/action funds throughout the country. That would expose the glut of policy lobbying that goes on this country. Progress Nashville is right. The average citizen has absolutely no idea what special interest groups are influencing their senator or congressman, not only from both sides of the isle, but international interests as well. However, regulation will only produce more obscure laws and vague 527-like groups. If you want to know who influences your elected officials, track the action funds.

Anyone else familiar with policy campaigns have another suggestion?

H/T Volunteer Voters

One of the strange things about living in DC is seeing stories about people you know in the media. This article in The Hill and linked on Drudge is about my professor for political communication at AU. He worked in Texas politics for decades before moving to DC. We refer to him as the Master of Metaphors because of the strange comparisons that he makes.

He may be a Dem, but he knows his stuff. He frequently quoted Frank Luntz, and this memo looks like one of his lectures from class.

If we’re going to revisit the many sins of Hillary, why are we starting with Socks the cat?

Why is anyone shocked that Hillary only kept Socks around as long as he was useful? While we’re investigating Hillary’s pet ownership, why not start with Buddy, the chocolate lab?

Remember Buddy? He was brought on the scene during the Monica scandal when Clinton could have been hunting Osama Bin Laden. There were some cute pictures of the two frolicking on the lawn of the White House, reminiscent of the G.H. Bush years when Millie had the puppies, and Barbara wrote a book about it.

After Clinton left office, Buddy retired to Chappaqua. He was hit by a car in 2002 and killed:

Secret Service agents indicated that Buddy ran off “playfully chasing a contractor” who had just left the property in a van. Agents rushed after the dog and arrived at the accident scene moments after he had been struck, police reported. Buddy was taken to the Chappaqua Animal Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

A spokesperson for the Clinton family issued a statement that the former president and his wife are currently vacationing in Acapulco, but they are “deeply saddened by Buddy’s death.”

At least with Socks, the Clintons realized that they didn’t want a cat and found a responsible owner. Leaving your dog to run around loose and chase cars is negligent pet ownership. Where are those people that went after Ellen? Why weren’t they upset with Clinton?