Prior to reading the articles from Jeffrey Toobin and Matt Labash, as well as watching the few assigned clips, my only knowledge of Robert Stone was from his Wikipedia listing, which I skimmed lightly as a precursor. With the recent power outage in Oxford, Ohio, I was forced to postpone my readings until today (Monday). I am yet to gain power back at my own apartment, so I sit reluctantly on the floor of my art studio to read the articles in a room full of other disgruntled students. I start by watching the videos which I think was a smart move… it allowed me to put a face to the name of the very reputed Robert Stone.
The first clip from Reason TV was received with mixed feelings. I took two things from it: he was catholic, and he loved the “f” word. I immediately wasn’t sure what type of catholic he was. I was also raised catholic…went nearly every Sunday until college. I rarely go now, except when visiting family and am also a frequent user of the “f” word. But for some reason I took it a little different coming from him. Next was a quick clip from Stone TV (its Maiden voyage) with Tucker Carlson who simply revealed that he believed that the events of 9/11 were not the result of a government plot, but that of angry Arabs. I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to learn about Stone from that clip alone, but simply moving on to the next Stone TV clip sealed the deal. He was not a fan of Barrack Obama, a clip accented with a scent of humor…he was holding a giant log of bologna. I quickly glance at his Blog, where I find a collection of archived items written by Stone. Some were quick rants, and some full-blown articles. I chose to move on to Toobin’s article because I was intrigued by the title “The Dirty Trickster”.
The first paragraph alone was enough to draw me in. I instantly get the attention my friend’s in the room so that I can read it out loud to get their reactions. I knew already that this man had some tricks up his sleeve if he may have taken part in the resignation of a New York governor. It’s an interesting concept to live by a set of self-defined rules, as Stone does. The first one revealed in conjunction with the explanation of his knowledge of Eliot Spitzer’s questionable personal life: “He who speaks first, loses”. I’ve met many men who are fashion conscious but never one with a strict rule of “White dress shirts after six”. I found it interesting that Stone never graduated due to his engrossment in Republican politics. I would think that if he was going to get into a field like politics that you would want to become fully educated first if anything to establish a certain level of credibility. College drop-out doesn’t have an intelligent ring to it. But as quoted in Labash’s article “Roger Stone, Political Animal” Stone said that he “could read about it, or do it for real” and that he would “rather do it for real”. Not everyone is meant to become a college graduate, but I found it a bit like jumping the gun.
Throughout the article I found more and more like I had a better idea of what kind of guy Roger Stone was. Creating commotion for the sake of creating commotion. Seeing how far he can push people. Most of the people quoted in regards to Roger Stone has less than positive assertions. Examples include:
“Roger is a fringe player around town. He always had this reputation of being a guy who exaggerated things, who pretended he did things”. – Ed Rollins
“State-of-the-art-Sleazeball.” –Jacob Wiesberg
“They caught Roger red-handed lying. What he did was ridiculous and stupid.”
“Roger Stone is a stone-cold loser, he always tries taking credit for things he never did.” –Donald Trump
“If Roger found some ants in an anthill that he thought he could divide and get pissed off with each other, he’d be in his backyard right now with a magnifying glass.” –Charles Halloran
And that is just to name a few. The latter scares me a bit because I am anticipating our upcoming conference. I know that he has the ability and the tendency to trample over anyone who comes off weak with their claims. I think that he wants to come off as intimidating and controversial. In the Labash article Stone is quoted saying, “If it rains, it was Stone”, as though he wants to take part in any political disruption. Labash puts it interestingly when he states that Stone is “honest about his dishonesty”. Although I don’t agree with Stone in his overall M.O. (he and his mode of operation scare me a little) I do lean more towards his political beliefs than that of the liberal minded. I wouldn’t go so far to say that “The Democrats are the party of slavery; the Republicans are the party of Freedom”.
I agree with his statements about Barrack Obama, however, especially that “all he’s going to do is raise taxes, which is going to give the government more money but it’s not going to create any jobs.” I think that his ability to deliver a beautiful, articulate speech is what is keeping him so strong in this race.
Stone uses various forms of media to make sure that his viewpoints are heard. His Blog is one way. But one of his rules is also to never pass up an opportunity to be on television. He made his way into radio when living in Miami, teaming up with Radio Mambi helping him get his word out about Gore. Stone penetrates the media “by any means necessary” and is quite the artist at doing so.
Another conservative political guru that I would bring up in comparison with Roger Stone is Rush Limbaugh. He uses radio as his main media venue. His show came to be in the 90s and had several controversies himself. His not so malicious as some of Stones (Limbaugh is involved in a number of charities). One for instance was his web cam impersonation of Michael J. Fox’s physical symptoms due to Parkinson’s disease. He made a claim that his symptoms were purely an act and very exaggerated. Limbaugh has also made a great number of other media appearances as well, similar to Stone but their main similarity is their conservative slant.
If I had to ask Roger Stone 3 questions they would be:
1) Does it ever grow old keeping up the badass trickster persona?
2) What is Donald Trump really like?
3) Are there any other “political animals” that give you a run for your money? [30]
Andrea Pelose
What interested me perhaps the most about Stone was his contrary nature. Like politics, the surface of Stone was much different than the deeper underground. When you look at him, you see an aged, conservatively dressed man with an old school sense about him. He is articulate, speaks in a no-bullshit manner, and is filled with a history of politics, having seen and heard it all. A gentleman, who resembles an old mobster, prefers clubs with a jacket requirement and asserts that a man should never wear “white dress shirts after six.” Yet, it is maybe this knowledge that makes him an opinionated, sarcastic, cunning, political operative who would implement anything up his sleeve to get his way. Despite all his tricks, Stone seems to remain upfront about them and has become a force to be reckoned with in the fields of politics, informing and persuaded the public by all necessary means.
Looking simply at the articles and videos we were given to formulate opinions on Stone, the contradictions continue. The short quips with StoneTV seem remotely harmless. He approaches and issue or political figure such as Barack Obama with a standard, critical journalism style. He has an opinion, such as a columnist would, and sticks with a precise, quick argument filled with research to back his arguments. The only remote line of sarcasm is delivered without a punch as he says Obama is delivering the “same old baloney”. His blog appears to be written in about the say style. You get a clearer vision of Stone’s historical involvement with politics, with the same quick journalistic sentences and arguments for McCain and Palin. This can be viewed in articles such as his standard “Palin’s Checkers Moment,” and even “Hurricane Ike”, which is delivered with a bit more dry humor.
However, when we get into the ReasonTV segment we are encountered with a man who seems to step out of the aforementioned mold of your average conservative liability. With the encouragement of our well-known interviewer, Stone cusses, jumps from topic to topic, and reveals just how colorful of a personality he possesses. Certainly, he keeps within the step of historical backing and references, but you begin to get an idea of just how tricky and dirty he is willing to play things, even if it means slandering a candidate with claims of mandatory class on Saturday in a first grade election.
This clearer view of who Stone really is becomes propelled in the “Weekly Standard” and “The New Yorker” articles, which illuminate him with titles such as “the dirty trickster”, a “professional lord of mischief” and his self-reference of “If it rains, it was Stone.” Here we continue to get below the surface and see just who Stone is—an intelligent, knowledgeable man who is willing to attack in the muddiest of ways.
So if everyone knows Stone is a source of waywardness and turmoil, why does he remain to be such an intact force in American politics? The answer lies in the exploration of the word truth.
When it comes to the reporting by journalists, Stone seems to be the first person to get the scoop. Maybe this is because he’s been behind the scene for forty years and possesses the knowledge of all things politics with the right connections to collect scandal. Perhaps it is because his all-too watchful eye knows just how to spot the absurd, such as Spitzer’s affair with a prostitute. Regardless, of the reason, Stone gives the general public insight and reveals the truth, as ugly as it may be, and truth, above all is what journalism is crucially about. Whatever his ulterior motives may be, the American public seems to be appreciative of him. Even journalists, who despise him, trust his information. Not to mention, you have to at least be pleased about a man who does not fear, but rather embraces the opportunity to expose what others are trying to hide. People have a right to know who is representing them and running their government, be it local, state, or federal.
It is the political exploration of this truth that leaves a question ringing around the word. Stone always has some type of motivation for what he’s doing, whether it is to bring forth the right issues, elect the person he’s backing by making the other guy look bad, or create an outbreak of conversation to circle around the water cooler. This is the guy who is the avid supporter for Nixon-like politics who knows the greatest way to win can lie in the art of the con. One has to wonder just how honest these truths can be, when Stone believes that, “Politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one percent” as well as his rule stating, “The only thing worse in politics than being wrong is being boring.” It then becomes a fine line between discovering necessary scandal and exposing the dirty politician, and having an unscrupulous consultant who searches for redundant truths and capitalizes on them. Clearly Stone is a biased political mind that is paid to cause trouble, and does his job immaculately. He has five Jaguars to show for it. Yet for every candidate he represents, he also knows how to cover their impropriates, thus hiding other necessary truths.
The one truth we do know is that Stone is a character of both intelligence and deviance. Political campaigns for years have both benefited and capsized because of him. He likes to fight dirty, and he’ll be the first to tell you it.
Questions:
1. You clearly have a bias in favor of McCain. What would you say is the biggest reason you are in favor of McCain as our future president?
2. What is it about you that you feel leads you to be the primary person to expose and be the fore-runner of coverage with issues such as Spitzer’s involvement with prostitution and the errors of the 2000 Elections?
3. If you had your choice to work on any element or issue of the current upcoming election, what would it be and why?
4. What do you think is the dirtiest campaign or journalism trick you've ever done on record? [30]
Nick Engel
After reading the stories about Roger Stone, looking at a few of his online videos, and analyzing his website I have learned a great deal about Roger Stone. These readings also showed a very ugly side to our political system that I have never read about before. Some of the actions of Roger Stone made me lose a lot of respect for the American political system. The type of politics that Roger Stone partakes in hurt our country and is based around power for the individual. Roger Stone makes no apologies for his political influence and even admits to his faults. In one of the articles Roger Stone even refers to himself as some kind of magician of politics simply playing the system. It is also interesting that the motive behind Roger Stone’s actions is not money but more power and a kind of amusement or sport. While I dislike Roger Stone’s politics and his reasoning I cannot argue his influence. Roger Stone is a very intelligent man who has been influential in politics for years. Nixon, Reagan, Dole, Sharpton and even Donald Trump have taken advice and been helped or hurt by Roger Stone. Recently, Stone has claimed credit for aiding the federal government’s investigation of Elliot Spitzer, a man he was also accused of threatening. Overall, Stone’s influence cannot be questioned and through these articles and videos Roger Stone will be evaluated in new and alternative media.
Roger Stone has found a new way to speak to his audience through his own political blog called the StoneZone. When visiting the StoneZone you can see Roger Stone’s opinions on various political topics, which at this time are mostly focused on the political elections. In one of my favorite posts, “An Open Letter to John McCain”, we can see Roger Stone doing something he does best, advising political candidates. Some of the advice offered by Roger Stone in his August 6th, 2008 article is kind of eerie like this advice, “I have advocated the selection of Charlie Crist for the Vice-Presidential nomination because I think he is a strong and effective campaigner who would aid the ticket in a crucial state. If you bypass Crist because he has only been Governor for two years, you need an "Outside the Box" choice.” While John McCain didn’t actual pick Charlie Crist for his Vice President, many would agree that his pick Sarah Palin is an “Outside the Box” choice. Through StoneZone, Roger Stone has found a new way to communicate to the Republican Party and anybody that wants to listen using new media. It is this adaptability that has made Roger Stone last in the fickle world of politics for so long.
Through Roger Stone’s career he has had to make many adjustments. Early is his life he was a supporter of Kennedy. But during his adolescence he was given Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative and began supporting the Republican Party. He has also had to adjust his life after controversies. In 1996 Roger Stone was exposed by the National Enquirer who ran a story about Stone and his wife running personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and a website. While Roger Stone denied the report later he admitted that the story was true and was fired from Bob Dole’s Presidential campaign. After the controversy of the Swinger ad Roger Stone was forced to work more underground and again adjust his career. For instance, in the 2000 Presidential recount he was asked to work in Miami to stop the recount in the city and innovatively rallied the Hispanic vote, by controlling radio programming through paid ads, to protest the recount and helped get it ended. These are just a few examples of how Roger Stone has adapted to the situations given to survive in politics.
If you were to sit down and listen to Roger Stone speak about his accomplishments you would be very impressed. But, many of the statements of what Roger Stone has done are only found in one source, Roger Stone. But, on the other end some of the things that Roger Stone hasn’t claimed have been attached to his name, like the leaked Bush military records to CBS News. While these discrepancies make it difficult to tell fact from fiction to just plain exaggeration I feel that most of Roger Stone’s stories are true. In the two articles I have read, I could not find any situation that seemed outrageous or untrue. Even in his Spitzer story that couldn’t be backed up by the federal government I felt an element of truth even if some was exaggerated. Roger Stone has used his experience and stories with the help of the media to create a persona. In the articles Roger Stone states that there are two things you never pass up sex and being on television. Roger Stone has used the media to his advantage and has created a persona of being a slick political analyst. His experience in politics and his ties to the Nixon scandals have made him a quick go to for politicians trying to get an edge. Roger Stone seems to have a craft in manipulating elections and finding the right talking points to get an edge.
In relation to Walter Benjamin I personally didn’t find many similarities in the two topics. The one main comparison between the two topics I found was Roger Stone’s use of new media to convey messages. In the articles we see many examples of Roger Stone crafting television ads, programming radio shows, and now writing on the internet trying to convey the message he wants portrayed. Some of the messages are manipulative and stretch the truth. Walter Benjamin warns that new media can take the real picture and force a narrow focus on it and manipulate it into something new. This is kind of like what Roger Stone has done in some of his ads and writing, shown just a small part of the big picture to portray the message he wants people to see. In the last few months of the Presidential election we will be seeing a lot of these types of ads in our new media age. So, if John McCain is looking for an edge in his campaign maybe he should call Roger Stone for some help.
Questions:
Do you feel like our political system is completely corrupt?
Do you feel Barack Obama is really for “change” or is it just propaganda?
3. What is one thing most people do not know about Richard Nixon? [30]
Scott Turner
This week we read about Roger Stone, a 56 year-old conservative politician who has played a major role in the recent campaigns of Republicans such as Bob Dole and Donald Trump all the way back to Richard Nixon, eight presidential bids in total. Stone was part of Nixon's C.R.E.E.P., but even though he was never indicted in anything to do with Watergate, the New Yorker article made it seem like he should have been. And it's not only that, but the general impression I got of Stone is that he's kind of a shady guy. It seems like nobody really trusts him, and he's gotten kicked out of more than one of those presidential campaigns for less than admiral behavior-which even if it wasn't his fault as he tried to claim-is a major flaw in one's resume. But he's stayed involved with politics. Through reading the articles on him in the New Yorker and Weekly Standard, it was difficult to figure out what the articles were about besides simply "What's Stone been up to lately?" It seems like Stone is just somebody that people like to write stories about. And he's okay with that-he wants to be in the limelight.
The first article was a profile on Roger Stone for the New Yorker and begins in a swingers club called Miami Velvet, where he and the journalist discussed the role Stone may have played in breaking the Elliot Spitzer call girl story. The article in the beginning paints him as a guy who gravitates around the circles of conservative politicians, explaining why near the end: "Ultimately, the process-the battle-interests Stone more than the result." Even though he's a Republican, he doesn't like many of them and even sees them as elitists. Still, though, he supports John McCain and thinks he should run a slash-and-burn campaign to derail Obama, saying "Politics is not about uniting people. It's about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one per cent." Still, though, I can't figure out why he doesn't like Karl Rove if he thinks so greatly that McCain's only chance of making it to the White House is 'Nixon Hardball' politics.
Throughout the article it talks about the rules he lives by, and these are either intelligent or hilarious for the insight they provide. My favorite is the one that goes, "Democrats are the party of slavery and Republicans are the party of freedom." The Weekly Standard gave a different interpretation/presentation of Stone's rules, calling them "shot-glass commandments." The writer of the article, saying earlier that he likes Roger Stone (an unpopular stance with many journalists), made the point that Stone is "honest in his dishonesty" in the way politics is a performance for him. Watching him on Reason.tv I can see how this works for him. I bet it's a fun enough way to go about politics and he is equally a fun enough guy to have around because of it. But it doesn't always work for him in that he doesn't ever seem to be genuine. I'll get back to that in a minute.
His blog-the StoneZone-is something else, being both updated erratically and also containing the most random observations, from what JFK's cigar smoking means to making jokes about Hurricane Ike. It feels absurd in that it's sponsored by a law firm so he can have a little playground to make commentary, but at the same time I like the way his close ties to the politics of the past informs his analysis. Which reminds me of his Nixon tattoo, being plastered over his blog and the other articles. The tattoo itself is so iconic that I will forever link his face to the politics, tactics, and faces of the Nixon Administration. What a unique position to play in the role of politics for the last few decades. Which I think is why people keep him around; he's always there to cause a stir and shake things up, throw fuel on the fire.
When he's in the interview on Reason.tv he keeps emphasizing, most notably with the bit on Strom Thurmond, that because the politicians wanted to win so badly they would even take on negative characteristics to reflect the electorate only to be re-elected. I think that's a scary and true phenomenon. I'm not sure if what he said was true with Thurmond and I'm not sure how I feel about his defense of Reagan, but his analysis of Ron Paul and Elliot Spitzer I thought were spot-on. The way he refers to Ron Paul's presentation in the television age and his inability to realize the role the internet has played in helping his campaign is something I totally agree with. I also like his take on the Libertarian Party by identifying the strength and necessity of its ideology but also recognizing the way Democrats and Republicans have made it so difficult for a third party to be viable in the elections.
Watching him speak I come to believe that he's a really intelligent guy and a very good actor, in that he plays his role on TV well. My biggest problem with the guy is that I can't tell where his ideology is because he never seems genuine. Is he working for the Republicans or just for himself? Wherever his loyalties lie it's certainly the Republicans who are benefiting from his take on things. But I don't think it will work this time around. The real issues at stake this election-such as economy and energy-is making people care more about the right way to fix America's issues than the perceived personality issue of either candidate. At least I hope.
Questions for Roger Stone:
Are you really writing a book and how long do we have to wait for it to be published?
What's your beef with Karl Rove?
Why did you offer help to Al Sharpton during his presidential bid? [30]
Jason Andrews
“A state of the art sleaze-ball,” “an extreme rightwing sleaze-ball,” “(the) boastful black prince of Republican sleaze,” or simply Roger Stone—a self proclaimed libertarian and Reaganite— is politely put, one of the most influential political figures in modern society. He has dipped his proverbial ink into the jars of President Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. & Jr., Elliot Spitzer and countless other American and foreign politicians unions and groups. You either love him of hate him, but his approach to politics is unmistaken. “Politics with me isn’t theater,” Stone says in recitation of one of his many “Stone’s Rules”. “It’s performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake.” While his techniques mirror that of a classic mobster and juvenile bully, he is renown for his political resume and influence through various media outlets.
In an interview with Roger Stone from Reason.tv, Stone simply responds “it’s just bullshit,” when asked if American’s increasing access to higher knowledge promotes the idea that politics have become too negative? In fact, Stone believes that the reality of modern politics is that the Internet is more effective in campaigning, and the distribution of negativity. While it is easy to focus on the abilities that the internet provide for politics, Stone accessed and influenced the public through multiple forms of other media as well, including radio, print, and e-mails.
Roger Stone took leaps and bounds from his early mischief in the Watergate scandal, to both help the Republican Party, and taint the career of a particular former governor of New York. In what is now known as the “Brooks Brothers riot” Roger Stone used the radio to help secure George Bush’s victory in Florida during the 2000 election against Al Gore. In Miami-Dade Stone took advantage of the popular Radio Mambi to reach the ears of the Latin American communities. In the wake of Elian Gonzalez Stone and his wife leaked the idea that the Florida recount was, “a left-wing power grab by Gore, the same way Fidel Castro did it in Cuba.” And as the recount began in Miami listeners were urged to protest the recount, and in doing so would shut down the second recount of the votes. Stone succeeded from his small trailer / command center and the count was never re-started depriving Gore of his chance to win the state.
While not as impacting as deciding the next President of the United States, Roger Stone’s disgust (I would even venture to say hatred) or Eliot Spitzer reached multitudes of people as the New York governor was entwined in scandal. Stone’s relentless attacks via email, cell, and blogging on his own website, entertained a nation. In Matt Labash’s account of time spent with this major political figure, he mentions the endless chain of emails he received from Roger on the subject of Spitzer. I believe it is safe to assume that he was not the singular recipient to those mailings. As well as breaching into print through email correspondence, Stone was most famously noted for a message left on Eliot Spitzer’s fathers cell phone, which lead to his relinquishing of his position with the State Senate Republicans. However Stone maintained his attacks on Spitzer through blogs and varying interviews.
Most recently “StoneZone,” Roger Stone’s personal website has been a site for commentary on this upcoming election and commentary on a multitude of potential candidates, and party winners. Currently his videos criticize Barack Obama, and display actions and commentary at the GOP. His passion for politics even transcends party limitations as Stone created an independent political group entitled “Citizens Uniformly Not Timid” to criticize Hillary Clinton, and utilize the interesting acronym. Stone is an interesting character, and following this research; I am extremely excited to talk with such an individual
Questions:
You define yourself as a Libertarian, and in an earlier interview with Nick, explained that you believe the party’s existence has its role as a pressure on the Republican Party in a two party system. My question for you is, Do you believe that there is enough validity to the Libertarian party for it to emerge as a legitimate third party in the future, or are the constraints of the two party system to difficult to break away from?
In both article we were referenced to in order to better understand “who is Roger Stone,” the writers took privileges in dispersing your various “Stone’s Rules” throughout their articles. Of these rules, which do you think are the most important for college students such as ourselves to abide by when entering into the “real world”?
As a republican and a fan of hard nosed politics, what do you make of Barack Obama’s approach to his Campaign—with messages of hope and change, and few attacks on the opposing republican party aside from the continual use of the words lies, liars, and such? [30]
Cassie Gladden
Rodger Stone is the GOP’s version of Regina George, the lead “it-girl” and high school life-ruiner in the 2004 movie Mean Girls. Stone has a personality that draws you in, commands your attention and even though you do not like him, you continue to be fascinated by him. His ruthless nature and his well-connected network make you want to be his friend not enemy. His “Burn Book” is thick and filled with politicians and public figures who know that Stone has the resources and capability to ruin their careers. Infamous and strategic ,Stone has used the media to establish a persona that is both effective and unpersuasive, using a keen understanding of politics and alternative forms of media to send political messages.
Writer Matt Labash calls Stone a, “ Political operative, Nixon-era dirty trickster, professional lord of mischief.” NoQuarterUSA.net describes him as "Respected, hated and always controversial Republican political knife fighter...." Using different forms of media Roger Stone has painted society an image of controversial, respected and sometimes feared persona.
Stone utilizes bolgs, Internet video content, interviews and television appearance to portray himself. Never shying away from his true colors, Stone is quick to admit his opinion. His blog, StoneZone.com, is a parade of his thoughts on many different political issues: his distaste of Obama, Palin ability and Biden’s inability to relate to the American people and McCain aptitude for always making the right decision. He uses language that is blunt, frank and offensive, calling Hillary Clinton “a hack, [who] believes in virtually nothing”(MSNBC). He speaks candidly about his past, which reveals his trickster ways. He tells Matt Labash about his involvement with Watergate, placing a mole in Hubert Humphrey’s campaign. He tells how he worked to get John Anderson the Liberal party nominee in order for Regan to win New York State in the 1980 election. In all these media moments it is easy to see how he has become such a controversial figure.
Demanding attention and exuding intimidation, Roger Stone has created a role that successfully portrays an image that he wants the world to see. He is ruthless in his actions, living by the philosophy, “admit nothing, deny everything, launch counter attacks.” During the 2002 general election, Stone, seeking revenge over George Pataki, sent voters official-looking tax notices. Inside they read, “Since George ‘Patakifeller’ has been governor, property taxes in your country have increased by nearly 48.9 percent” (Labash 29.) Pataki lost the election. It is apparent that Stone enjoys the intimidation factor because he posts quotes from The Village Voice on his website, StoneZone.com describing him as, "The most dangerous person in America today..." .
He has built an effective persona, however it is questionable how convincing Roger Stone is. There are some reasons to argue that he is a believable source: his past record of uncovering political stories, his experience and his understanding of how politicians win elections. He has broken many stories that ended up being true, such as the Elliot Spitzer controversy. He has also been in the business since 1972 and has established many contacts, who are likely to share information with Stone (as long as it is not about themselves.)
Stone understands the game of politics and is convincing because he knows how to appeal to a mass audience. In his Reason Magazine interview he commends Strom Thurmond for his ability to realize what voters found important and created a campaign centered around racism. Stone explains how Strom was not necessarily a “virulent racist” but he recognized the conservative nature of South Carolina at the time. However, when South Carolina became less conservative, Strom changed his actions, appointing African American judges and supporting Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It was because of Thurmond’s ability to adapt to the changing climate of South Carolina that he was able to stay in The Senate for so long. On the other hand, Barry Goldwater ignored voter opinions, even going to Florida and purposing to get rid of social security; consequently he lost the 1964 presidential election. Recognizing how to appeal to his audience, Stone has learned how to convince voters and win elections.
Stone’s familiarity with politics also discredits him. Stone has never been afraid to admit his true agenda: getting what he wants, “Politics is not about uniting people. It’s about dividing people. And getting your fifty-one per cent.” (Toobin 9). Yes, most politicians that they are pushing their own agendas, but few people will do it in such a “dirty trickster” manner. One of his life rules is, “ Unless you can fake sincerity, you’ll get nowhere in this business.” (Labash 28). His dishonest nature and “I get what I want” attitude, in my opinion, discredit everything that Roger Stone says.
The last piece about Stone before concluding is his understanding of new and alternative media forms. Stone recognizes the efficiency of the internet in his Reason Magazine interview saying it has the ability to be far reaching and fast. Using blogs, video messages and email (in 2007 he had sent out hundreds of anti-Spitzer emails under false pseudo names), Roger Stone has adapted to the changing environment of technology.
Controversial and explosive, Roger Stone has created a unique persona. In his forty years in the business he has become someone who he is good at what he does, but what he does is not always good (at least not in the moral sense!).
Work Cited
"MSNBC Hosts Founder Of Anti-Hillary Group "C.U.N.T."" The Huffington Post. 19 Feb. 2008. 16 Sept. 2008
Lyndsay Ehrmann
There are few personalities in our modern-day media that have risen to such a highly reputable status, while also being extremely racy in their observations, than Roger Stone. Stone embraces new emerging forms of media, using them to expose his strong political stances to the general public in various ways. Roger Stone can definitely be considered a success story in using the “politics” of our present pop-culture media in a correct fashion towards everyone’s popular goal, success.
When we were asked on the first day of class, “What makes you watch some media over others,” my first thought was that the news source had to have a name for themselves. If a media source is not well-known, I constitute the “majority public” that probably will never hear about them. Roger Stone has worked with this idea of “politics” in our present media, and has successfully tackled it. Stone uses a variety of different media methods to get his ideas out there, reaching the general public from many different angles-one of which will come clear to everyone. He has definitely taken advantage of media growth in this generation, and his thoughts come from not one “palette” of just writing, but many. He has also taken advantage of the growth of the internet in present media, which I believe is the key to success of any media source. In the unique action of blogging his ideas to the public, he can get across to anyone and everyone in a fashion much ahead any popular media name I know. He also uses television (available on the internet) to visually make his points, using such creative tactics as metaphors comparing Obama and a giant stick of bologna. When wanting to get into more detail through writing, he gets his ideas across with standard magazine articles, which appeal to many. With this idea of putting his name out everywhere successfully, it is also important to note another key to his success-teaming up with other reputable media sources to build his name. By doing public interviews with well-known magazines like “Reason,” especially when you would think their ideas might clash, as you mentioned in the beginning of the filmed interview, he is putting his name in alliance with a trusted media source. Overall, the game of “politics” which is so key to success in today’s media world, is played with strength by Stone, a large reason for his success today.
It is a difficult task to take such strong views, many of which you know the general public may strongly disagree with, and convey them in a convincing way, at least causing some people to start thinking a little bit in the other direction. My personal response to Stone’s tactics was that he did this job expertly. I found him to be a very credible news source. As explained above, I think he played the “politics” of pop-culture media in a very smart fashion. I liked how he got his ideas across from many different media venues, writing in magazine articles to “StoneTV.” I also found him to be credible because of the huge name he has played for himself, with the large effect he has had on exposing some of the dirtier side of politics. The role he played in everything from the Watergate scandals, to Spitzer, to the recount in the Presidential Election should not be ignored. Any media personality that has correctly uncovered that much about America’s politics should be considered a reputable source in my eyes. He also embraces the idea of having an “out-there” personality, so he is not easily forgotten by his viewers-another key to playing pop-culture politics in our media correctly. Overall, Stone is a success story in our present media for bringing to light some sides of politics many of us would rather stay hidden.
THREE QUESTIONS
1.) What are your experiences with working with some of the popular media names? (We saw your interview with “Reason,” what work have you done with other magazines, TV interviews, etc.)
2.) What do you think makes a successful media source in our present-day?
3.) Which form of media in today’s world do you find most convincing, as you work with many (internet, magazine, TV), and why? [30]
Meaghan Luby
Roger Stone created the impression of a self-proclaimed lying politician which automatically makes him (very ironically) much more trustworthy as a person to me (and probably to the public). He seems to be brash, painfully honest with his opinions and actions (even if it’s about lying), over the top, and more then once while reading about the man or watching his videos, I was laughing. Hilarious political points or journalistic points seem to be the man’s forte.
I also felt while reading and watching that it was very obvious that this man used everything at his disposal and wasn’t afraid of those repercussions- ever. The story about the prostitute propositioning him and then giving him the scoop on Elliot Spitzer- the words spilled all throughout the articles that he is all about those who are hardworking, determined, and not afraid to be tough. The background story telling us how he is a self made man was hardly shocking information, in fact from his overwhelming personality on the pages, I would have been completely floored if he had been a silver spooner. I also thought it was interesting how his role in politics has fluctuated so much, from key role to sidelines, Nixon to an almost situation with a kindred over-the-top spirit, Donald Trump. The impression this formed to me was simply that our Mr. Stone loves politics. No matter what angle he is working, which role he is playing, he loves the game itself. My more to the point impressions of Stone: he is probably a man who would actually be hard to like in person but reading his stuff or watching his videos, you can’t help but like the man, he’s an outspoken political powerhouse.
This impression is the precisely the one I would say Stone wants myself and the public to have gotten of him. He built himself up to be this almost sleazy, (again, it’s this odd combination of self proclaimed tacky wardrobe and yellow hair making him almost acceptably fashionable and appealing in his own way), politically aware, outspoken, man among men who isn’t afraid to say what he thinks and who above all things is tough. Therefore, yeah, I would say that the persona he used the media to create was effective and his methods of building said persona (through his own brash social and political announcements as well as simply seeming to work at attracting all the negative and positive attention possible with his outlandish self) were more then effective.
What I think makes this persona credible is that, for some reason, I find him to be a good source of information and trust his word on politics, with a grain of salt of course. Even though a majority of his pieces are reported by himself, I still find him to be a convincing source. However, before I started to really read his own pieces or watch his videos, I was affected by the information I received on him from the two other pieces on him (“The Dirty Trickster” and “Roger Stone, Political Animal”) which weren’t always flattering but did give us an impressive recount of the history of his affair with politics as well as put him in what I would at least call affectionate light by the two journalists. Both admit that while he isn’t well loved in the journalistic field, the man himself is still liked by the authors. I think the fact that I was granted this information before going into his own pieces really did affect how I have read him though. With his long history in politics, I can’t help but feel he knows what he is talking about and, while he may be saying exaggerations or insults simply for the sake of saying exaggerations or insults, I can’t help but take them more seriously then I would some of the other political commentators out there.
His actions and machinations probably more call into question the frame of someone like Walter Benjamin then confirm them. I doubt journalism today would be much respected as an art form by Walter B, politics even less though some would argue it to be one of the greatest stages of all. The sense of fair play in the media today, which Stone is a great fan of with his own standards of all information, from almost any source, (again, I refer to the prostitute example), coming into play, as well as the casual manner of his work now (namely his bog page) would probably not stun WB as art but rather distress him at how far we have fallen. The man thought the letters to the editor section was destroying the grandeur of journalism, who knows what he would think of the political commentary Stone made with an arm full of bologna? I feel like, though hilarious, we can rest assured he would be opposed to such antics being titled as journalistic art. [30]
Chelsea Clements
Why hasn't there been a movie made about Roger Stone? This character is beyond entertaining and full of feist. If a move were to be made about his life in the political arena, I think it would be a mix of "Charlie Wilson's War," and "Catch Me If You Can." The statement in The Weekly Standard's article says it all: "There's no master plan with Roger. He just follows the most subversive, amusing course available to him at the time". He knows the political world is a game and he sure knows how to manipulate it.
As I was reading the assigned articles, I was amazed, amused and shocked by each story I encountered. He, with the aide of the media, has created a love-to-hate-him yet addictive persona that makes me want to know what he's up to but scared of what he might do.
He has cleverly used the media to keep his name in people's mouths, with the majority of people not having nice things to say about it. He has come up with his own set of rules, literally. He hopes to soon publish a book called "Stone's Rules for War, Politics, Food, Fashion, and Living", in which he has a long list of sarcastic and ridiculous rules to live by. He was clearly looking for some media attention when he founded the Anti-Hillary Group "C.U.N.T". He got a portrait of Richard Nixon on his back and then sent a picture of his tattoo to the media. He partnered with Donald Trump and Al Sharpton, two equally big media lovers that could rival Stone's love, in their failed attempts at a Presidential bid. All of the above examples demonstrate Stone's unique way of grasping the media's attention and helping to create his own persona.
I believe his persona is very effective in that people know what they are getting themselves into when they work with or heaven forbid fight with Roger Stone. A person looking for a straight edged political consultant will not turn to Stone for help. He's not the safest person to have on your side, having had a political scandal that basically forced him off the Dole campaign and out of D.C. But he is a force nonetheless. If I were to encounter a war of words of any kind, I would want this man on my side and if I found him as a figure on the opposing side, I would be scared.
With most of his stories of success having been published by himself, I have doubts about the validity of the events actually occurring or occurring at the scale in which he describes. He has lied to the public during the Bernard Spitzer voicemail scandal and during the swinger ad scandal, only to admit he had been lying and make public apologies. But going along with his persona, I just view everything he says with a "Caveat Emptor." [30]
Jennifer Pace
It is easy to cringe when you read the things that Roger Stone has said or done. He is one of those characters that you don’t agree with the things that he has done, but you cannot stop reading about him. All of his actions revolve around deceit, mockery and sometimes even the truth. He lives by his rules only. He does not care what others think, just relays his message “by any means necessary.” Which is one of many Stone Rules that he lives by.
Stone’s life is deeply ingrained into politics and all the hype that surrounds it. He refers to his views as being an unwavering conservative with a libertarian flair. He has been associated with many scandals including Watergate, Eliot Spitzer’s resignation, and being accused of swinging with his wife. This little background information makes him all the more colorful.
Most people in the media and in politics do not want to be connected with him. The media portrays him as being a “political animal,” “dirty trickster,” and he has even been referred to the cancer of politics, “everything that is wrong with today’s system.” Not only are those titles associated with his name, the most common reference to Roger Stone is being a sleaze. Here are a few examples of this reference: “a state of the art sleazeball,” “an extreme rightwing sleazeball,” and a “boastful black prince of Republican sleaze.” Even if Stone is telling the truth about a story how is the public suppose to trust him with how the media portrays him. There is always doubt when deciding whether he is telling the truth. One minute he is denying his involvement, the next minute he is making side comments that allude to him having played some sort of role in some political scandal.
Luckily this persona as a sleazeball and trickster that the media has spread has become an effective tool for Stone to use. People are very attentive to what scandal he is going to be part of next. They are interested in what he has to say. People are concerned about what the next drama the “dirty trickster” is going to conjure. One of his rules, “the only thing worse in politics than being wrong is being boring,” shows why his actions are so theatrical. It is all about the hype and how fast his message can spread. The more people that know his opinions are more chances for him to convince or persuade someone to believe him. Even if people are not convinced of what he is saying, it still makes them think about the possibility of what he is saying could be true.
The media, especial new media, is very beneficial to spreading Stone’s political and sometimes distasteful messages. He uses his blog as the number one way of getting his word out to the public. The big trend into today’s political and journalist community is having your own blog. It is the easiest way of emphasizing your point-of-view and it being available to everyone. Roger Stone’s blog has a mix of video elements and political writings. Recently the most effective use of new media has been in his campaign against Eliot Spitzer. This campaign included using mass anti-Spitzer emails being sent out to as many people as possible and multiple times a day. An example of one of the emails that was sent out “showed Osama bin Laden driving a New York City cab, referring to Spitzer’s bone-headed play of allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses without proof of citizenship.” This is a great example of Roger Stone playing by one of his rules: “Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side.” Stone uses the media to be able to badger and probe his opinions. His reputation in the media also helps his attacks spread.
Roger Stone is a very colorful, outspoken individual who will do anything to engage the public about the political mischief that is going on.
Questions:
What has been your greatest moment working as a political consultant?
When do you have the most fun with your line of work? What are your feelings on being referred to as a “dirty trickster,” a “political animal” or even “a state of the art sleazeball?” [30]
Mary DelGrande
When I first read Stone’s articles, the ones he personally wrote and blogged about, I was convinced that he was the best political activist for the Republican Party. Once I read the Dirty Trickster though, I changed my outlook. He has a lot of dirty tricks up his sleeve, and while he gets the job done by outing political figures like Eliot Spitzer, he ruins his political career in the process. He admitted to being a shady person when Toobin interviewed him and also stated that one of his rules is, “the only thing worse in politics than being wrong is being boring.” By sharing this rule, he’s indirectly stating that he likes to get emotional rises out of people to turn their attention away from the real issues, like staging the Brooks Brothers Riot to help Bush win the election in 2000. While he is a trickster though, I do think that he has the best intentions for America. He doesn’t agree with Obama because “they are elitists and don’t share middle-class values because middle-class citizens are proud of their country and they are not.”
While his form of media has advanced since he’s been a major political figure for forty years, his modus operandi has not. In his interview with Reason.TV he says that now instead of using handbills, he uses the Internet instead. He is still the same trickster that he was when he realized he could trick people in the mock election his grammar school held in first grade. Now that he is no longer a lobbyist in the government, he uses media resources like his website, stonezone.com and StoneTV to get his message across. Recently he got a tattoo on his back of Nixon, and that is a more contemporary form of media and getting a message across. He also uses short T.V. clippings, like his “Same Old Baloney” ad on Senator Obama.
It is hard to tell if he is convincing as a source because a lot of what he says is his own opinion, not an educated opinion. If his opinions were credible they would be based on fact from different media and direct sources. The persona he has created for himself is one of a dirty trickster, as Toobin stated in his article after his interview with Stone. Stone likes this persona, and it’s easy to tell especially from the interview on Reason.TV and all his rules. In the second half of Walter Benjamin’s essay, he states that, “the greatest effects are almost always obtained by ‘acting’ as little as possible.” In the Dirty Trickster, Toobin stated that Stone is an actor and changes his tone and reaction to certain people to get what he wants out of an election or getting someone to resign. Stone acts a lot and the greatest effects come from that rather than acting as little as possible, as Benjamin states.
I do enjoy what he says about Ron Paul and how “he doesn’t understand why or how good things are happening when they’re happening.” He addresses a very good point by saying that he was a better candidate twenty years ago because there wasn’t a television age then but there is now. John F. Kennedy would not have been elected if television existed when he was running for office because he was in a wheel chair and Americans like to be strong and are known for standing on their own two feet. Stone is right about Eliot Spitzer being a corrupt psycho and not developing any political skills whatsoever by paying his way through to become Governor. Stone said, “a governor is about getting people together.” Clearly, Spitzer did not do that and was only concerned about himself and his gain politically. No one should tell the Senate Majority Leader, or anyone in general, “you’ll support my bill or I’ll cut your head off,” “I’m a fucking steam roller and I’ll roll over you and anyone else that gets in my way.” Stone is very correct in everything he said about Spitzer, and if he used this form of attacking other politicians who are in the wrong he would have a more effective persona and be a credible source.
Overall, I do enjoy Stone and what he has to say. His remarks about how a person looks and how that defines confidence is humorous because I can relate it to what I hear from my Dad who is an investment banker in San Francisco. I share some of his political views, and he makes very smart connections between previous elections and this current one. His article was on his blog and the title is, “McCain’s Truman Moment.” The last sentence states, “Like Truman, McCain’s candidacy was written off early. Truman won.” I never made that connection before and it made me think about a lot of other similarities in politics that can be applied here. [30]
