Rudy!

Here's the latest ad for Rudy. Whaddya think?

Scientific Proof About Who Will Win in 2008

How much does voice matter?

"Voice matters -- it's what sells," says John Daly, a University of Texas communications professor who has written a book about persuasion. University of California at Los Angeles psychology professor Albert Mehrabian even claims to have quantified how important a voice is. When we are deciding whether we like the person delivering a message, tone of voice accounts for 38% of our opinion, body language for 55% and the actual words for just 7%, his studies suggest.

Keen to preserve the appearance of authenticity, the presidential campaigns said they aren't using voice coaches. (Sen. Clinton's campaign alone didn't return emails seeking comment). Voice coaches generally won't say whether they are helping a specific candidate, although none of those commenting in this article are involved in campaigns.

*****

Pitch variability, or inflection, may be almost as important as pitch because it suggests passion and energy. On that measure, Sen. Clinton outdistanced the pack. The difference between her highest- and lowest-pitched words was almost triple the score of Mr. Romney, who had the least inflection.

Mr. Romney also had the least difference between his loudest and softest words -- 16 decibels compared with 30 decibels for Sen. Obama, who modulated his volume the most. Those variations in pitch and volume, plus switch-ups in speed, create what UCLA's Mr. Mehrabian calls "arousal" in an audience. That draws in listeners by creating excitement.

"Emotionally, [voters] will want to embrace your ideas because you have touched them with your passion," adds Richard Greene, a Los Angeles public-speaking coach.

Do I want to be aroused by a Presidential candidate's speech?

There is no question that image matters. Reading this article though, makes me think something is missing in their voice analysis profiles.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Rudy Inspires Fear: That Might Get Him Elected

I'm reading this Drudge-linked article in the New York Observer about Rudy's terror-inducing tenure in New York City. Liberals and progressives there remain "in denial" about his ability to win the Republican nomination and the whole kit and kaboodle.

Of course Rudy can win! At a talk he gave in Houston, he received adoring standing ovations. Plural. The crowd was overwhelmingly conservative. But this is the argument against Rudy:

Mr. Rangel said that he was nevertheless confident that Mr. Giuliani’s fortunes would eventually decline, whether because of the incongruity of his social positions with those of the base of the Republican Party, or because of his unusually eventful family history.

Referring to Andrew Giuliani’s reportedly distant relationship with his father since the ugly bust-up of Mr. Giuliani’s marriage with Donna Hanover, Mr. Rangel said it was because “sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands.”

This argument depends on one of the cornerstones of anti-Conservative thinkers: Republicans, and Conservatives specifically, consider "family values" to be the defining issue in voting. Even though one of the greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, was himself divorced and remarried and had strained relationships with his children, Democrats can't believe that a guy like Rudy or Fred Thompson for that matter will be elected.

But that premise is and always has been wrong. Republicans are a diverse, and shall I say it, tolerant lot. We even have gay and black friends! It's only shocking to Leftists drunk on their own moral authority.

It is really the Left's bias and discrimination against Republicans and conservatives that blinds them to the possibilities of a socially liberal, economically and defense-conservative Republican.

And remember this too: Republicans would love a President who takes it to the Left. One of the criticisms of Bush is that he was too genial, too seeking of common ground, too caring about what the Left thinks. Rudy gets points because he's unmoved by Leftist hate. That buys him a significant amount of grace among the conservatives. The more the Left goes at Rudy and he fights back, the more love he'll receive.

The Left should get used to the idea of another Republican president.

Illegal Immigration: Why Didn't You Speak Up Sooner, Rudy?

Ace goes into detail about his reasons for ignoring Illegal Immigration as an issue for so long. They closely mirror my own. He also imagines why Rudy might have flipped his opinion, too. It's worth reading the whole thing.

It's important to note that the President drove this issue. He only talked about Illegal Immigration extensively in front of Hispanic audiences while campaigning, and mostly kept mum in front of Anglos. As I said before, I knew the President's position and voted for him in spite of it. I am not a one-issue voter which is why Rudy Giuliani has more than an ice-cube's chance in hell with me and with other Republicans.

For the electorate, the issue bubbled beneath the surface. No one (no legislator, the President) seemed serious about doing anything about the issue. My feeling was that the best thing that could happen with Bush as President was nothing. In fact, by pushing the issue, President Bush inadvertently became a catalyst to reveal Americans' true feelings on the subject.

Ace is right. No one wanted or wants to be perceived as a racist pig about Illegal Immigration. Most people like their Mexican brethren in the particular but are disturbed in the abstract. That is, people like the guy mowing the lawn but they know that there is an ugly side to the undocumented workers on a grand scale. And there is, as the Newark murder demonstrates.

By the way, family members in New Jersey knew NOTHING from the nightly news, local radio or newspaper about the killers being illegal, or members of a gang, or accused of raping a five year old. When I told the relative the details, she was outraged. The media is committing suicide by so selectively giving the news. The bias and determined desire to slant the political outcome is outrageous. I suggest getting news from blogs, the layers of fact-checkers (called informed readers who can do a Google search) tend to keep them honest:

Somewhere in all the discussion over why this crime happened must be someone to stand up and demand action taken against illegal aliens, one of whom was involved in this heinous act. Not only was Jose Lachira Carranza an illegal alien, but he had already been indicted on two other crimes - a rape of a 5-year old over a period of weeks and on which he was released on $150,000 bail, and a barroom brawl.

When hard news is suppressed, when everyone in the media and in Washington and in business unite about an agenda, it's difficult to get straight facts so one can make a clear-headed decision about something like Illegal Immigration. But the facts are coming out now and Americans aren't too keen on what they are seeing.

Illegal immigration truly was an issue the polarized the country. On one hand, there were the elites (political, media, academic and business) and on the other there were those who had eyes to see and looked around at the evidence. Finally.

We have President Bush to thank for revealing the will of the people. Politicians are reacting to reflect that will. That means a lot of candidates will flip-flop. I'll give the last word to Ace:

Politicians generally lead -- but lead from the middle. They rarely like being far out of the soft fat comfortable middle of consensus opinion. And where that middle has moved so dramatically, it seems little wonder that our would-be leaders' deepest-held principles have similarly migrated.

Personally, I'd give him a pass for past panders, so long as I were convinced he's right on the issue now and truly intends to govern the way I want on the issue. I'm actually not convinced of that -- and it's up to him to persuade me. No more talk of a "highly technological fence," please, unless that's mentioned after a decidedly low-tech fence across the whole border. He needs to make a statement on immigration equal to his vow to appoint judges like Alito and Roberts if he wants credibility. A tangible standard he can't easily chat his way back from.

And if not, well, then I write him off. We don't need Bush II on this issue.

Abortion & Presidential Candidates

In a perfect world, every baby conceived would have his or her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness honored. In a perfect world....

In the real world, a bad Supreme Court decision finds imaginary rights and prevents the states the freedom to make law. Roe and abortion hang like guillotines over the necks of Republican candidates. Mitt Romney, I think, will lose his political head about this issue. His sudden pro-Life flip is politically expedient and unprincipled. Maybe conservatives will give him a pass for this. Somehow, I doubt it.

Rudy Guiliani has taken a different tack. This one elucidated by Rand Simberg:

"I have stated a personal belief in a woman's right to choose. But I also have a strong belief in judges who follow the Constitution. I admire George Bush's choice of Supreme Court judges--Roberts and Alito. I wish that I'd made them myself, and I hope to have an opportunity to make similar, and (if that's possible) even better ones, who will interpret the Constitution in the manner intended, and not make new law out of old parchment, no matter how worthy the goal. While I personally favor a woman's right to choose, I think that Roe v. Wade was a mistake, and that this should be a matter for the states to determine. You can be sure that, if elected, this will be the criterion that I use to select judicial nominees, rather than a desire for a particular outcome that I happen to personally favor."

This is an intellectually honest position. It gives power to the people, where the power belongs. I think people, even conservatives will buy it. Do you?

I would vote for Rudy and his abortion position as stated above.
	Yes, I am a conservative
	Yes, I am a libertarian
	Yes, I am a democrat
	No, I am conservative
	No, I am a libertarian
	No, I am a democrat
pollcode.com free polls

Rudy's Communication Style

Anyone who listens to Rudy Giuliani talk knows he's the prototypical New Yorker: Excitable, fast-talking, impatient, expressive, and sometimes downright rude (at least to buttoned-up types). Rudy mixed it up as Mayor of New York with the press, but the press were New Yorkers, generally, too. They all spoke the same language.

I wonder, how Rudy will be perceived and treated by the National Media? They hate George W. Bush, the "cowboy". Well, Rudy is more cowboy in his rhetoric than Bush has ever been. (I think Bush is at his best when he lets rip and goes "cowboy". It plays great to the average person and a big reason he got elected over the carefully coiffed and worded Kerry.) Here is Rudy talking about "non-binding resolutions".

What do you think? I think the Press will spin him as not "presidential timbre". They will do that with all the Republicans, of course for various reasons. (McCain--old, Romney--Mormon, Newt--too much baggage, the list is endless. The Democrats, in contrast, have two excellent choices in Obama and Clinton. Ha!) Romney, in contrast, is smooth as pasteurized butter.

Will the emphasis on form, and GW Bush's tendency to be rhetorically maladroit, lead people to choose a smoother customer than Rudy?