Armchair President on YATG

[starcom]

The Armchair President is our guest this week on show # 56 of You Are The Guest.

Patrick and I discuss his non-traditional campaign in depth including his lack of political experience and his solutions for the problems that face our country today. Patrick describes his view of how our Constitution has eroded, and shares whom he would choose as his Vice Presidential running mate if he received the Democratic Nomination for 2008.

You can listen to the show here at Podcast Alley,

or visit our webpage at http://www.youaretheguest.com/index.html

Thanks for listening!

bg

[rumorgirls]

Go "D's"! I'd vote for ya.

[armchair president]

Well done Bill. You caught me off guard and I got flustered and never recovered. It was my impression that we would talk issues and since that is my focus. I could do that in any state, even one where my father is sitting in the room waiting for me to take him in for x-rays after our interview and then back to UCLA the next day to deal with his complications from his lung cancer surgery, as was the case.

I will help you promote this because it is rare that anyone gets the better of me; In my history, I have went head-to-head with leading scientists, business executives, and institutional investors. This awful interview is my own fault and everyone should hear this – it is several lessons in being an idiot and a fool all rolled into one and I am the star. Come on Bill don't make people click through to your website to get to the show make it easy for us lazy clickers you'll get more listens - Click Here to Listen. (http://www.youaretheguest.com/pods/yatg56.mp3)

I also decided not to postpone this interview because I assumed that a fellow podcaster would have shown common courtesy and respect by not talking over me, interrupting me, and giving me no space to even answer at times. In fairness, Bill asked me if I would have said anything differently and I said no, what is said, is said. This is true as I needed to be in a different mindset for this interview than I was – it was all bad, check it out if you do not believe me.

I am still shaken because a couple of days later, I learned that an old high school girlfriend just died at age 38 from an embolism that caused a fatal heart attack and the embolism came from metastatic colon cancer that she didn’t know she had yet; so, I have been more preoccupied with other thoughts recently and all of them disturbing.

As I am mending my psyche I want to leave one thought associated with this that I am ashamed I was unable to formulate during the show. I am not doing anything special and Bill is right in that it does not appear to be working; however, Bill is wrong about defending the traditional approach for campaigning. That approach has handed over power from people to special interest groups and arguably caused the state of affairs in our country today. Bill's arguement is faulty because the foundation is flawed - traditional thoughts and actions whether applied to campaigning or something else will lead to stagnation over time by definition. I believe that is why our country is in the position it is currently.

Bill 1
Patrick -1 (I deserve to lose a point because I did such a poor job)

[starcom]

Patrick, I stand by the statement that "if you don't win, you can't go to work for your supporters". That's not flawed in any way, shape, or form.

I was open to hear about how your non-traditional campaign would get you on the ballot. In my opinion, a traditional campaign is the only realistic way of making that happen, unless someone has an extraordinary plan and the means of executing that plan. I didn't hear that extraordinary plan from you in our interview.

For anyone that wants to find out what your plan is, or isn't, all they have to do is listen to the show. From there I'm confident they can make up their own minds whether or not to support you.

Unlike you, I do have political campaign experience on a state level. I was the media and advertising manager for Stewart Iverson's first two campaigns in 1989, and 1992. http://www.stewiverson.com/ During the time I campaigned with Stewart, I worked with Governor Terry Branstad, and Congressman Fred Grandy (aka Gopher from "The Love Boat") on Stewart's behalf. It was incredibly hard work, lots of meetings, face-to-face events, shaking hands at meet and greets, answering tough questions, door-to-door campaigning, putting up signs, doing interviews, buying ads and air time, late night strategy meetings, you name it, we did it. Each time was a long 12 week grind, but the feeling of accomplishment on election night was something I'll always remember. Stewart was able to represent the district and his supporters because he won. And he won because many volunteers like myself helped him get his message to the voters in a traditional campaign style.

Here's what surprises me most. You've never run for public office, and yet you say that I'm wrong in defending the traditional way of campaigning. I defend it because I put my time, energy, and talents on the line in two successful campaigns. What's your political track record look like?

May I suggest that the traditional approach of campaigning, love it or hate it, is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie.

My opinion is based on experience and observation. Our political system today is the evolution of a political process that for the most part has always been. In our interview you brought up the "founding fathers". The majority of our "founding fathers" were the wealthiest Americans alive. Among the motivations for of these wealthy Americans for starting the Revolution were the prospect to acquire more land to add to their wealth (King George wouldn't let them), and they didn't like paying high British taxes because it ate into their profits. The soldiers of the Revolution were the poorest Americans alive. Hypocrisy? Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of constructing the articles of freedom while they were slave holders themselves. Finally, show me a politcal campaign in the history of this country that everyone was happy with.

And here's another thought to consider. I watch pro football on TV every week during the season, and I think I have a good handle on what teams play well and why they do so. Because I played football as a kid I can recognize sets, coverages, and strategy as a viewer today. But, in no way would I ever consider myself capable of coaching an NFL team. If I was hired as an NFL coach, I'd be lost and the team would suffer because I wouldn't have the in-depth experience that the job requires.

Patrick, you're a good guy, and a good American. But I wonder if your imagination has got the best of you.

I admire you for trying. Although you won't earn my vote, I hope we part as friends as I wish you good luck with your campaign.

[Lizard King]

I'm gonna check out my second episode of YATG. The first was Danny Golden from Wonderful World of Danny.
I'm going to listen because I have been listening to Armchair President and I like what he has to say. Our current administration is not only not working, they are detrimental. On his show, all Patrick DOES is explain solutions to our problems, unlike anyone else I am hearing today.
I guess I'll hold off on anything else I have to say until I have heard this episode.

[BSquared]

I've listened to many episodes of YATG and a couple of episodes of Armchair President. From what I've heard of both of them I doubt I agree with either of their political viewpoints.

However, I think Bill's interview of Patrick was pretty fair...he gave Patrick no harder time than the Irish guy who was plugging the 9/11 "the government did it all" theory.

I actually agree with Patrick to some extent that traditional campaigning doesn't guarantee the best results...money and sound bites come into play more than they should. However, I also think Bill made an excellent point that even if Patrick is ready for a new style of campaign the punters (voters) are generally not there yet and you'll have to make some kind of connection with the masses...not just the few who already think the way you do. In the world we live having good ideas on how to solve "the issues" is simply not enough. You gotta play in the sandpit with the rest of the kids and that means campaigning.

I found Patrick's post above really quite disappointing. The 'poor me' excuses are not what I would want from my future President (and yes I know it's not my future president but, like the rest of the world I get affected by your President's silly decisions all the time). If you think Bill is the worst interviewer you would face in a real campaign I'd suggest throwing in the towel right about now Patrick. Bill was fair, gave you ample opportunity to clarify your points and was not insulting. You will not get that level of fair play in the unlikely event you actually get your name on the ballot.

[starcom]

If you think Bill is the worst interviewer you would face in a real campaign I'd suggest throwing in the towel right about now Patrick. Bill was fair, gave you ample opportunity to clarify your points and was not insulting. You will not get that level of fair play in the unlikely event you actually get your name on the ballot.

Thanks Bernadette! Well said.

[armchair president]

However, I think Bill's interview of Patrick was pretty fair...he gave Patrick no harder time than the Irish guy who was plugging the 9/11 "the government did it all" theory.
Comparing me to a conspiracy theorist? I would not say that an equitable comparison.

I found Patrick's post above really quite disappointing. The 'poor me' excuses are not what I would want from my future President
I did not make poor me excuses. I gave credit to Bill for getting the better of me - period. There was things going on that may help frame the pathetic interview I gave.

If you think Bill is the worst interviewer you would face in a real campaign I'd suggest throwing in the towel right about now Patrick. Bill was fair, gave you ample opportunity to clarify your points and was not insulting. You will not get that level of fair play in the unlikely event you actually get your name on the ballot.

I never said, nor would say that Bill is the worst interviewer. On the contrary I think and have stated in writing at a review on iTunes of his show that I think he is quite gifted. No, what I said, was I thought he would be more respectful - taking out loaded questions, talking over my replies, etc. as I stated above. You are correct, none of those techniques make anyone a bad reviewer. On the contrary the most popular shows Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, Rush, etc. all use these techniques and that is part of their popularity.

[BSquared]

Comparing me to a conspiracy theorist? I would not say that an equitable comparison.


I'm sure you wouldn't. But from my perspective both of you (the conspiracy theorist and yourself) are passionate campaigners for a 'fringe' activity. I'm not saying that your views on the issues are 'fringe' but your methodology for becoming President is as extreme/out there/fringe as the conspiracy theorist's campaign.


I did not make poor me excuses. I gave credit to Bill for getting the better of me - period. There was things going on that may help frame the pathetic interview I gave.

Sorry. Still sounds like 'poor me' to me. I've worked on a campaign or two in my time and have worked for dozens of politicians. The few that I admire had a couple of things in common and one of those things is that they never never ever offer excuses when someone (a journalist, an opposition candidate, a potential voter etc) 'gets the better of them'. I have no doubt that the the rough week you were having affected your performance and as a person I feel sympathy for that but as a potential voter I don't want to hear excuses. As a voter what that does for me is say "oh that's his MO is it?..,then he'll be quick to have excuses as soon as he breaks his first campaign promise".


I never said, nor would say that Bill is the worst interviewer. On the contrary I think and have stated in writing at a review on iTunes of his show that I think he is quite gifted. No, what I said, was I thought he would be more respectful - taking out loaded questions, talking over my replies, etc. as I stated above.

You're correct that 'worst' wasn't the right word for me to use. But if you think Bill was disrespectful I would repeat my advice for you to throw in the towel right about now. Bill was far more respectful of you and your ideas than 99.99% of journalists or voters will ever be. It is an interview show after all...If all you wanted is an opportunity to talk endlessly and not have your views or ideas questioned in any way then you should have stuck to your own podcast.

Again, if I were a potential voter for you all I would think upon seeing all this is if this is how you react to a relatively friendly interview how on earth are you going to cope as President of the biggest organisation in the sandpit? I'm sure you'll have tough weeks then too and I'd bet my entire personal wealth that hundreds of people will be far more disrespectful and vitriolic to you every single hour of every single day of your Presidency.

You are correct, none of those techniques make anyone a bad reviewer. On the contrary the most popular shows Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, Rush, etc. all use these techniques and that is part of their popularity.

I've not seen/heard much content by the people you mention but I think you're being awfully disingineous in your claims that Bill treated you as badly as Rush would treat a leftie who was silly enough to try to engage him.

[docsnavely]

Wow, who knew Bill could cause such a storm? You hellraiser you! :p

[derailment of heated, entertaining discussion]

On not-so off related topic, has anyone seen the PSA banner that's been floating at the top of PCA?

This is actually a very big problem in my opinion. Kinda relates to the "Vote or Die" atrocity of a publicity stunt that some rapper did last election..... Butter. Butter's better than what's on the ballot.

[Obscure Simpson's Reference]

"Three cheers for the Inatimate Carbon Rod"

[/Obscure Simpson's Reference]
[/derailment of heated, entertaining discussion]

[AaronfromQC]

Josh, I understand your point about the banner ads that have been running but the point of them has been missed. They are trying to say that you have to pay attention to the issues or you might as well vote for a stick of butter. That's how you end up with Bob Ney, Tom Delay or god forbid George Bush in office. Perhaps they haven't made their point clear enough but that's the purpose of those PSA's.

Vote or Die was a good idea wrapped behind a really bad leader, Sean Combs. He was simply trying to revive Rock The Vote but instead of creating a different group, he should have supported Rock the Vote. I registered to vote because of Rock the Vote so I know it works.

I haven't listened to YATG but a show that is called You Are The Guest should treat their guests as....ummm....guests.....So when a guest feels insulted, that does mean the host did fail in some way. But the guest should also be prepared for an interview so it's a two sided coin.

[armchair president]

Patrick, I stand by the statement that "if you don't win, you can't go to work for your supporters". That's not flawed in any way, shape, or form.

It is flawed, because running a traditional campaign means you are not working for the people that vote for you - you are working for the special interest groups that helped you bankroll the media. If you want to include special interest group into your definition of supporters then we are on the same page, but with different viewpoints.

Here's what surprises me most. You've never run for public office, and yet you say that I'm wrong in defending the traditional way of campaigning. I defend it because I put my time, energy, and talents on the line in two successful campaigns. What's your political track record look like?

May I suggest that the traditional approach of campaigning, love it or hate it, is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie.
Absolutely and that is because it has nothing to do with running a campaign. You are being inconsistent - that's the problem and where you lose credibility. Why are you podcasting - or for that matter using a computer? Those are not traditional, you should be on the radio and using a typewriter. You don't because you are smart and see beyond the stagnation that is inherent in tradition.

The traditional way of campaigning does not provide leaders that work for America. The traditional campaigning approach selects for people that are fund raisers not leaders; the traditional campaigning system selects for people who do not put forth the best interests of people and America, but politicians that put forth what's best for their special interest supporters.

Now your experience is vastly superior to mine in terms of assessing what I should do to launch a traditional campaign or what other candidates are doing. I give you that hands down, but that is not the point you have raised.

Also, whether my untraditional approach will be successful or not. It may not be and you could be right. However is the traditional way right? No. All you have to do is look at it's fruits.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." Thomas Paine about breaking the traditonal hold England had over America.


Our political system today is the evolution of a political process that for the most part has always been. In our interview you brought up the "founding fathers". The majority of our "founding fathers" were the wealthiest Americans alive. Among the motivations for of these wealthy Americans for starting the Revolution were the prospect to acquire more land to add to their wealth (King George wouldn't let them), and they didn't like paying high British taxes because it ate into their profits. The soldiers of the Revolution were the poorest Americans alive. Hypocrisy? Don't get me started on the hypocrisy of constructing the articles of freedom while they were slave holders themselves.

So your point is that we should still be ruled under the monarchy of England? Well, maybe you are a little bit consistent with the tradition is the way to go poin of view. I would argue that either by design or the law of unintended consequences that America was made better by the actions of these rich people. I have no problem with rich people, poor people, sexist people, whatever ist you want to attach to them running our country as long as the result is the leadership that they provide are independent of their own shortcomings and it benefits America.

Finally, show me a politcal campaign in the history of this country that everyone was happy with. Why? Why would everyone ever be happy with anything? As a broadcaster you must know the 1 percent rule. Add in all of the isms and other biases people have and I believe there is no way that everyone can ever be happy about anything - even if you could magically give everyone whatever they defined that would make them happy.

And here's another thought to consider. I watch pro football on TV every week during the season, and I think I have a good handle on what teams play well and why they do so. Because I played football as a kid I can recognize sets, coverages, and strategy as a viewer today. But, in no way would I ever consider myself capable of coaching an NFL team. If I was hired as an NFL coach, I'd be lost and the team would suffer because I wouldn't have the in-depth experience that the job requires.
I would say that we would both be in that situation depending upon the role. If we were to come into a new organization and build the defence and offense from scratch and were expected to design all of the plays and do it for next weeks game. Impossible. If we were called in to examine game film of the chargers and our job was to analyze the mismatches and design what types of plays best utilyze those mismatches on offense and defence and make adjustments as the game developed - that's doable.

Patrick, you're a good guy, and a good American. But I wonder if your imagination has got the best of you.

I admire you for trying. Although you won't earn my vote, I hope we part as friends as I wish you good luck with your campaign.
Thank you Bill. My imagination sees the simplest way to change this country to preserve our status as a nation and our way of life as Americans. I am not looking for your vote. This is the stage for approval. This is the stage for people to say I support this because what we have is not working. The people we elect have placed an additional debt of $40,000 for every man, woman and child in this nation and what have we got for all of this debt? An inconsistent foreign policy, using policy very loosely here. An energy plan, and I use plan here rather loosely as well, that serves no one, but the oil and energy companies, we have virtually no improvement in national security based on spot checks over the last decade; we have a social security system (includes Medicare) that is rapidly heading to bankruptcy - either of the program or our nation; and the list goes on. I am sure you can identify the problems as well as I, they are not hiding.

I may not and in all likelihood will not succeed, but change must begin before it can be successful. Change will not take ahold until it has begun. If it takes ahold now, I am willing to serve. If not, I will try to enable someone else to succeed.

[Lizard King]

I am guessing that Patrick wasn't quite prepared for this YATG. And the fact that it wasn't just a run of the mill Q and A was probably the best thing that could have happened to him. Because I doubt he'll let it happen again.
And as long as it is taken for the learning experience it could be, it's a positive thing.

[starcom]

Patrick, I think you are protesting way too much.

In your first post on this thread, you wrote "I will help you promote this because it is rare that anyone gets the better of me".

May I suggest that this thread has also got the better of you. That would be twice in one week.

Many may see that as far more enlightening, or disturbing than the interview itself.

[docsnavely]

Josh, I understand your point about the banner ads that have been running but the point of them has been missed. They are trying to say that you have to pay attention to the issues or you might as well vote for a stick of butter. That's how you end up with Bob Ney, Tom Delay or god forbid George Bush in office. Perhaps they haven't made their point clear enough but that's the purpose of those PSA's.

Vote or Die was a good idea wrapped behind a really bad leader, Sean Combs. He was simply trying to revive Rock The Vote but instead of creating a different group, he should have supported Rock the Vote. I registered to vote because of Rock the Vote so I know it works.

I haven't listened to YATG but a show that is called You Are The Guest should treat their guests as....ummm....guests.....So when a guest feels insulted, that does mean the host did fail in some way. But the guest should also be prepared for an interview so it's a two sided coin.

Aaron, the point wasn't missed. I just do not see the point in voting if you have no viable candidate. I understand that they're trying to push people to understand the political system and what each candidate stands for, but if you understand them all, and still don't agree with any of them, why vote? Hell, I'd rather write in Donald Duck than vote for anyone I wouldn't support.

I have backed Patrick's ideas since day one, and have been behind Bill since his very first show. It's difficult seeing these two go at it. They are both very good people and both have very reasonable views on how this naion should be, but that in no way means that Bill should have toned down his style. Bill conducted the interview as he always has. If he finds a weakness, he pounces. That's what all good interviewers do. As many have said, Bill was actually much more respectful of Patrick than many reporters will be in the future when Pat's campaign grows.

If Patrick went on the show a bit unprepared for the interview, it was his fault and his fault only. Bill has his set routine on the show. If Patrick didn't know how Bill operates, then it's not Bill's fault for pouncing.

[WyethDigital]

If he finds a weakness, he pounces. That's what all good interviewers do. As many have said, Bill was actually much more respectful of Patrick than many reporters will be in the future when Pat's campaign grows.
I'm not going to defend or condemn this interview. I will say that the goal of an interviewer is not to "find a weakness and pounce." It may be the goal of this style of interview, which I will concede, but for an interview seeking to get out facts, versus a confrontational one (like this appears to have been), the goal is to separate the heart of the story from the chafe. It would appear that Patrick was expecting this kind of interview, while Bill was taking the Mike Wallace approach. If Patrick were unfamiliar with Bill's show, the fault for this miscommunication could be placed squarely on Bill for not communicating the format of his show to Patrick; but since it is apparent that Patrick knew of Bill's show, he should have had some idea of what to expect, and should therefore look upon this as a learning experience.

Look, Patrick, your policy ideas are not fringe, but your ideas about running a populace campaign are revolutionary, and way ahead of their time. Surely you can see why there are those out there that would label you as fringe or dismiss you as a joke? Don't get upset about it, educate. And stay away from name-calling. Guys like Bill have been, and are a part of the system. They're going to be the first to resist change, the hardest to convince, and the longest to hold out against it. Don't concern yourself with converting them. It's a waste of time. Incidentally, I've also worked in political organizations and on campaigns, from working phone banks (when people were still used for those) to canvassing neighborhoods, so I also know what is involved -- just in case someone decides to lob the same stupid and inconsequential "you ain't been in politics" barb at me.

Eric