NBC objects to Romney using old footage- but should they?

Open source and widely distributed picture of Tom Brokaw requiring no royalties be paid.

NBC has objected to the use of their material in an ad put out by the Mitt Romney campaign. (Before Romney fans pull a Newt screaming "Liberal Elite Media!" please keep reading to get to the point.) Whether or not you believe news outlets are biased (Liberal Elite Media! Vast Left Wing Conspiracy!), this brings up an interesting point about media bias, balanced journalism, and when the media becomes the story and not just the reporter of the story.
NBC and Tom Brokaw have objected to the use of their material in an ad by the Romney campaign. While this may feel biased to some, the ad is worth considering-



Tom Brokaw is a long-time veteran of television reporting. Unarguably, one of the most revered in his field. About the ad he has said, “I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”

The Romney ad uses an NBC News report from Jan. 21, 1997, the day Gingrich was reprimanded by Congress for using tax-exempt money for political purposes and giving the House Ethics Committee false information.  Gingrich is only shown in the background in a head shot, while Brokaw's image is used for 28 seconds of the 30 second spot.
As far as political ads go, this is one of the most fascinating ones from a message sender's point of view. It takes an historical event, and the actual news reporting of the time, clearly in context, to share the message. No one can argue that anything was taken out of context, edited, etc. It is effective because it is so simple and straight-forward. This sort of thing is rarely done effectively in commercials. But it works extremely well in this particular ad. The viewer has no reason to believe that anything in it is dishonest or manipulated (as compared to nearly all other campaign ads ever), and because of Brokaw's lengthy and notable career, he is considered very trustworthy.
But Brokaw doesn't like that his image is being used for political gain. And yes, it is being used for political gain- there is no tap-dancing around that. But is he right? Is it compromising his role as a journalist?

CNN FL Debate wrap up- I watch these things so you don't have to

CNN Florida GOP Debate (Linked to source CNN)

The real winner of this debate? CNN and Wolf Blitzer. In spite of this being the umpteenth debate and viewers being completely tired of the same old questions, Blitzer managed to bring his A game and keep things lively.
And lively they were.
Newt Gingrich thought he could start off using his well-honed Saul Alinsky tactics, and hack Mitt Romney off at the knees and attack Blitzer at the same time. It took two seconds to see that the tables have turned. Romney came out swinging and didn't back down. And Blitzer didn't back down either. Gingrich was outplayed at his own game, and spent the entire night swinging wildly without connecting. Gingrich insulted and jabbed, then looked to the audience for affirmation. But affirmation didn't come. Instead Blitzer reminded Gingrich that he's tried these attacks before, and  how about trying to say these things to Romney's face.
Turns out Gingrich is all bark and little bite.
The crowd turned on Gingrich. They laughed. They jeered. And stood and cheered for Romney as he put Gingrich back in his place.
But Romney wasn't safe either. Blitzer played fair and launched into a Romney tax question designed to put him in the hot seat. Romney took it, flipped it, and made it about Gingrich.
The nailbiting moment of the night was when Gingrich accused Romney of investing in Fannie and Freddie. (Which begs the question, which is more condemnable- consulting for millions in fees for them? Or investing in them like millions of Americans have done?) 
But! Romney shocked us all by sharing that Gingrich too had invested in them. The look on Gingrich's face was priceless. You could almost see the steam coming from his ears. Bested at his own game.
Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were nearly invisible for the first twenty minutes, with the exception of a very touching moment at the opening when Santorum introduced his "date" for the night- his 90 year old mother in the audience. The crowd didn't hold back in giving her the applause she deserved. Whether or not you plan to vote for him, you have to admit, she has raised a very good man.
Truth is, Santorum had his best night yet. Romney came off the winner, soundly pounding Gingrich into the ground. But my prediction is that we don't see Gingrich fence-sitters run to Romney. It is Santorum that will gain new supporters this week, demobilizing the Gingrich base.
Romney and Gingrich quite frankly sparred and insulted like jilted ex-wives, but Romney didn't lose his cool. The same cannot be said for Gingrich.  Additionally, Romney finally gave a strong answer on his wealth with a testimonial of capitalism and self-made men. And the crowd loved it all.
Santorum did knock Romney down a peg or two on Romneycare. He made excellent points and proved himself to be stronger and knowledgeable than he usually does in debates.
Ron Paul knows he has nothing to gain in Florida. It is a winner take all state, and he's in fourth place. He didn't waste his energy pandering to pork-barrel ideas, or making empty promises. (A colony on the moon, Newt? Really? In this economy, and with all of the problems around the world, and you want to pander to the Space Coast with a moon colony??) Instead he served mostly as the comic relief for the night, which was very welcome between the intense sparring moments. As usual he had a few completely left field moments about foreign policy that failed to connect, but really, he had a good night.
Now we just sit back and wait for the poll numbers to roll in. Can Romney hold on to his lead until the actual vote on Tuesday? Will Santorum be a real threat? Will any one of them suddenly produce new dirt at the last minute that destroys the competition (again)?
There was a lot of discussion and confusion on Twitter regarding Romney's possible blind trust that invested in Fannie and Freddie. During the debate he claimed that any investments he may have made in them were done by a blind trust, and therefore out of his control. However, by the end of the debate Twitter was alight with the news that this may not be true. Look for this to possibly turn into a news story if Romney was wrong. However, is it really that bad? Find just one home-owning American with a mutual fund that hasn't had some involvement with Fannie and Freddie. There's at least one American who made over a million dollars consulting for them!

Gingrich is an Alinsky Republican- is that a good thing?

Recently, Newt Gingrich has been bringing up Saul Alinsky in his stumping. Which begs the question (for all of those without a master's degree in political theory) who is Saul Alinsky? The answer will pretty much solidify two facts- Newt Gingrich is a fantastic historian. There is no denying that. And, Newt Gingrich wants to be shocking, flashy, and unconventional.

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) is widely credited as the founder of modern community organizing, now more commonly known as grassroots organizations. He also wrote the book Rules for Radicals.

He was not a well-loved man, and received as much criticism and he did praise for his pot-stirring. He brought attention to poverty and poor communities in the U.S., focusing on African American ghettos in major cities. In the 1930s, Alinsky organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood and founded the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country.

His activities were notable and memorable. But it was his book (1971), "Rules for Radicals," that this left-wing community organizer outlined his methods for instigating change that he is best known. Many of the tactics he spoke about -- such as exploiting resentment and pitting oneself against the establishment -- are the cornerstones of Gingrich's strategy for securing the Republican presidential nomination.

A few quotes (not taken out of context) from the book-

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer. (Introduction to book)

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...."

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...."

"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...."

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly...

Tactics in the Rules for Radicals

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky was an unconventional, award-winning, peace activist and community mobilizer. For instance, just before he died suddenly from a heart attack at 71, he gave an interview to Playboy.

PLAYBOY: Having accepted your own mortality, do you believe in any kind of afterlife?

ALINSKY: Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not "Is there life after death?" but "Is there life after birth?" I don't know whether there's anything after this or not. I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other and I don't think anybody else has either. But I do know that man's obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let's say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.

PLAYBOY: Why?

ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I've been with the have-nots. Over here, if you're a have-not, you're short of dough. If you're a have-not in hell, you're short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I'll start organizing the have-nots over there.

PLAYBOY: Why them?

ALINSKY: They're my kind of people.

There is no question about it, Newt Gingrich is a Saul Alinsky Republican. 

If you read through the tactics, you have the Gingrich playbook- ridicule, push negative, blind side, polarize, and disregard for morals. While these tactics work in starting a revolution and mobilizing a cause, it begs the question- does it have a place within a party race? Sure these tactics make it impossible for your opponent to respond and overcome. But should these tactics be used within the party? Gingrich isn't trying to mobilize a new cause. He is trying to promote himself. But his tactics of insulting and blind-siding his same party members- is that wise? Is polarizing the Republican party the right thing to do when running for the privilege to be their representative and leader? Could Alinsky tactics cause more harm than good within a party? Or is this Gingrich's motive? These tactics build up Newt, but do not help the party. Is he looking to splinter the GOP?

We have had Reagan Democrats, Rockefeller Republicans and even Goldwater Republicans. And now, Gingrich has brought us Alinsky Republicans. Is there room for a lack of decency, so much ridicule, and unethical means in the family values party?? (And how would Ronald Reagan feel about that?)

A quick look at the FL polls before they all change again

Let's take a quick look at the FL polls before everything changes all over again. This is honestly the craziest thing I have ever seen. Romney is ahead, ahead, ahead, and then Gingrich comes out as the biggest jerk alive, and suddenly Gingrich jumps 20 points? And then, in those 5 days that are missing in the middle there, Gingrich slowly slips back down, and Romney scoots a wee bit up. And now, incomprehensibly, they are pretty much tied in Florida?
Unfortunately, this yet again means that the debate on Thursday night is going to change everything. At least, that is what we have seen every.single.freaking.debate. thus far.
Do we really want to see Romney and Gingrich go round and round again? I submit no. But that won't change anything. I've looked online and can't figure out who will be hosting the debate tomorrow night. It is being co-sponsored by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida, and the Hispanic Leadership Network. My guess is it won't be John King alone up there. But I really do hope we see John King attack Newt.
Expect the questions tomorrow night to be focused considerably on illegal immigration, and health care for lower and middle class families. These are the issues the rest of the country thinks matters to Floridians. Really, most Floridians are very focused on education, the military/defense spending, and taxes. Floridians don't have to pay state income taxes, and therefore are very aware of their federal tax burden. They are also very interested in relations with Cuba. (Oh heavens, please, no one bring up the Elian issues! Terri Schiavo was bad enough! And for the love, NO Casey Anthony!) I, for one, would love to hear their opinions on improving relations with Cuba now, and not just after Fidel finally kicks it. And I think we can all expect to hear Newt rant on and on about how he is going to build a colony on the moon- you know, with all of that money we have lying around!

** Update** I asked CNN via Twitter who was moderating the debate. Response?

AC360 

@erinannie Wolf Blitzer and then #AC360 hosts the after-party

State of the Union- I watch this stuff so you don't have to

First, the absolute, no question about it, highlight of the night was seeing Rep. Gabby Giffords walk into the room. The cheering was loud and heart felt. And I know I'm not alone when I say I cried when I saw her.
As for the speech-
In short, if you like big government, and think that the government should control all aspects of your life while asking you to pay more for it, this was a good State of the Union (SOTU). 
If you are not a big fan of big government, you probably hated this speech. 
Some key points-
Without mentioning fracking, he said he wanted to open up domestic oil and gas reserves. (Also didn't mention Keystone.)
He wants to create enough clean energy to power 3 million homes a year. Let's see... that's almost enough to power my home county.
He will "create new jobs tomorrow" by putting Americans back to work repairing our roads and other blue collar work. In other words, he'll tax the rich, to pay for jobs for the middle class, that will be entirely dependent on the government now. 
If government forces new regulations on Americans, it creates jobs! That's how capitalism works!
As if he hasn't already created enough big government and regulation, he wants to create a new oversight/police group. One more thing taxes can pay for. Yippee.  
He wants the money we are saving from no longer being in Iraq to go to nation building here at home. Fist-bump Ron Paul.
Oh and in one of the more incredulous moments of federal government getting too intrusive he wants to "tell states" to pass a law requiring a mandatory age for students to stay in high school (18). Because federal requirements on schools has gone so well. (coughNCLBcough)
I think Hilary Clinton may be wearing a bumpit in her hair.
Also, VP Biden is going to pee his pants if he keeps drinking that much water.
I don't know who that blond chick is on camera, but she's about to nod off live on tv.
He wants to raise taxes on the rich, which is something only people who are not rich think is fair. "He has more, so he should have to share more!" How is that fair? What is fair is an equal flat tax.
And then, in the best moment of hypocrisy in a very long time, the man who cut military spending and has put a freeze on defense spending, took the glory for Seal Team Six apprehending and obliterating Osama bin Laden. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Gov Mitch Daniels of Indiana gave the GOP response. Here are some quotes from that-
"We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves."
‎"If we fail to act to grow the private sector and save the safety net, nothing else will matter much"
Republicans will speak for those "who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them"
"We will advance our positive suggestions with confidence, because we know that Americans are still a people born to liberty."  

Thoughts on the NBC Debate

A few mostly unfiltered thoughts on the NBC debate-
Newt's personality is a major problem for me. If you recall, at one point he was my second favorite choice. And may have even been my first choice. But right now he has proven himself to be so arrogant, grandiose, and quite frankly a complete a** hole, that I want to see him defeated more than I want to see my own guy win!
He doesn't address the accusations (of ethical violations, cheating, etc). He shrugs it off, flips it around, and insults the questioner. I HATE this style of debate and personality. To me there is nothing more aggravating than someone who thinks they are right because they refuse to admit they are wrong, even when the facts are stacked against them.
This debate is annoying and boring. Allowing Romney and Gingrich to go on sparring for 9 straight minutes isn't helping anyone. Newt clearly cannot function without validation, and the silences are just awkward.
Mitt did a great job of taking questions, and instead of getting defensive about it, flipping it around and talking about policy.
It irritates me to no end that the debates are wasting time on the personal issues, and then asking the same policy questions over and over. We learned nearly nothing new in this debate except that Dr. Ron Paul can give a coherent explanation end of life and do not resuscitate procedures. (Seriously? Terri Schiavo, NBC? What the hell??)
I actually found myself wishing they would involve Santorum and Paul more because I was so tired of the sparring. But I must say that I think Mitt wiped the floor with Newt.
And as for the completely outrageous claims by Newt that he is NOT Washington Establishment?? I'll let Jon Stewart respond for me-  (I may have made the same exact befuddled and exasperated noises of shock as he utters here)- (while this whole thing is awesome, the most awesomeness starts around 5:30 in)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - The Gingrich Who Stole South Carolina
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The importance of double checking sources- different numbers!

Here's an excellent example of why you should always double check your sources and get more than one source when citing numbers, and why you should never trust just one news source. Three major, and usually reliable, news sources are providing different numbers on what the current GOP delegate count is- CNN even has 2 different pages with different numbers!
To be able to understand the differences in these numbers (which actually are all right) you have to know the finer points and rules of delegate allocation. The best explanation I have found for this is on the Washington Post here.
So which of the following counts should you believe? I'd go with the Washington Post. It is including the "pledged" delegates from future primaries/caucuses that have not yet been held.

CNN delegate calculator

Source: CNN

A different CNN page with delegate calculator

Source: CNN

Washington Post Delegate Counts

Source: Washington Post

NY Times delegates!

Source: New York Times

It's all a numbers game- polls, delegates, and what comes next!

This Republican race is truly unprecedented. We have no historical model to follow, no pattern to expect to emerge. We have four candidates in the race, three have wins, and the fourth one is the only one who has vowed to never drop out of the race! So what happens next? The candidates start looking at the delegate numbers and the polls and weighing likelihood.

• Total Number of delegates: 2286
• Unallocated delegates: 2229
• Number of delegates needed to win: 1144

Gingrich - 25 delegates
Romney- 14
Santorum- 8
Paul - 10

Take a second look at those numbers. Ron Paul who has not won a state, has more delegates than Rick Santorum who can now claim Iowa.

Florida comes next- Jan 31- and it has 50 delegates in a winner takes all state. If you recall, Rudy Giuliani staked it all on winning FL in 2008 (which backfired on him). Five days later will be Nevada with 28 delegates in a proportional allocation state. In other words, win FL you take home 50 delegates. But in NV each candidate may take home a few delegates proportional to how many people have voted for them (which is how Paul has delegates without winning a state).

In 2008 Romney won Nevada in a landslide victory (but no one noticed as they were all focused on the bloodbath in South Carolina).

The pattern in this race has been band wagon mentality all the way. The man that has the best showing in the debate win that week's vote. There is absolutely no clear front-runner, and no one obvious path to follow yet. There are 2 debates this week, which means there are two more chances for upsets and changes.

So let's take a look at the FL numbers-

First, let's discuss the graph and not the actual numbers. Look at the green Gingrich line. He was low, he was high, he dropped, and now, as of today, he's going up again. And there's the red Cain line. Same thing- he's low, he's high, he drops. And then there is Romney with the purple line. He's fairly steady since the summer, with an uptick in the last three weeks, but a sudden fall as Gingrich jumps. Santorum and Paul have remained steady below 12% continuously.
Personally, if I was Santorum or Paul, I'd skip Florida and move on to Nevada. Why? You know you will never win Florida, and it is a winner take all state. Any time spent there is a waste of time and money where you could be elsewhere winning delegates. UNLESS, your goal is not to win the state, but to make you take away support from either Romney or Gingrich to keep them from winning.
I'll be back around later tonight to share thoughts on the debate this evening.

So now- Nevada, and then the slightly less than Super Tuesday. Nevada will holds its proportional caucus on Feb 4. There are few, if any, recent and reliable polls coming out of Nevada yet. But be looking for them to come today soon- like today or tomorrow probably. If it isn't heavily favoring Romney, consider it to be a big surprise. And if you live in Nevada, brace yourselves- the robocalls and pollsters are about to start coming. (And tell the truth to the pollsters!)

Just three days after Nevada comes the mini Super Tuesday. Colorado (36 proportional), Minnesota (40 proportional), and Missouri (52 proportional) will vote on Feb 7. Maine (24 proportional) votes over the course of a week, ending Feb 11. That's 152 proportional delegates in one week, plus the 28 proportional in Nevada. If Florida doesn't produce a clear front runner (and it won't), this race continues to be a massive battle through this first Super Tuesday. After that, the candidates can take quick naps, because the next primary day isn't for 3 more weeks, but is a much bigger Super Tuesday.

In other words, this race is far from defining a winner!

Goodbye SC, Hello Florida

Well, South Carolina, it has been one wild week. When we arrived there were 6 men in the race, and Romney was headed for a virtual coronation. Today as we leave, there are 4 men in the race, Gingrich has surged, Iowa recounts and recants, and this picture of Mitt and Ann Romney doing their own laundry made my whole week.
We worked our tails off this week. I don't regret one second of it. We saw some amazing hard work by volunteers who paid a lot of money to travel here, taking off work, and leaving families behind, to get involved in a cause they believe in. I saw dozens of volunteers willingly going out into the rain and wind (tornado warnings!!) to hand out literature, knock doors, and shake signs yesterday. That takes real dedication and passion! Amazing!
The team of people who work behind the scenes to organize events, get bodies out to the events, work the press phones, and so much more are incredible. They spend weeks on the road, living in hotels, working 14-16 hour days, barely even having time to eat, keeping their spirits and energy high, all to work for the cause. It really is a unique and impressive thing to be a part of.
I'm so grateful for the opportunity to be a little piece of the big picture this past week. All of the work and exhaustion was totally worth it, even if we didn't win. But we got the message out there and we still have 47 more states to get through. And you just might see me pop up in another key state soon... I've caught the campaign bug!

Campaign Life

Last night was just plain awesome. I got to go to Charleston for the CNN debate, and be in the room live. It was so interesting to see things in person. Here's a few thoughts about how it was different in person.
First, if you have never been to a live televised event, you probably don't know there's a producer running around, telling the audience when to applaud, when to applaud louder, when to be back in their seats, etc. When the room is clapping so loud that you can't hear John King open the show? There's a producer frantically waving, telling the audience to clap louder and louder.
The biggest news making moment out of the debate was the very first opening question, directed at Newt Gingrich about his ex-wife's allegations. It is true that Newt's first nasty jab at John King where he said he was appalled that he would start off a presidential debate that way, and went on to use those ever popular words "liberal elite media." That comment got a standing ovation. I won't lie. I even applauded loudly. We're Republicans! That's what we do! We applaud when people say bad things about the liberal elite media! But NO ONE was applauding in support for Newt dodging the issues about cheating on his wife. Newt did a fantastic job of flipping the situation into something else. Good for him. But it doesn't change the fact that he's a lying, cheating bastard.
Next, CNN bringing out Herman Cain this morning to talk about the situation? Are you kidding me? You bring out the womanizer the GOP ran out of town to talk about Newt?? Yeah, I don't think so!
Today (Friday) was my first 19 hour work day in a very long time. I'm exhausted! But in less than 24 hours it will all be over. Today was incredible, and I loved every second of it. We had 180 volunteers come from around the country and the state, to help Get Out The Vote (GOTV). They would walk in the door, and we'd give them a job, flip them around, and send them off to do the good work. We had them going door to door, making GOTV calls, attending rallies, and more. It was a crazy day trying to manage that many people. Plus in the late afternoon I got a call saying I needed to get up to Greenville and bring materials. I dropped everything to drive the 100 miles up there, and attended a rally while I was there.
Tomorrow will be even bigger and crazier. Rallies, voting, and more. I can't wait. I really need to go to bed.
Pictures coming soon!