I got a slightly different impression from the graph than you did. I just thought that the incidence of prostate cancer is lower in UK. there are actually less cases of it, rather than a difference in diagnostic patterns.

I dont know how a higher incidence might reflect on other aspects of our health care (except maybe earlier diagnosis and treatment that doesnt lead to cancer).

So the higher incidence to me, looked like it might be due to less health care for pre-cancer issues thereby leading to more incidents.

just a hypothesis...

If you're going to pick a Republican totem to stroke in the primary shouldn't you at least pick one that won't come back to haunt you in the general election season?

As long as the lie FEELS true, the media is happy to report it as fact!

*

Conservatives get upset anytime anyone points out room for improvement of the United States in any field. Conservatives have a vested political interest in a finding that the US is perfect as it is, and should never change. How the party has changed since the days of Lincoln!

Giuliani's stats almost bear out--but only if you divide the number of survivors by the number of reported cases.

That's enough BS, but why is he citing numbers that are a decade old?

Complete horesshit from top to bottom, mhr. Why not address the actual content, which is that Giuliani told a lie?

Actually, we'd love the USA to be # in a lot of good things having to do with healthcare, and education, and a host of other fields, but under Republican rule, that's not possible.

mhr,

Doesn't this look more like liberals are serving their vested political interests by questioning Giuliani claims that appear to be false? I really think people are challenging Giuliani's facts here, and not trying to blame anything on the U.S.

In my opinion, you really have things twisted around here. Seems like someone else's vested political interests are in play.

Why is there no standards or requirements for accuracy in political campaigning? I mean, advertisements must have some grounding in reality - why don't Republican presidential contenders?

Anybody who has ever looked into the statistics behind diagnosis of prostate cancer knows perfectly well how misleading those statistics can be.

The problem with diagnosis is so deep that many physicians advocate ignoring typical diagnostic techniques because they appear to be virtually worthless in preventing death from prostate cancer.

It's absolutely slimy of Giuliani to seize on this well known and highly controversial problem in diagnosis and act as if it's actually somehow a problem with the health care system in the UK.

Yeah, but this isn't any more dishonest than the claims on the left that our health care system is worse than some other countries because our life expectancy is a little lower than some countries. Once you factor in (i) different reporting conventions for premature babies, (ii) homicides and (iii) motor vehicle accidents, the U.S. life expectancy rate isn't lower than those other countries.

And I don't think single payor will reduce the U.S. homicide rate.

I love when Republicans complaining about "bureaucrats" ruining health care... like there are absolutely NO bureaucrats in private insurance companies that dictate whether you live or die based on a cost/benefit ratio.

Thanks,

Mike

this isn't any more dishonest than the claims on the left that our health care system is worse than some other countries because our life expectancy is a little lower than some countries

Considering that we spend twice as much per capita as some countries, the fact that our system is not clearly superior seems to me like a valid criticism.

And I don't think single payor will reduce the U.S. homicide rate.

No, but a rational firearms policy, like the UK has, would.

Call me crazy, but if I have prostate cancer I'd kind of like to know it.

Why is there no standards or requirements for accuracy in political campaigning? I mean, advertisements must have some grounding in reality - why don't Republican presidential contenders?
Posted by: ckelly

Even here it he People's Republic of Washington our state supreme court just struck down a law making it illegal to purposely lie in a political advertisement, etc. "Free speech," ya know.

What do you expect from "the devil" (per Atrios)?

Discounting the truthiness, let alone truthfullness of Rudy!'s claims, I wonder if the average, let alone median, Joe can afford to make the same health care decisions as the very wealthy Rudy! can.

Why is Japan’'s mortality rate from prostate cancer less than one-third the rate of any of the other countries listed here, including the United States, all of which are industrialized?

My question would be: why is Japan's mortality rate so low? And why are we three times as likely to die from prostate cancer as the Japanese?

Man, you guys miss the point: issues are a vehicle for images.

Giuliani's ad says: 1) I survived cancer, 2) I love America, and 3) I will defend you against those who don't love America, and want you to die of cancer.

NONE of your responses engage any of that imagery.

It's like that fake response that Bill and Hillary did to the Harry and Louise ads, where they were sitting at the table mocking how 'under our plan, people are still going to die...'

They wanted to appear grown up and hip, with a sense of realistic humor, but they absolutely missed why the Harry and Louise ads worked: they acted and appeared to be real people, discussing a real issue the way real people do, and concluding it was spinach -- the hell with it.

Responding AS IF the President and First Lady were also 'just folks', saying "well, people are still gonna die" wasn't exactly helpful. The imagery was wrong.

Ya want to beat an image ad? Come up with a BETTER image. No, citing Japanese health care stats, much less CORRECTING Guiliani's, doesn't cut it.

My question would be: why is Japan's mortality rate so low? And why are we three times as likely to die from prostate cancer as the Japanese? Posted by: fostert

Cancer rates are to some extent cultural as well as genetic - diet, exercise and the environment are all factors.

My guess would be that Japan's lung cancer rate among males may exceed the U.S. for a few years here in the next decade or so because a higher percentage of males 45-65 smoke in Japan than in the U.S.

Call me crazy, but if I have prostate cancer I'd kind of like to know it.

But what if all you know is that you have prostate cancer, but don't know if it's life threatening? What if your knowing you had prostate cancer made you opt for surgery that made you impotent and incontinent, but actually did nothing to lower your risks of death from that cancer, because it wasn't an aggressive type of cancer?

It's worthwhile to note that for many, many, men, they DO have prostate cancer, but it is so slow moving that they may have it for decades and in fact die from something else.

So treating such a cancer can easily introduce a "cure" worse than the disease.

Liberals might vote for a man without a prostate gland, but I doubt conservatives would knowingly vote for a man without one. Whispering time has arrived for the Mayor.

Also missing from the debate is the fact that he had health care available to people of his class and position. The same diagnosis for a growing portion of American families would mean death and financial hardship. What is he saying in the ad, that he only represents the wealthy? What is his solution for the expanding number of people losing health care and the American companies struggling to continue providing it? What a jerk.

frankly0 beat me to it: Don, you have prostate cancer. There, don't you feel better?

This is one of the rare cases where current science is pretty clear: the PSA screening test has a huge false positive rate (2/3 of positives are false) leading to unnecessary prostate removal, radiation therapy, and quality of life impacts. I couldn't find an open source link to Tom Stamey's research at Stanford (he invented the PSA and now essentially repudiates it) but this JAMA piece has the essentials.

Liberals might vote for a man without a prostate gland, but I doubt conservatives would knowingly vote for a man without one. Whispering time has arrived for the Mayor. Posted by: Brojo

More important, and depressing, is that the last two elections have shown that approximately 50% of Americans will vote for a candidate without a brain.

"Call me crazy, but if I have prostate cancer I'd kind of like to know it."

You're crazy. If you have prostate cancer, there is a 25% chance you'll die from it before something else kills you -- and the 25% is just in the off chance you live into your 80s. Or, you can have your prostate removed, and maybe live 5 years longer or so.

So, let's say you are a 55 year old male, AND you are in the monority who will actually live long enough to die of prostate cancer. Would you rather live 25 more years with a working prostate (read: you can actually have and enjoy sex for most of those years), or 30 years without one? I know what I'd pick.

We diagnose more prostate cancer because we will be sued if we miss the diagnosis. Any attempt at cost control must address the liability issue. I know how Kevin feels about this, but you get a different perspective when you're in the trenches.

In the 1980s, before he became the Mayor of America, Rudy Giuliani narrowly escaped a death plot hatched by John Gotti, who ran the Gambino mafia family. Pravda newscaster Martha MacCallum asks viewers: "In terms of Rudy Giuliani and his presidential aspirations, does this help him, this story? Does it make him, you know, even more, sort of, invincible?"

Look, just because Rudy Giuliani descends among us as Maitreya, the Buddha of the Future, he nevertheless might choose NOT to give verbal teachings. Instead he might work for sentient beings by sending beams of light from his holy body.

Rudy should feel better when he has his polyps removed at Walter Reed at taxpayers expense.

Vote Democratic. It will probably save your life.

"You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat," Giuliani says in the ad.

I don't understand. Is he saying a government health system would force he to go to England for treatment? Or, that a government bureaucrat would be doing the procedure? Benito is inarticulate in any case.

Yocoolz complains: "What is he saying in the ad, that he only represents the wealthy? What is his solution for the expanding number of people losing health care and the American companies struggling to continue providing it? What a jerk."

Try to do that in IMAGES.

Mr. Giuliani will have his prostate gland removed at dawn every day by vulture-like surgeons for giving the power to fire Glocks to NYC's finest.

Liberals might vote for a man without a prostate gland, but I doubt conservatives would knowingly vote for a man without one. Whispering time has arrived for the Mayor.

Gotta give Brojo credit for busting my gut with that one.

It's not images, it's ad copy that evokes the imagery of the 1,2,3 you laid out (an accident you translated that copy into imagery so favorable to Rudy? perhaps not). Similarly one could have any of the Democrats saying they've read the studies, and the UK has health outcomes equal to those of the US for 40% of what we spend here.

Maybe it would be a Brit chiding Americans for spending so much on health care; he loves coming here, everything is so cheap!

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that since we already spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation and we're getting jack shit for our dollars, the only possible way for national healthcare to work would be if we spend even more than we're spending now.

Has our medical system turned against preventative healthcare so firmly that people don't even realize that, say, diabetes management is much cheaper in the long run than amputating that same patient's leg because of unmanaged diabetes would be?

Wow, that's crazy.

For most internal cancers... you'd expect incidence would be pretty static among populations that are genetically similar. It's not like people are using smokeless tobacco in their lower gi...

Weird that the death rate per 100,000 is pretty static until you look at asian countries... So really, there's [b]no real impact upon deaths (bad cancer) for the expanded discovery and treatment of polyps.[/b]

Mnemosyne: A lot of people seem to be under the impression that since we already spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation and we're getting jack shit for our dollars, the only possible way for national healthcare to work would be if we spend even more than we're spending now.

No, they are saying we'd have a better system for a lot less money.

Has our medical system turned against preventative healthcare so firmly that people don't even realize that, say, diabetes management is much cheaper in the long run than amputating that

The private insurance part of the medical system has turned against preventative medicine. That is because you average private insurance user stays with one firm for less than a decade, and it usually takes a lot more than a decade for preventative care to earn back its expense.

By the way, are you one of those nutcakes who thinks private industry is always a better solution than having the government do something? For instance, do you think it would be a good idea to get rid of police departments so that everyone would have to hire private security?

Hey, bobo, Mnemosyne's progressive creds are in order.

I think she's questioning reactionary criticism of universal health care--the idea that it must cost a great deal more than the current system--not advocating for that viewpoint.

once again, just for the record, you can buy health insurance in the UK in the same way as you do in the US . Rudy could still get his prostate hacked away by a private and expensive doctor in England if he chose to. The Nation Health Service provides for those who don't want/cant afford health cover. It doesn't prevent those who want insurance from buying it.
(how many times is this bogus comparison going to come up in this election?)

theAmericanist gets it. People respond to individuals and that imagery will outdo graphs and statistics. In other words, more Graeme Frosts.

I’d go even further. If 47 milllion people who can’t afford healthcare suddenly get a government plan, why will that cause Rudy’s winky to fall off?

He said "You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat."

I don’t have a doctor. My only decision is “Am I sick enough to go to the ER and spend the next year getting phone calls from bill collectors?”

This precludes any chance of physicals, colonoscopies or other things considered basic preventive maintenance. I imagine my future conversation I have with a doctor will be naming my next of kin and preferred mortuary.

When government healthcare is provided, people who can afford good care now will get the same care from their same physicians. Is he suggesting that seniors are in worse shape because of Medicare?

I’m perfectly willing to fill out the forms that bureaucrats ask me to and will add the disclaimer beneath my signature: “Please fix my broken X but for god’s sake leave Rudy’s sickly gland in his doctor's hand.”

Skip the graphs. Show me some sick people. Show me the guy who can't fill out the forms because he can't afford eyeglasses.

Right, Rudy. The most recent such discussion I had with a doctor was in 2003. I was in an ER after being there 12 hours to have a broken toe reset & stitched. Even after I repeatedly told him I couldn't afford it, he sent me out the door with a referral to a podiatrist & a prescription for 2 antibiotics that together ran almost $500.

Gee, do you suppose this might be part of the reason health costs are unaffordable, as well as insurance coverage? And I don't resent that you were able to get the treatment you needed, Rudy, even though It isn't available to me & you will do nothing to fix that little problem. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to vote for you if I were you, though.

Just another case of straw man politics, this hypocrite is just like bush, but bush did straw man politics before him

By the way, are you one of those nutcakes who thinks private industry is always a better solution than having the government do something? For instance, do you think it would be a good idea to get rid of police departments so that everyone would have to hire private security?

Er, you do realize that you think that my post said the exact opposite of what it actually says, right?

Please read more carefully in the future.

Or, to be more specific:

Mnemosyne: A lot of people seem to be under the impression that since we already spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation and we're getting jack shit for our dollars, the only possible way for national healthcare to work would be if we spend even more than we're spending now.

No, they are saying we'd have a better system for a lot less money.

Let me break it down for you:

- We are already spending a shitload of money on health care
- Despite spending a shitload of money, we're not getting much for what we're spending
- However, since many people are paying a shitload of money to their insurance companies just to get the crappy healthcare system that we have now, they think that we'll have to spend even more to get a decent system
- The people who think this are wrong and don't understand that preventative care is cheaper in the long run than heroic care to fix preventable problems, so national healthcare will end up being cheaper than the current system

Got it now?

The real question is, why is the mortality in Japan so much lower?

The bulk of the US healthcare bill ($2 out of $2.6 trillion) is provided by the government. Private healthplans are bit players.

Mneme is onto something: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," is the kind of wisdom that could generate persuasive, pervasive imagery.So, just cuz the contrast of an actual idea irritates shortstop, here's some imagery f'r free:

Homeowners especially appreciate the need for maintenance -- imagery that fits into a narrative: the neighbor who takes care of his house and yard, and the one who does not; the first saves money, the second waits until the roof is falling off and costs a ton to fix... for which the first neighbor gets the bill.

You could do a series of 30 second spots about everybody in the neighborhood, the intersection of health care, age and cost. (Personally, as soon as you got the basic point across, I'd throw in the Republicans driving by in a car with loudspeakers, saying all kinds of nonsense cuz they profit from roofs falling off. Hell, I'd have the same actors who drive the Republican car with the loudspeakers be the ones who deliver the bill to the neighbor who does maintenance.)

But make no mistake: if Guiliani's ad works, he will use the image over and over again, and that first person stuff is devastating. If Clinton is the nominee, and she tries the Kevin Drum/this thread tack of talking statistics and charts, and Guiliani says "I was diagnosed with prostate cancer by a doctor in our American free enterprise system and if it had been some government stooge in Britain, I might be dead..." SHE LOSES.

Y'all just compound the vulnerability with BAR CHARTS, of all things, ye gods and little fishes. The imagery says "I'm smarter than you are, nyah, nyah..." It doesn't work.

Ask shortstop.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

The real question is, why is the mortality in Japan so much lower?

Because the Japanese, on average, aren't as grossly overweight on unhealthy food as Americans are on average?

I'll bet the mortality rate for people without insurance coverage who have prostate cancer is really high.
And that's a fact.

Rudy I hope your republican azz crokes- Now back to Blackwater USA--There must be two sets of rules of engagement in Iraq one for our troops and one for the Blackwater Mercs, call them what they are mercenaries, saw a photo April 4, 2004 our troops were shown on a roof in Iraq sitting with their backs to a wall and two mercenaries up and running the other way, my point is this, Blackwater Mercs can shoot who the hell ever they want to and get away with it, our troops do that they get sent home with charges drawn up and sent to prison for doing what they were sent to do in the first place, Now does this show any of you republican azz holes how desperate this current administration of misfits are? Bush and Cheney should be brought up on charges and these mercs are hiring if any of you brave souls want to put your lifes on the line for Bush and Cheney for $550 a day, that number comes from their website.

So those on the "right" can just make stuff up as they've been doing for decades (especiallly during this administration and recent campaign)..and we find it more beneficial to BOMB our own candidates over crap like who they choose to let into their tent. I don't buy the silliness of gays being SAVED BY GOD but it's as derisive and hypocritical to go after the gospel singer for HIS position as it is to believe those of a different persuasion aren't entitled to theirs. And should Obama have any shot at helping to heal the divide brought on by BUSH AND CO...I'd say go for it...there is plenty of information and ammunition available in the lies and deceptions of the REPUG RIGHT to keep all of us busily making lists and posting signs from now until NOV 08...let's do THAT!!!

Bush chides Congress on spending bills, OK lets talk about spending bills you fvcking idiot,How many requests have been made on your part for how many $$$$BILLIONS of dollars for you and Cheneys war in Iraq? And I have to mention the language the media uses for Blackwater, calls them Blackwater Gaurds, why dont you call them what they are Blackwater Mercenaries, Bush and Cheneys hinchmen.

Guiliani says "I was diagnosed with prostate cancer by a doctor in our American free enterprise system and if it had been some government stooge in Britain, I might be dead..." SHE LOSES.

And how about the response that if Rudy had not had his prostate removed, perhaps unnecessarily due to overdiagnosis, he might not now be impotent, and nonetheless be able to live for decades?

That's a personal story too.

My suggested strategy with regard to Rudy's attack:

Every time Rudy brings up how his life has been "saved" by the US healthcare system as opposed to the UK, we make the point that in the UK he might not be impotent (which I assume he still is -- at bare minimum he was for some period by his own admission), and still live a long, healthy life.

If he insists on making a political issue of it, it seems as if it should be fair game.

(snort!) Okay, so Frankly wants HILLARY CLINTON to sneer at Guiliani cuz he can't get it up?

Or would you rather Bill do it?

Yeah, that'll work. DOZENS of voters just love that sorta politics.

(Do tell us, shortstop, how effective you find this sorta discussion.)

Okay, so Frankly wants HILLARY CLINTON to sneer at Guiliani cuz he can't get it up?

Well, of course it wouldn't be a sneer. She'd bring the whole issue up with the greatest delicacy and tact, naturally, since that's how politicians do such things. She'd explain that Rudy hasn't mentioned the downside of the overdiagnoses and overtreatment of prostate cancer in the US system, in which doctors get paid for procedures necessary or not. In the case of prostate cancer, she'd say, treatment often induces a number of serious downsides, which Rudy hasn't brought up. She'd mention that impotence and incontinence are such negative effects of treatment, and that there are many, many cases in which those effects are actually quite unnecessary, because the cancer is not aggressive.

She could just leave it at that, I'd think. The audience could draw its own conclusions about how it applies to Rudy in particular.

You see, theAmericanist, there are thousand ways to skin a cat. Political skill is in large measure the ability to choose exactly the right one for the occasion and the audience.

"The audience could draw its own conclusions..."

They surely would. About HER.

And it would cost Ohio, Texas, and Florida at least. By overwhelming margins. Hell, she might not carry New York.

"the greatest delicacy and tact", my ass: first, SHE'S NOT A DOCTOR, you imbecile.

Second, by even bringing up his diagnosis, much less second guessing the ACTUAL doctor, she'd be reinforcing Guiliani's point in the most devastating possible way: "Who would you rather have treating your cancer -- a DOCTOR, or Hillary Clinton?"

Third, ye gods, this particular US Senator already has LEGENDARY negatives for her ball-busting image, reinforced by her husband's extracurricular track record: yeah, she NEEDS to remind men about impotence.

Fourth, if she did anything remotely like this, it'd be full employment for the gagwriters for Bill Mahar and Jay Leno, not to mention Chris Rock, for a DECADE. (Cue the jokes about Senator Clinton offering to help the men of America... oh, let's not even go there.)

She'd literally never live it down. I'm not kidding, Frankly, your idea that Democrats being up Guiliani's cancer-surgery induced impotence might be the stoooopidest thing I've ever read on these threads, and that's saying something. I was even gonna let you slide with one snark on it, but then you DEFENDED it.

Oh.My.Goodness.

Just to add to my previous post:

Hillary wouldn't even have to mention, herself, the impotence and incontinence often brought about by prostate surgery. She might simply say in a debate to Rudy, "Rudy, as you obviously know, surgery for your condition has some pretty significant side effects," and go on to make the larger argument that the controversy regarding prostate diagnosis and treatment weighs those clear side effects against the unclear risk to the patient's life.

Her campaign can explain what those effects are, later.

Of course, if Rudy makes a big deal out of this issue, everybody in America will come to know what those effects are, because news commentators will eventually be obliged to cover that aspect of a major issue.

Really, it's Rudy's call here: if he wants to make a huge deal out of his personal story here, the logic of any refutation of his argument simply REQUIRES that the negative effects of prostate overtreatment be discussed, because that is, in fact, exactly why there's so much less diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer in the UK as opposed to the US.

theAmericanist,

Look, Hillary doesn't have to be a doctor herself to bring up the argument against overdiagnosis and overtreatment, right? She simply has to refer to what doctors have said about prostate cancer and its treatment.

Again, insofar as Rudy makes a major issue out of this, the logic of its refutation REQUIRES that Hillary and her campaign respond to it by pointing out the downsides of overtreatment. Rudy will have given her a pass on that issue by making a major issue of it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Okay, so Frankly wants HILLARY CLINTON to sneer at Guiliani cuz he can't get it up?
Or would you rather Bill do it?
Yeah, that'll work. DOZENS of voters just love that sorta politics.
(Do tell us, shortstop, how effective you find this sorta discussion.)

That's kind of a sexist thing to say, don't you think?

Why does she have to comment on whether that kind of an issue has any place here? Don't you think a male commenter with whom you have an obsessive-compulsive need to engage with would be better suited? Or are you deliberately trying to man-up and go after the female commenters before you get up the nerve to even approach a male commenter? Is there something you're not telling us? Do you have a crush on someone?

Irregardless of the issues, to say that one of our female commenters, and a regular to boot, is obsessed with "male impotence" as a subject is, well, pretty sexist in nature, and has no place here.

Oh, and it was not a bad idea to bring up Guiliani's impotence--

"This is a man on the run in a cave who is virtually impotent other than his ability to get these messages out," Frances Townsend said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Although, strategically, it might be better to show the picture of Rudy in drag on his way to meet one of his mistresses, but who knows?

Okay, Pale, so YOU'RE also fucking stooopid.

I am simply returning the favor to shortstop, who evidently decided a week or so back to show up in threads where I've expressed opinions about the subjects of the threads, to express HER (him, it)'s opinion of my therapeutic needs.

Shortstop evidently dislikes it when I note that an opinion like Frankly's is stooooooooooooooopid, not to mention literally below the belt and utterly lacking in class.

Methinks you're projecting a bit, Pale, to hallucinate my taunting shortstop has anything to do with gender, since (as shortstop itself will doubtless acknowledge) it was purely tit for tat.

Grow up, Pale.

Frankly, you've obviously made an emotional commitment to an exceedingly stooopid idea, so it's pretty useless to try to argue you into recognizing that whole sun rises in the east thing.

Like I said upthread, issues are a vehicle for images. It is IMAGERY that moves votes, cuz of how folks identify with images.

Guiliani's ad works, cuz it conveys three images: "1) I survived cancer, 2) I love America, and 3) I will defend you against those who don't love America, and want you to die of cancer."

I suggested that Mnemosyne had a theme "prevention is better than cure", and suggested imagery to convey it.

But YOU clowns are dumb enough to want the response to be THESE images: "1) Guiliani didn't REALLY have cancer, 2) and he can't get it up, and 3) we're smarter than anybody who believes an impotent guy."

And hell, throw in the way your approach reinforces our likely nominee's negatives AND provides fodder for jokes at her expense, it's better than Dukakis in the tank.

If Democrats run next year the way you guys think would be effective, we could lose California.

Americanist: Man, you guys miss the point: issues are a vehicle for images. Giuliani's ad says: 1) I survived cancer, 2) I love America, and 3) I will defend you against those who don't love America, and want you to die of cancer. NONE of your responses engage any of that imagery.

I think the point is that rather than FIX America's problems or HELP people deal with them, Giuliani would rather just make stuff up and blow smoke.

Sure -- but pericles, that's not persuasive.

Unpack your response about "the point". Here's Guiliani talking about how American health care is better than Britain's, and he gives a reason WHY, while identifying with the viewer: ""You and I should be making the decisions about what kind of health care we get with our doctors, not with a government bureaucrat."

And your response is that he's blowing smoke. That persuades literally no one who isn't already against Guiliani. How could it? You say nothing but "naaa!", while HE is talking about his personal experience, making a larger political point, and reaching out to the audience "You and I should be making the decisions..."

Kevin (and others) responded with statistics and analysis attacking Guiliani's premise that American health care is better than Britain. That's even theoretically only marginally more persuasive -- for the 11 people in the country who are neutral on health care issues but somehow spend a lot of time comparing stats on British and Japanese incidence of prostate cancer and the efficacy of various treatment regimes.

IMAGERY moves votes. It's not the antithesis, much less the enemy of reasonable debate -- it's like Aristotle (there I go, namedropping again: gee, shortstop, I wouldn't want to disappoint you) said about rhetoric: Truth is stronger than falsehood, so WHEN IT LOSES, it's cuz the truthtellers were too snotty to learn about their audience.

I think Mnemosyne's theme, that prevention is better than cure, is potentially the vehicle for effective imagery. I even gave an example.

So, back atcha, Pericles: What IMAGERY conveys "rather than fix..." for you?

I suppose Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray would say that they were just writing a short blurb on campaign tactics, not a policy piece

Which, incidentally, is just restating the problem: all campaign coverage in the major media consists of "blurbs" (short or extended) on campaign tactics, with virtually no coverage of actual policy issues.

So the only reason the U.S. has a high survival rate is the U.S. is diagnosing too many cases of prostate cancer. I love this comment. Instead of giving ANY credit here to the U.S. this reflects POORLY on the country. This is the usual turnaround. Common folks, give credit where credit is due and blast away when it is deserved. This will fortify a person's credibility.

Methinks you're projecting a bit, Pale, to hallucinate my taunting shortstop has anything to do with gender, since (as shortstop itself will doubtless acknowledge) it was purely tit for tat.

Aw, shucks. You KNOW someone is projecting when they accuse you of projecting because they pointed out, in another thread, that you're projecting.

"Tit for Tat" is a Freudian slip. Put down that bottle of milk.

IMAGERY moves votes.

That's a nothing, throwaway line that you'll contradict once you've forgotten it. Voters vote for a wide range of issues and candidates know there's a small slice--as small as one to three percent--that they need to appeal to in order to win a close election. To say it's all imagery is to believe that people who are, shall we say, charismatically challenged, would never get elected. Since you only understand sexist ideals best viewed through the prism of the 1960s and the Summer of Drugs, I'll spell it out for you--the squares want Jim Morrison and Twiggy, Man; they don't want Mama Cass and Mickey Dolenz. Take a long look at a group photo of fifty politicians and you'll see that it wasn't "imagery" that got them there; in fact, you'll see a whole host of them were elected IN SPITE of the image they present.

In recent years, it's been the one-issue voter that turns out because of a highly disciplined GOTV machine that has swung districts. The Republicans are doomed if they nominate a pro-choice candidate or someone who doesn't believe in Jesus in exactly the same way that the late Jerry Falwell believed in Jesus. The Democrats don't need imagery to win--they need to show up.

This is the first time since the days of Bob Dole that the Republican Party is actively planning on deliberately losing an election--their base is going to stay home next year and no one's coughing up the money needed to grease the wheels.

Money and TV ads move voters, and the ads themselves can be plain, bleak, nasty and ugly and they'll get the job done.

So the only reason the U.S. has a high survival rate is the U.S. is diagnosing too many cases of prostate cancer. I love this comment. Instead of giving ANY credit here to the U.S. this reflects POORLY on the country.

Well, yeah. It is expending resources on something that appears to not improve outcomes. (If it did, you'd expect the mortality rate, and not just the post-diagnosis survival rate, to be better in the U.S.)

This is called "waste". Its something that even conservatives usually at least pretend to recognize as bad.

Ah, Pale, I gave you too much credit. I had noted you're stooopid. I left out that you're ignorant as well. (Snicker -- and you fell for the set up for 'grow up', too: sort of a hat trick for you, huh? Especially since you actually AGREE with my point, excepting you're too ignorant to notice.)

"Imagery" doesn't denote 'attractive'. Hell, some of the most powerful political images are downright ugly (contrast the Republican Willie Horton, with the the ORIGINAL, Democratic-produced ad); but here is a more innocuous example.

Barney Frank's first campaign for Congress used a picture of him from the state legislature, looking like Meat Loaf's pudgy little brother dressed in a flannel bag -- that he'd slept in, with a clip-on tie that had been sat on for a week. He was sitting in a hearing, listening closely, leaning on an elbow with one finger pressed into his face so that his cheek bulged out on both sides of it, these thick heavy glasses and his hair looked like it was trying to escape.

The caption was his campaign slogan: "Neatness isn't everything."

The IMAGE it conveyed (besides the accurate one of Barney's self-esteem at the time) was somebody who obviously didn't care much about his appearance, unafraid to poke fun at himself, who knew who he was, AND who cared a lot about stuff that was important to him -- and to the voters.

Guiliani's ad is much the same, from the point of view of craft: it confronts a potential liability (his health), and turns it into an asset -- the straight shooter survivor who knows what the Clinton/Edward/Obama health care plan would MEAN, in very direct personal terms, and who relates that to the audience: ""You and I should be making the decisions..."

Hell, Bill Clinton pretty much put the election away when in that debate, Bush was asked by a guy who had lost his job what he was going to do about it. Bush stood up straight and ran through his whole laundry list of trade adjustment assistance points, speaking to the television audience: and then it was Clinton's turn.

He walked two steps toward the guy, and asked him to speak again. Clinton asked the guy questions about his situation -- IIRC, this is when he said "I feel your pain." Then he told the guy his own list of what he would do for guys like him -- but the IMAGE of Bush pulling back and and failing to engage the guy, contrasted with the IMAGE of Clinton walking toward him and getting him to talk more, is how Clinton won.

The purpose of information in politics, is to persuade; the function of imagery, is to convince.

Countering Guiliani's personal story in an ad with stats like this, much less Frankly's lunacy, is a sure loser.

To win needs better imagery and a persuasive narrative.

It also needs somebody with more brains than Dice, with his notion that "your diagnosis was just a waste of resources, buddy, it'd have been more cost-efficient if we didn't KNOW you had cancer..."

Yeah, THAT'S how to counter conservatives who say American health care is better than Britain's -- talk about how we don't have to diagnose EVERY disease, after all.....

Barney Frank's first campaign for Congress

Exactly--the imagery projected didn't MOVE the votes. It created a real person the voters could vote for. But if Frank had been wrong on the issues those voters cared about, he wouldn't have gotten elected.

Every time you call someone stupid, it makes you look worse and worse. So, keep it up, champ.

It also needs somebody with more brains than Dice, with his notion that "your diagnosis was just a waste of resources, buddy, it'd have been more cost-efficient if we didn't KNOW you had cancer..."

Yeah, THAT'S how to counter conservatives who say American health care is better than Britain's -- talk about how we don't have to diagnose EVERY disease, after all.....

My comment was on the facts of the issue. It was not on how to best manage the optics. And you misrepresent my argument anyway, engaging in the fallacy of division. As usual, your argument is misdirected and dishonest.

Aw, Dice, you're so cute when you attempt logic.

The fallacy of division denotes the error of assuming what is true of a thing as a whole must also be true of its parts. That is not what I did.

Dice objected when someone pointed out that it is not persuasive to complain that in America, too many people who actually have prostate cancer are diagnosed with it. (sic) Dice huffed that, well, it OUGHT to be persuasive, complaining that this is "waste" and conservatives used to be against it.

So I pointed out that Dice's notion is foolish: "your diagnosis was just a waste of resources, buddy, it'd have been more cost-efficient if we didn't KNOW you had cancer..."

I treated your 'analysis' more accurately than you treat me, dude. If anything, I am gentle with you, befitting your softshell intellect and tender sensitivities.

You'd LIKE to think that your notion had to do with the disconnect between lots of diagnoses and survival rates, but in fact it's the CONNECTION between 'em that founds the argument. You weren't talking facts, Dice: you were clumsily trying to change the subject so you fell off between two distinct premisses.

Like I said, it's cute when you attempt logic, like watching a two year old with a rugby ball.

LOL -- and Pale is just priceless. "the imagery projected didn't MOVE the votes. It created a person..."

Do you even READ your own stuff, Pale?

The first problem for any candidate is simply name recognition: the voters have to know you're running before they can support you. Barney's first campaign provided 'em with VIVID, favorable imagery to answer the question "who is this guy?", which definitely moved LOTS of votes his way -- he went from something like 15% support to an easy win with 55%, I think it was.

The imagery was decisive in moving votes from "who?" to "yes".

Barney's first campaign provided 'em with VIVID, favorable imagery to answer the question "who is this guy?",

Riiiiiiight.

The running of an ad that shows him as a rumpled, unkempt policy wonk type of guy isn't favorable "imagery" that is going to move a voter. A montage of Ronald Reagan on a horse, on the world stage, waving from the dais--that's the kind of imagery that is used to try to "move" the voters. In the case of Frank, the imagery plays against type--it creates an image that shows Frank as a dedicated, rumpled person who wants to work hard. In the case of Reagan, it shows a virile man who is an optimist.

The imagery does one thing--it opens the voters to the candidate. It says, "here's so-and-so."

Whether people actually pull the trigger and vote is dependent on the issues and the positions those candidates hold. Frank won because he was right on the issues in his Congressional district. If you're not in sync with your district, they might make one mistake and send you to Congress, but they certainly won't keep sending you back. So the image is meaningless if the candidate is wrong on the issues. Reagan was a character on a national stage, and the images were part of creating the mystique; but people voted for Reagan because of taxes and big government. Reagan convinced people he would cut taxes and cut government. That he was able to win by essentially doing neither explains why it isn't imagery that moves votes--it's convincing people someone has the position they want to vote for, even when they don't.

Your orignal statement "Imagery moves votes" is essentially a nickel tour through your own limited understanding of the subject. Voters are far more varied and nuanced in what they vote for and why they vote for someone.

Pointing that out to you is fruitless, we know. But I, personally, am not going to be steamrollered by your amateur hour bullshit and I'll be standing up to you each and every day I have the bandwidth to do so. Enjoy, bitch.

Yeah, that Mike Deaver: didn't know a DAMNED thing about Reagan, did he?

Making his ad even more hypocritcal, the technique which cured Rudy's cancer is called prostate brachytherapy, or radioactive seeding...a technique developed in Denmark by one of those socialist doctors! One of his students brought it to the United States. So Rudy owes his life to that evil socialized medical system!

I'll pick up on the point about tactics.

Rudy's healthcare policy is 'foreigners smell funny'.
Rudy's foreign policy is 'foreigners smell funny'.

It's a brilliant tactic, because in political terms there's no upside to defending foreigners, even if it's a stupid smear. (Next time he visits the UK, he'll be hoping for Secret Service protection, because there'll be one or two people who want to punch him in his smirky fascist face.)

What you say is simple: Rudy's a bullshit merchant. And Rudy got Mister Mayor Care, courtesy of NY state. Lucky duckie. Oh, and does his healthcare plan cover all of his families?

Zoomie would have aced the imagery aspect -- except I dunno as "radioactive seeding" in the case of Giuliani's prostate is an image anybody wants.

Still, the 'you, soooo owe us' gambit is worth an extra point: there was a flurry of interest in a bit of Democratic rhetoric in the 1980s, which I first heard from Fritz Hollings, when Reagan had managed to turn the national debate almost entirely against government.

Hollings (followed by a lot of his colleagues) used to say that he would go to town meetings and hear somebody stand up to say 'I went to college on the GI bill, and I drove here on an interstate highway; my house got electricity from the New Deal, my mom lives upstairs and gets Medicare and a social security check, and I work at a defense plant: What I want to know is, when are you going to get the Federal government off my back?'

It was a great applause line -- for Democratic audiences. But it wasn't worth a damn with anybody else.

Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more.
So please keep up the great work. Greetings.