|
The media landscape is changing. While our philosophy doesn't waiver, our political technology must continuously be updated. As conservative leaders, you and I must continue to adapt and overcome. That's why I recommend reading this checklist from the liberal New Politics Institute.
|
Unions Admit Failed GOTV Effort in '04
After years of cleaning our clock on Election Day, the National Journal's On Call blog reports that Labor Unions have finally admitted their 2004 Get-out-the-Vote effort failed: "Without being asked, McEntee, who also chairs the AFL's political cmte, stated bluntly that the millions of dollars Dems and liberals put into the 527s for GOTV in '04 were ineffective in the face of the GOP's volunteer effort. Or, as McEntee put it, the Dems' 'stranger-to-stranger' ground game was 'trounced' by the GOP's "neighbor-to-neighbor strategy."
|
If you've ever wondered what a RINO is, here's the definition:
|
Where Bodie Went Bad
In our perverse media culture -- where Paris Hilton is considered a role model -- it is confounding that "bad boy" Bode Miller (who confessed to skiing drunk) has become so universally despised. Bodie could have avoided this fate had his mentor only been "Crash" Davis, the Kevin Costner character from the classic baseball movie Bull Durham. As you'll recall, Costner, the older and wiser mentor cautioned his hot-shot protege (played by Tim Robbins) that he couldn't get away with shenanigans until he made it to the big leagues. In one famous scene he critiqued his protege's grooming habits: "Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes. Think classy, you'll be classy. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press'll think you're colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob." Bodie should have seen the movie and acted classy. ...Or the American Olympic team should have paired him with a Crash Davis who would have straightened him out. Either way, he would have been better off today. So why is the normally-forgiving American public being so hard on Bodie? To quote General Patton, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Losing is the unpardonable sin, it seems. By losing every event he entered, Bodie has forfeited our admiration. Had Bodie won the gold, the press would have portrayed him as being "colorful." Until he wins the gold, it just means he's a drunk.
|
Gov. Romney Answers Wallace Questions
FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace featured a hardball interview with Mitt Romney that deserves some attention (read the transcript here). After repeatedly trying to pin Romney down on his stance on abortion, Wallace finally got this answer: WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins -- this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years -- in the last three years? ROMNEY: Chris, what I'm saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said -- and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life. ...Let's be honest, it's is going to be hard to sell his commitment to social values when he says his position on abortion has "evolved" since 2002. But when it came to the issue of Romney's Mormon faith, he did much better: WALLACE: I want to ask you about another area of possible controversy and it involves something very personal, your religion. You are a Mormon. As you well know, a number of evangelicals say that could be a problem for you in Republican primaries because they say Mormonism is a cult. Your response. ROMNEY: Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. And I don't believe that that's been an issue for me in my race for governor. It wasn't an issue, I believe, serious, for John Kennedy when he ran for president. People said oh, gosh, Ronald Reagan, he's been an actor who's been divorced, you can't elect him. Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person... From a political perspective, Romney parried the religious question well (frankly, if he didn't have a good answer to this question, I would be very concerned.) I especially liked the JFK reference. And anyone who thinks FOX News throws softballs to Republicans should read the transcript. On the other hand, Romney is fortunate to have been asked these hot-button issues sooner rather than later. After all, if he can't answer these questions, he isn't going to win, anyway. I'd say he did as well as could be expected, considering the hurdles he will have to jump in order to win a Republican nomination. On another note, today's Boston Globe predicts Ann Romney will be a major asset to Mitt Romney's campaign for president. (We've already discussed how political spouses can be an asset or a liability.) "I've seen Laura Bush, I've seen a lot of people,' said Jim Runestad, president of the North Oakland Republican Club in Oakland County, Mich., where Mitt and Ann Romney both addressed a 750-person fund-raiser earlier this month. ''If I had to pick a politician's wife, of all I've seen, she'd be the one." ..."Candidates' wives have figured larger in presidential races as character and image have become increasingly important components of campaigns, said Julian Zelizer, professor of history at Boston University." They say behind every good man there is a good woman. It is plausible that if Ann Romney is as charming as they say, her very presence on the campaign trail might help answer the lingering questions Republicans still have about him. Stay tuned.
|
Leaving a Legacy
There's still more bad news for former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The mid-decade redistricting that he initiated in Texas set off legal proceedings that will now be heard by the Supreme Court. While the Republicans picked up six seats in Texas because of the district changes, they now face further disgrace. The Chicago Tribune reports that the court will determine whether the redistricting took place illegally, from purely political motivations or to wrongly break up districts where minorities make up the majority. This can't be what Rep. DeLay envisioned leaving Congress and Republicans. As an opposite example of a beneficial contribution to a discipline or organization, consider US speedskater Joey Cheek. He donated his medal bonuses, which total $40,000, to Right to Play, a humanitarian organization that reaches children in developing countries, founded by 1994 Olympic champion Johann Olav Koss, a Norwegian. The International Olympic Committee and private individuals and companies have responded to his generous acts, donating over $400,000. This is the Chicago Tribune's report. Between this and his good sportsmanship during the Games, he shows what it is to leave a positive legacy.
|
Speed Kills: Bush Needs an Improved Rapid Response Approach
In 1992, Bill Clinton's rapid-response team in Little Rock had two words emblazoned on the backs of their tee-shirts: Speed Kills. In the modern media age, they were right; getting your story out quickly often determines whether your story gets told at all. The '92 Clinton team became so adept at this that they once released a response to Bush's convention speech before he uttered his first word. Now that's quick! In fairness to George W. Bush, it's harder to respond quickly when you are the President of the United States of America and have the unfortunate disadvantage of actually having to run the country (Clinton pulled the convention speech stunt before being elected). As President, any hastily uttered word could have major international implications. So it's no surprise that in politics there is often an inverse relationship between the speed in which you can respond and the importance of the office you hold. It is also harder to worry about petty PR issues when you are responsible for the full-time demands of the nation. But the need to respond rapidly is just as important in governance as it is in a political campaign. And often, the stakes are even higher. The Bush team has long been thought of as masters of political gamesmanship. And the fact is, Bush didn't have this problem in his first four years as president. So what is the cause of this recent lapse in political acumen? Some have speculated that the problem is that Karl Rove has been distracted by other issues, including the Plame case. Others speculate that, with no re-election to worry about, some in the White House have simply gotten sloppy. In the late 1980s, when the Reagan Administration became embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, many observers blamed the scandal on the fact that James Baker, Ed Meese, and Mike Deaver -- Reagan's long-time confidants -- were no longer at his side. But that can hardly be the case with Bush. In fact, could the opposite be true? Could his problem be that his long-time advisors are simply too tired to be on top of things? Sunday's Washington Post quotes former press secretary, Ari Fleisher, regarding this question (he is a rare example of a top Bush staffer who left after one term): "My sense is the people who are over there now are working with a very pronounced double-edged sword: they have been there from the beginning, they are experienced, knowledgeable and they know how things work and to get things done -- but they are tired." When you examine the history of modern Chiefs of Staff, Fleisher's analysis seems plausible. Of the modern two-term presidents, Dwight Eisenhower had two Chiefs of Staff, Richard Nixon had two, and both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton each had four. Even recent one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush had more Chiefs of Staff in four years than the younger Bush has had in six (And Jimmy Carter didn't even have a Chief of Staff until 1979). In fairness, some past presidential aides didn't leave because they were tired. In some cases they were forced out by scandal or (as in the case of Don Regan) they were fired. It is a tribute to President Bush that he was able to hire people he could work with from day one. Bush believes in loyalty and in surrounding himself with close aides. Based on their longevity, it is clear that most of his picks were very good. But the question remains: Is it time to bring in some fresh faces? Working a job for six years is not necessarily going to burn you out -- until you factor in the stress and long-hours these particular jobs demand. A January 5, 2005 Washington Post article described Andy Card's schedule this way: "He wakes at 4:20 each morning, commonly stays at work until 10 p.m. and spends most weekends at his office or at Camp David with the POTUS." That is a pretty rigorous schedule for anybody, much less a man in his late fifties. The average term of service for a White House Chief of Staff is about two and a half years. Card is working on his sixth. I'm not implying that Andy Card is responsible for the mishandling of recent events. Rather, I am using him as one example of many Bush staffers who have been working a stressful job for six years. Whether or not it is time to bring in some fresh faces is a question I'm not qualified to answer. The President gets the final call on that one. But it's something he should at least consider. As an added bonus, replacing some of his long-serving staff would not only have the affect of bringing in some refreshed reinforcements, it would also serve to help change the tone, which the press might like. I sometimes suspect Bush is in some regards playing a game of chicken with the press, in which he sticks with his people merely to prove a point. Regardless of what the cause is, the Bush White House needs to do a better job of rapidly responding to issues before they become a crisis. Let's print some new tee-shirts for the White House staff to wear: Speed Kills!
|
In My View, a True Great!
 Today, we mourn the loss of Don Knotts. For my money, he was one of the great comedic actors of all time. His iconic character, Barney Fife, will live on. Thanks for touching our lives, and making us laugh. RIP, Don Knotts.
|
Unleash the "Great Communicator" in You!
 This is your invitation to attend a very special training I'm conducting on April 1! This is advanced training for serious conservatives who want to learn "insider" techniques and fine-tune their communication skills. ... Yes, you will be asked to give a speech. ... Yes, you will be asked to write a press release. ... Yes, you will receive one-on-one personal analysis with instructors. And because this training is so advanced and personal, I am limiting it to just eight (8) students. That's right: only eight students will be able to attend this advanced communications training (and we only have two spots left)! Will you be one of them? Topics covered will include the following: - Advanced Messaging: Learn how to develop a persuasive message -- and how to stay on message. Participate in role-playing scenarios where you develop a message -- and are critiqued. Then, in a mock interview, you'll get to practice "staying on message." - Public Speaking: Once you develop a persuasive message, the next step is to learn how to communicate it effectively. From hand gestures to avoiding fillers, you'll be schooled in the best techniques. Then, you'll get to draft a short speech -- and be critiqued on the content -- and the delivery. - Expert PR Tips: You'll learn all the tips regarding how to garner favorable press, including literature layout and design. Then, you'll practice "pitching" stories to reporters -- and writing mock press releases. - A Personal Analysis: Every attendee will get personal time with the instructors to ask questions and have your campaign literature critiqued. And after the seminar, you will receive a written critique to help you continue to learn. ... As you can see, this is more than the standard "lecture-based" training most seminars offer. Frankly, as someone who has conducted hundreds of training seminars, the only way you can get this kind of personal and advanced training is to limit the size -- and that's just what we've done! The training will take place in Washington, DC on April 1 -- the perfect time to visit DC and see the Cherry Blossoms. And, as an added bonus, the night before the training (Friday, March 31), you'll be my guest for a special dinner at the Capital Hill Club. Again, I'm cutting off registrations for this top-notch advanced training opportunity at eight. The price (including dinner Friday night -- and a full day of advanced communications training) is just $495. Again, this is limited to just eight attendee's -- and we only have 2 spots left! To register, or for more information, email me at MLewis@campaignleadership.com.
|
The National Journal is out with its annual ratings of Senate and House Members. In the Senate, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Wayne Allard (R-C0), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) tied as the most conservative Members. They were each more conservative than 90.8 percent of the Senate on key votes during 2005. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) easily took 1st place as the Senate's most liberal Member. Other big news is that John Kerry (D-MA) dropped to 8th place. He just can't come in first place at anything these days...
|
Technology Strikes Back!
As I've previously written political campaigns face a growing dilemma: Modern technology allows people to hide from intrusive ads. While this may be good for the consumer, it causes major problems for people who want to get their message out. That's why this new KFC ad is such a great idea. It is interactive and rewards viewers for taking the time to watch an ad. I wonder how long it will be before political ads start trying to replicate this idea...
|
Today's Washington Times has a good quote from Ken Mehlman: "Outreach is when I go and speak to people about the party; inclusion is when Michael Steele does it..."
|
It was only a matter of time...
This has been floating around the internet. 
|
Liberals Take on Dem Consultants
A few years ago, conservative leader Morton Blackwell issued a missive, urging Republicans to "out" consultants who opposed the RNC's emphasis on get-out-the-vote -- their 72 Hour Task Force. Now it seems the liberals are hoping to replicate his success in pushing consulants to change their ways. Morton, who had been pushing the RNC to embrace grassroots GOTV efforts for decades, knew Republicans needed to change their tactics if they were to continue winning elections. Polls in the late 90s consistently demonstrated that Democrats were "out-performing" Republicans on Election Day. The reason was obvious: Democrats (and labor unions) had done a better job of turning out their favorable voters on Election Day. In 2001, The New Yorker described the Morton's efforts to renew the Republican commitment to grassroots campaigns: "Ten days after the election, Morton Blackwell, a former national executive director of the College Republicans, who had been out of touch with Rove for years, picked up the phone and heard that familiar booming voice on the other end of the line: 'Morton, how does it feel to have advocated something for decades and have it come true?' What Blackwell had been advocating for decades, ever since he trained the teen-age Karl Rove to be a field organizer, was that people in politics should pay less attention to consultants, television advertising, polls, and 'message,' and more attention to the old-fashioned side of the business: registering voters, organizing volunteers, making face-to face contact during the last days of A campaign, and getting people to the polls on Election Day. Soon, Rove had launched a project called the 72-Hour Task Force, which conducted scientific experiments in grassroots political organizing during the three days before Election Day in five geographically scattered races in 2001." While Morton advocated for this change for decades, he keenly understood that correcting the problem would require more than just talking about the positive attributes of grassroots campaigns -- it would require a cultural paradigm shift encompassing the very nature of how Republican campaigns are run. The inherent problem was a conflict of interest: It was in the best interest of political consultants to ignore grassroots politics in favor of media-driven campaigns. Here's why: Consultants make their big money from media buys. They don't make money from encouraging their clients to run grassroots campaigns. So if you're a consultant, it is in your best interest to encourage your clients to ignore grassroots and focus on spending money on media. Morton's purpose in calling out Republican political consultants was to send a message that opposing the RNC's move toward embracing grassroots would have consequences. Of course, the RNC's 72 Hour Task Force was hugely successful, and part of the credit goes to Republicans, like Morton, who were able to hold their political consultants accountable. Today, Democrats are hoping to replicate Morton's approach toward political consultants. Liberals like Markos Moulitsas, who runs the DailyKos blog, have recently encouraged liberal bloggers to begin holding Democrat consultants accountable for their clients. This seems a bit strict, as consultants, by definition, are paid to give strategic and tactical advice (not ideological) which the client can either accept or reject. Most recently, the National Journal's Hotline On Call blog posted a letter from the United Steel Workers which lists the names and phone numbers of consultants working for conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar (D-28), and calls on labor unions and Democrat campaign committees to contact Cuellar's consultants and tell them to "Drop Henry Now." But while Morton pushed for decades to change Republican's political tactics, today's liberals are seeking to instill a strict ideological adherence to "progressive" orthodoxy. Whereas Morton's efforts have led to electing more Republicans, the liberals' heavy-handed attempts, should they succeed, will only lead to a monolithic Democrat Party which continues to be viewed as out-of-touch by most Americans.
|
Head's up. Labor gets into the act: The AFL-CIO has launched a blog.
|
The Fix today outlines the difference between a legitimate poll and a "push poll." "A poll is a small sample survey of anywhere from 300 to 1,000 people, the sole purpose of which is to measure opinion or test how opinion is affected by information...Advocacy calls are done by phone bank (and feature) a large number of calls in the thousands and even tens of thousands the purpose of which is persuasion."
|
Russert's Port Analysis
Tim Russert had an interesting analysis on Imus, this morning. In short, he believes it is in everybody's best interest for this port controversy to turn into an all-out fight. Democrats, says Russert, benefit greatly by outflanking Republicans on the issue of terror. The lesson learned from 2002 and 2004 is that the "weak" party loses. To win, Dems must shake their pre-9-11 image, and this is a golden opportunity to do so. As I stated yesterday, I am doubtful that Democrats will be able to continue to talk tough on terror. This is due to the lack of having a unified voice, not to mention the number of peaceniks and Leftists who control the purse strings of their party. But -- and this is a big but -- if Democrats can find a way to outflank Republicans on national defense and terror, we are in big, big trouble. Republicans in Congress, also benefit from this controversy. This allows them to do two things at once: show they are tough on terror -- and prove they are not merely a "rubber stamp" for the White House. According to Russert, even President Bush benefits from this controversy. Russert's theory is that Bush benefits from talking about the need to bring in allies and build coalitions with other countries. In short, this issue allows Bush to appear to be the one who is nuanced. To me, this one seems like the biggest stretch. I don't think the reward of being considered nuanced, justifies the political heat he is taking -- and it certainly doesn't justify endangering our country. If being nuanced were a political winner, John Kerry would have been elected president. Nope, I believe Bush firmly believes this is in the best interest of America. Perhaps Russert's most astute observation is that this port controversy would make his dad, "Big Russ," scratch his head and say, "this just doesn't seem right." You've got to admit that regardless of where you come down on this issue, on the surface, it just sounds like a very bad idea.
|
Hollywood Promotes Family Values?
Had enough Brokeback Mountain and Capote films to last a lifetime? Finally, there is someone in Hollywood who promotes family values ... The Ware Foundation, in partnership with MOVIEGUIDE is announcing a new $50,000 "Ware Libertas Prize" for the movie that presents the best of American values in an inspiring way. The awards ceremony will be held March 2, 2006 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. In 2004, The Incredibles, Miracle, Shrek 2, The Polar Express, and Ladder 49 were honored as the best films for families by Movieguide. The Passion of the Christ received the award for most inspiring movie.
|
Dems Get Aggressive on Immigration Issues
At a time when many are questioning the wisdom of President Bush's handling of our ports, Democrats appear to be earning points on the issue of border control: In New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson is tightening drivers' license laws. As a Hispanic Democrat, Richardson can feel safe to employ the "only Nixon can go to China" approach to border issues. In '04 Richardson declared a state of emergency on New Mexico's borders. In California, Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to criminalize the digging of tunnels under our borders. Her proposal to finally outlaw this practice seems like complete common sense. During a recent interview on Meet the Press, James Carville and Paul Begala both said they would not necessarily oppose a border fence. While they would not commit either way, the fact that they didn't outright reject this proposal signifies their understanding that this is a politically potent issue. Are the Dems posturing? Sure. That's not the point. Whether real or perceived, protecting our borders continues to be the weak spot for an administration that has otherwise been very tough on fighting terrorism. This is one area where the Dems have assessed them might be able to outflank us. And that, of course, would be big trouble for Republicans. The good news is that (if history is a predictor), Howard Dean or Harry Reid will soon say something stupid and foil their plans. On the other hand, should we have to count on that?
|
Post WBAL...
Well, I think the interview went well. I got to plug HumanEventsOnline and MattLewis.org, so that's good. We didn't spend as much time on Lt. Gov. Steele as I thought we would. And frankly, the whole thing went pretty quick (Gov. Ehrlich was on right after me, so maybe that had something to do with both the content and the speed). I'd like to thank Ron Smith and his producer for having me on. I grew up on Orioles games on WBAL (John Miller and Joe Angel), so it was a real pleasure to be on that station. I could also tell Ron is a good radio host, based on his voice and his questions. If you heard the interview, drop me an email. I'm curious what you thought...
|
New Interview Time
My interview on WBAL has been bumped up to 5:15 (Gov. Ehrlich is on at 5:30)...
|
As always, I am serching for tips to pass on to you. Here's a good technology tip for Republicans ...
|
It's very cool that CMT's " True Grit" series started off with Ronald Reagan!
|
I'll be on the Ron Smith Show on WBAL (AM 1090 in Baltimore) tomorrow afternoon at 5:30 to discuss my recent blog about Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. Click here and then click the "listen live" icon.
|
Happy Presidents Day! Here are 20 things you didn't know about the presidents...
|
As someone who has worked in politics, I know this: The number one predictor of how a person will vote is church attendance. The more times per week a person attends church, the greater the likelihood is that person will vote Republican. So it stands to reason that conservatives would want to identify folks who regularly attend church -- and make sure they are at least registered to vote. Right? Obviously. A maxim in politics is that you've got to "hunt where the ducks are" (or if you're Dick Cheney, you can also hunt where the quails are). In other words, we live in a world of limited resources. It's wise to spend your time and energy in the places where you are likely to see the greatest reward for your efforts. When asked why he robbed banks, the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton quipped: "Because that's where the money is." Well, this is sort of the same kind of thing. When Republicans encourage people of faith to be involved in politics, we know we will get 8 out of 10 votes. This is nothing more than marketing 101. I mean, if Republicans knew that people who worked at the Post Office -- or had blonde hair -- or wore Nike's -- were predisposed to vote Republican, you can bet we'd try to find a way to find identify them (and turn them out at the polls on Election Day.) You'd probably see political operatives hanging out at the local Foot Locker store registering voters. We'd buy web ads at Nike.com, etc. As far as I know, there is no correlation between wearing Nike shoes and voting Republican (talk about micro-targeting). But there is certainly a link between church attendance and propensity to vote Republican). So why is it such a surprise that the NC GOP is asking members to send in their church directory? I mean, it sounds like a smart move to me... But not only is at a smart political move -- it's your right as an American! I can't find anything in the constitution that would prohibit a private citizen from mailing in their church membership list to any political party they choose. That's freedom. This is one of those cases where the smart political move and "doing the right thing" converge. I truly believe that people of faith not only have the right to be involved in politics -- we have a responsibility to be involved! Of course, the liberals and secular humanists also know what we know: That church attendance is the number one predictor of how someone will vote. And the liberals fear that deep down, whether they know it or not, the folks sitting in the pews are, gulp, Republicans ... if they vote. So liberals benefit by finding ways to "discourage" any behavior that might motivate these "values voters" to show up at the polls on Election Day. And if these liberals can't use the law to stop people of faith from getting organized, they will try to scare churches into sitting on the cultural sidelines. (Even if lawsuits don't work, the fear of lawsuits is often enough to scare off many a timid religious leader.) Note: If you are a pastor who has been intimidated, or if you've had your church's tax status threatened, click here for help... The truth is there are a ton of things churches and pastors may legally do, including organization voter registration drives and distributing voters guides. Pastors may also (on their own time) exercise freedom of speech and participation in Democracy (including having a private blog that does advocate the election or defeat of partisan candidates). I realize there is a lot of fear and confusion out there, regarding this issue. As such, for more information about your freedom to express your faith and politics, check out these links: The Becket Fund - Protects the free expression of all religious traditions. American Center for Law and Justice - Great info regarding the protection of religious freedoms. The Liberty Counsel - Helps religious groups in legal battles. Wallbuilders - Experts on America's religious heritage. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or an IRS expert. If you have questions, the above resources will give you the answers you've been looking for...
|
PA Politics
I've been emailing back and forth with Jason High from FreePA.org, regarding my recent blog about Lynn Swann. Jason has excellent insight regarding Pennsylvania politics. There is some VERY exciting stuff happening in PA, right now, and his blog will keep you in the loop. (As you'll see, I've linked to his blog, FreePA.org.) For more info on the PA Political scene, check it out!
|
Politicians' Spouses: Assets or Liabilities?
 Marc Ambinder, over at National Journal's "Hotline On Call" blog, writes that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will be using his wife more and more as he prepares for a presidential run: "She humanizes her husband, who can be stiff and workmanlike on the campaign trail. She's quick with a quip in one-to-one conversations. She's a reminder that Frist, a heart surgeon, has a big heart -- is a family man, with three children."
This got me thinking of how political spouses have been utilized by past campaigns. President Bush has certainly utilized Laura Bush to soften his image. John F. Kennedy was benefited greatly by Jacky Kennedy's style and class. In fact, she sometimes overshadowed him, as was the case when he once jokingly introduced himself as "the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris." Sometimes the roles are reversed: Ronald Reagan, who was perhaps a bit too trusting, benefited from having Nancy by his side. Nancy Reagan was more skeptical and suspicious of people, and found ways to get rid of people she thought might hurt her husband. Close Reagan friends speculate we would never have had a President Reagan without Nancy Reagan. (In the case of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, they may have actually softened their wives' image). Sure, Nancy's concern for Reagan sometimes overstepped the boundaries, causing staffers like Lyn Nofziger and Mike Deaver some sleepless nights. And Nancy also created problems for President Reagan when her consultations of an astrologer were made public. Nevertheless, her presence was, by far, a net gain. This phenomenon of utilizing the candidate's spouse isn't just for national politics. Local candidates can also benefit from having a spouse serve as a surrogate when speaking events coincide. Additionally, a "spouse letter" from a male politicians' wife (targeted to female voters) has long been a staple of political campaigns. In a North Dakota congressional race I managed, we made use of our candidate's terrific spouse in order to soften his image. Our tack didn't go unnoticed by the press, either. When we featured her prominently in our TV ads, the Bismarck Tribune wrote: "In both of the ads, Sand's wife, Holly, is featured prominently and does almost all of the talking. When asked why she was the focus of the ads, Lewis deadpanned, 'She's better looking than he is.' Touche." But not every campaign manager is lucky enough to work with great political spouses (as I have). Anyone who has worked on several political campaigns can tell you stories about meddling spouses who don't know the first thing about politics, yet exert tremendous authority over the direction of the campaign. A meddling spouse has been the downfall of many campaigns. Often, spouses are underutilized by the campaign. This was the case when Howard Dean's wife, Judith, reluctantly joined the campaign trail. She had basically been invisible for two years, and then all of a sudden, she was holding hands with Howard Dean. It just didn't ring true to the average person, and smacked of desperation. But while an absent spouse can be a problem, the worst scenario (as was the case with John Kerry's wife), is a spouse who is both an internal and an external liability. I have no doubt that Teresa Heinz Kerry cost her husband at least a point or two. In short, political spouses can be a tremendous help to a politician. Aspiring candidates should choose their spouses carefully. Time will tell if Bill Frist's tactic will pay off. He certainly needs to tweak his image right now, and this is a good step in that direction.
|
Christian Movie Revolution
Building on the strength of a recent string of successful Christian movies, The Second Chance is set to debut. The Second Chance, the story of a rebellious son and a pastor who struggle to bridge the gap between their respective churches and cultures, is just the latest in a series of Christian movies to make it into the mainstream. In January, End of the Spear, a movie about five Christian missionaries martyred in the jungles of Ecuador, debuted. The movie drew controversy among Christians because of Chad Allen, who plays one of the martyred missionaries, is a homosexual who has lobbied for gay marriage. Despite the controversy, most Christians view these movies as a welcome alternative to what is currently coming out of Hollywood. The fact that we are talking about these two movies debuting, is news unto itself. Until fairly recently, Christian movies have been mostly relegated to home viewing. For example, the Left Behind series is wildly popular among Christians. While this provided edifying material for families, it did little to change the culture. In short, it was, preaching to the choir. But while these movies may have done little evangelize, they were certainly significant in laying the groundwork for today's successes. Ironically, this past dilemma has forced Christian movies to be creative in finding ways to market themselves. Today, we can count on Christian radio shows -- and even local churches to become creative and to engage in guerilla marketing. For example, the website for The Second Chance asks fans to help promote the movie: "If you're excited about The Second Chance and want to help promote the movie in your area, then you've come to the right place. This section provides you with free tools, exclusive contests, and other helpful information that will assist you in spreading the word about this film. Plus, fans who participate in promoting the film will receive FREE PRIZES as a way to say thanks for all your help." The Second Chance and End of the Spear are just the latest two offerings in a growing genre that includes mega-blockbusters, such as: The Passion and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. It would be hard to overstate the impact these two movies have had, in terms of proving Christian movies can be highly profitable. Of course, there is also a danger in comparing these blockbusters to other Christian movies. Like every genre, some movies are blockbusters, some fail, others become successful "small films," and some become cult classics. Not every movie will be a huge money-maker. To become truly successful, Christian films will have to occupy places in each rubric -- and they are well on their way. This phenomenon seems to be taking off like a rocket. Ten years ago, these movies would not have been made. (Heck, ten years ago, this blog would not have been able to talk about them, if they were made). Like conservative talk radio shows, cable news TV shows, and the phenomenon of blogging, technology has paved the way for this revolution. I predict we are still in the beginning stages of an industry that is filling a niche and meeting the needs of a desperately underserved audience who has long hungered for entertainment that fits our worldview.
|
Lynn Swann's campaign manager had a good response to revelations that Swann didn't vote in several past elections: "Like many Pennsylvanians, he did not vote in every election. It was a mistake, but unlike career politicians, Lynn has not been focused on his next campaign."Frankly, this is exactly what I would have said. Normal people don't vote in every election. So the best way to spin this is to basically say that Lynn Swann is just like you -- he doesn't vote every time. This strategy worked for Bill Clinton -- and his sins were much more egregious than simply not voting...
|
The Republican National Committee has announced two first-of-their-kind education and training programs for potential minority political candidates and operatives. More.
|
Cheney Situation Worsens ...
A few days ago I wrote that Dick Cheney's hunting accident could actually help him. While my premise was correct, the events that have transpired since then have conspired to change my assessment. In my blog I wrote: "See, there are gaffes and then there are lethal mistakes. A lethal mistake in politics is a mistake that reinforces a negative that people already believe. For example, Mike Dukakis in a tank reinforced what people already believed: Democrats are weak on defense... What does this gaffe underscore? That Cheney goes hunting..." I also wrote, "...And because nobody was seriously injured, this whole thing will blow over in a few days and be viewed as almost laughable." Since then, things have changed. The victim's situation has worsened, and Cheney has failed to even address the issue. My analysis that "lethal mistakes" are those that reinforce a negative that people already believe has proven, unfortunately, true. In this case, Cheney's behavior underscores a negative people already believe about this White House: That they are aloof, secretive, don't like to make mistakes, and resent the media. Additionally, it underscores the Katrina problem: failure to quickly respond to a crisis. Today's USA TODAY gives Cheney some advice: "Go to Corpus Christi. Comfort your friend. Hold a news conference in the hospital parking lot. Explain what happened. Express anguish. Take responsibility." Think of how Bill Clinton might have addressed this issue. He would have held a press conference in the parking lot with the victim's wife. He would have hugged her. He would have held up his family Bible and said, "This good book has pulled me through the last several days, and it's going to pull my friend through the next several trying days." Of course, Cheney lacks the empathetic and theatrical abilities possessed by Bill Clinton. But he could still issue a statement. That is the least he should do.
|
"Cheney has plenty of high-priced public relations experts on his payroll to give him advice, so he probably doesn't needs ours. But for what it's worth: Go to Corpus Christi. Comfort your friend. Hold a news conference in the hospital parking lot. Explain what happened. Express anguish. Take responsibility." - USA TODAYThis is good advice, but pulling it off would require Dick Cheney to suddenly morph into Bill Clinton. Not likely...
|
What? The Dems Mislead People???
Wow. Didn't see this coming: Ohio Democrat Paul Hackett is taking his ball and getting the heck out of Dodge! After orchestrating a surprisingly close race in last year's special election in Ohio, national Democrat leaders recruited Hackett to run for U.S. Senate. But when Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown got in the race, they quickly abandoned Hackett in favor of a proven winner. For the last week or so, Democrat leaders have encouraged Hackett to drop out of the Senate race in favor of running for the House. But Hackett sure showed them: He simply quit. "For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me." What? You mean the Democrat Party would mislead someone??? I cannot believe that. Why, the Democrat Party always comports themselves in the most fair and honest manner. How could this be?
|
In order for a message to resonate, it must "connect" with average voters. According to The Hill, Democrats are changing the way they talk about the "culture of corruption" to " cost of corruption," in order to show average voters why this issue should matter to them ... "There is a very focused determination (to) educate the public ... that this isn't just some inside-the-Beltway thing but that it has a direct relationship to their lives,' a House Democratic leadership aide said. 'I think we've recognized the need to do this for a while, but we are clearly now making the very aggressive transition."
|
Yeah, but Hamilton was asking for it!
We've got email ... Jen in MI writes: "...I find it interesting that you mention Burr. Just as I clicked on your blog, a enlightened colleague of mine and I were discussing the fact that Burr was the first vp to shoot someone. In 1805 Burr shot and killed his Secretary of treasury Alexander Hamilton. Look it up -- it's fascinating!"
|
This is great stuff I found in today's Washington Times (though they found it in the NY Post) ... "The most effective attacks in politics are those that stop your opponent from campaigning in his or her usual style," New York Post columnist Dick Morris writes. "When Democrats called Richard Nixon 'negative' in the runup to the 1960 presidential, it made it much more difficult for him to wage the type of slash-and-burn campaign that had animated his past races. When Republicans called Bill Clinton a 'flip-flopper' during his first term, it made it harder for him to reach out to all constituencies and reach across ideological barriers as he instinctually always wanted to do," Mr. Morris said. "Now, Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has pinned the 'angry' moniker on Hillary Clinton -- a label that will increasingly stop her from venting her partisanship as she must to get nominated. "The genius of the Mehlman charge (doubtless drawn from focus group or survey research) is that it rings so true among those who follow Sen. Clinton closely that it seems self-evident. "When Hillary denounces the deficit or wiretapping or drug prices or the administration's inaction on global climate change, she sounds, looks and acts angry. And the reason is that she is angry. "Hillary takes her political positions very seriously and personally. She has a hard time seeing virtue in those who disagree with her. What others would dismiss as honest disagreements about how to accomplish good ends, she often looks at as a clash between good and evil, selflessness and selfishness, generosity and greed. (She once asked how someone could 'be a Republican and a Christian at the same time.') "In her speeches and interviews, she has two speeds: bland and shrill."
|
The Unpardonable Sin: Dissing the Press
Wesley Pruden at the Washington Times makes an astute observation regarding the Cheney accidental shooting story, and how it relates to media coverage: "... there is certainly a very, very serious crime here, and Mr. Gregory nails it. Telling the Corpus Christi Caller-Times the news first is capital crime writ large."
The point is the national media resents being scooped by some "local-yokel" Texas newspaper. Doesn't the White House know we must always genuflect at the altar of the national media??? ...Which reminds me of a story I read about the late Lee Atwater. During one of his campaigns in South Carolina, Atwater allegedly swiped press badges from the secret service as they were doing advance work for Bob Dole's visit to the state. Atwater earned points by giving the badges to the local media. This meant that during Dole's speech the local press got the best seats. Predictably, the national reporters felt snubbed and, according to the story, when one of them gave Atwater a dirty look, he said (paraphrasing here): "Darlin' we need votes in South Carolina, not New York City..." Of course, in Atwater's case, he was right. He didn't need the national media to win his race. Unfortunately, in Cheney's case, the national media is more important than the local media. Still, it appears obvious that reporters like David Gregory are more upset about being scooped than they are about some guy being shot. "Dissing" the national media is the unpardonable sin here.
|
I'm currently reading a very good book: Adams vs. Jefferson, The Tumultuous Election of 1800. According to the book, in 1778, Aaron Burr executed what I believe to be the first American Get-Out-The-Vote effort. Here's the passage: "Finally, on Election Day Burr sent party workers into the wards to rally the voters and assist them, if need be, in getting to the polls. Each had a list containing the names of residents in the block to whom he was assigned, and each literally campaigned door-to-door. Burr even arranged for German-speaking party operatives to get out the vote in neighborhoods inhabited by recent German immigrants. What is more, Burr personally spent ten hours on Election Day at a polling place where Federalist chicanery was thought likely." As you'll note, this plan included "ID'ing" and turning out voters, "minority outreach," and "ballot integrity." Of course, Burr's GOTV effort worked: "We have beat you by superior Management,' Burr crowed. The First Lady reached the same conclusion. New York's Republicans 'laid their plans with more skill than their opponents,' Abigail Adams noted." During this time, candidates did not even "campaign" for public office (it was considered untoward). This makes Burr's GOTV efforts that much more impressive.
|
I predict Dick Cheney's little hunting accident won't hurt him politically, and may actually help him. See, there are gaffes and then there are lethal mistakes. A lethal mistake in politics is a mistake that reinforces a negative that people already believe. For example, Mike Dukakis in a tank reinforced what people already believed: Democrats are weak on defense. What does this gaffe underscore? That Cheney goes hunting... In most of America, that's a good thing. You can't imagine John Kerry or Al Gore going hunting (in a year they aren't running for president...that is). By going hunting with an old buddy, Mr. Cheney is showing that he is, in fact, a regular guy. This incident just underscores the image of Republicans as "regular guys." And because nobody was seriously injured, this whole thing will blow over in a few days and be viewed as almost laughable. What is more, the Cheney "shooting story" has taken a lot of media attention away from Iraq and Abramoff (for at least a day).
|
Dem Technology ...
The Dems have a good idea to encourage Lefty bloggers and activists to raise money. Check it out."Now you can take our party's future into your own hands. By creating your personal fundraising homepage, you can leverage your friends, family and contacts into a powerful network of support for our common values and goals."
|
The Washington Post has a story today about John McCain's courting of Bush loyalists: Before I get into this, let me assure you, I am not caught up in any national McCain "outsider hype." I fully realize the current polls (which perpetually show McCain to be training only Rudy), mean very little. The election is too far out, and besides, winning state-by-state Republican primary elections are a different game than winning a nationwide "popularity contest." On the other hand, I want to be careful not to get caught up in the "Republican Party insider-DC hype," either (this is the opposite of the first type, by the way). This type of hype says McCain doesn't have a shot because VA Senator George Allen (who is currently garnering about 1 percent in the polls) will win the primary. This past weekend, I was in Kansas City on business. It's always good to get out of DC for some perspective, and this trip provided some much-needed insight. The folks I talked to didn't even know who George Allen is. This was the same experience I encountered two weeks ago in Shepherdstown, WV, where the gentleman I talked to only knew of George Allen the football coach. Again, I know it's early, but these were people who followed politics a bit, so I think it is somewhat telling. Of course, name ID isn't everything; few Democrats knew who Bill Clinton was in early 1991. Back to the article: I don't know if John McCain can win the Republican nomination. Clearly, conservatives do better in Republican primary elections, and McCain, try though he might, has burned too many bridges to ever be the preferred candidate of the conservative movement. But, the article is indicative of the fact that McCain is campaigning hard. Clearly, McCain has some big things going for him: Every possible external factor, from Abramoff to terrorism, currently favors him. Additionally, he is helping himself. He is already running a smart and tough campaign. Unlike some candidates who are still "testing the waters," McCain has a campaign staff and has been running hard for months. He has assiduously courted conservative leaders, which may at least neutralize some them. He is seeking out the most talented political operatives, and courting them. Unlike some other candidates, he does not have an election of consequence between now and '08. If recent history is the predictor, McCain won't win in '08. But every once in a while there is a paradigm shift in politics, and that is precisely what McCain is positioning for.
|
Nationaljournal.com has a good interview in their "Ad Spotlight" today with Erik Potholm, a partner at Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm (R). Here's an excerpt of the interview ... Q: Which ads are more effective -- positive or negative? Potholm: There is no question that the delivery of negative information is more effective in moving public opinion and driving the ballot, especially when it's done in a factual and credible way. But positive ads also play an important role in establishing the credibility of the messenger and setting up the contrast. If you haven't built that positive foundation, you are extremely vulnerable to the counterattack. But no one disputes the effectiveness of comparative advertising in modern campaigns.
|
Matt's Interview with Bush/Cheney '04 GOTV Guru
Following is my interview with Phillip Stutts, former national director of the RNC's 72 Hour Task Force, and principal of Phillip Stutts & Company, LLC. We talked about everything from the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign to Tony Kornheiser on Monday Night Football. I hope you enjoy it!Q: Thank you for joining us today. You ran the Bush/Cheney 72 Hour Task Force. For our readers who aren't familiar with exactly what that is, can you give us a Reader's Digest version?
STUTTS: Going into the final 72 hours of the 2000 presidential race, then-Governor Bush had a 5-point lead in the polls. But on Election Day, Al Gore won the popular vote by running a far superior get-out-the-vote operation. GOP leaders vowed to never let that happen again. They created the 72 Hour Task Force (defined as the final three days of the election) and over the next three years, we studied and implemented GOTV programs all over the country. We learned the right way to turn-out voters and we learned some hard lessons. I had the privilege of leading efforts in South Dakota (2002) and Louisiana (2003). By 2004, the Bush campaign knew what worked in regards to grassroots campaigning. We implemented our plan to perfection pushing President Bush to victory by a 51 percent margin and increasing majorities in the United States Senate and House. The program accomplished unprecedented goals, the most impressive being the recruitment of 1.9 million volunteers to execute the Get-Out-The-Vote plan in key Bush/Cheney battleground states. Q: What's the biggest lesson this experience taught you about politics?Stutts: On day one, candidates and their campaign teams must prepare to run a successful grassroots campaign. Historically, campaigns didn't start grassroots organizing until the final few weeks of a campaign. Also, in order for a 72 Hour program to be successful, you must have a team that prepares, executes and is held accountable on daily basis. Q: I believe adversity often makes us better leaders. You worked on two grueling high-profile races that ended up losing by a very narrow margin. One was John Thune's race against Tim Johnson, and the other was Bobby Jindal's gubernatorial race, which you managed. Can you give us some insight as to how you were able to learn from -- and overcome -- these tough losses?
Yes, Election Night 2004. Both Thune and Jindal won their races (plus the President's victory). It was a huge night, lots of tears and my dad and mom called me to say that I earned a night like that -- which was the best. Both Jindal and Thune contacted me after their wins as well and thanked me. Looking back on those losses at the time, you wonder (and pray), how could you lose something so close. But today, I am happier that John Thune beat Tom Daschle (in 2004) than had he won in 2002. I'm also proud of the foundation we left in 2002 and Thune's appreciation of what we accomplished (winning the congressional and gubernatorial races and almost every other competitive race in South Dakota that year). As for Jindal, we accomplished a lot in losing. In 2003, he was 31 years old, Indian-American, and had never run for public office. All of the so-called "political experts" said Jindal had no chance in the Deep South. Their opinions were derived from not believing a man of color could be competitive in a Louisiana statewide election. As a southerner I was offended by this, and the great people of Louisiana made a big statement (in that election) disproving such stereotypes (even though we barely lost). In 2004, Jindal ran for Congress and won, beating his opponent by 56 points. Q: What career advice or tips do you have for young conservatives who want to get involved in political campaigns?STUTTS: Be humble. Start from the bottom and work your way up. Be a "yes" person, not a "no" person, meaning that you are willing to execute a task with a positive attitude, no matter how trivial. Believe in what you are doing. Help others, not because it could pay off for you one day, but because it's the right thing to do. Make sure the only thing you ask those people in return, is to pay it forward. Q: What political books do you recommend?STUTTS: Just finished " The Survivor" by John Harris. Harris covered the White House for the Washington Post during the Clinton years. A middle of the road/slightly left look at Clinton -- but I enjoyed it. I would also recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, truly my hero. Q: Out of all the people you've worked with, who have you encountered in politics that impressed you the most, and why?STUTTS: Politicians: President Bush, John Thune and Bobby Jindal. They are genuine people, humble to the core, and do things for the right reasons. I admire them beyond words. Campaign Professionals: Curt Anderson, Wes Anderson, Brad Todd, Blaise Hazelwood, Larry Russell, Matt Zabel, Sam Van Voorhis, Greg Brock, Todd Lamb, Matt "Texas Pete" Peterson, and Ken Mehlman. They are great people who have earned their success the right way. They are fair, dedicated, honest, and live decent lives. One other name sticks out, she's a Democrat: Donna Brazile. She is a proud liberal who is such an honorable person. I really admire and respect her. Outside Influences: My family; nobody has loved and supported me as much as they have. How lucky I am. Q: What are you up to these days, and how can folks get in touch with you?STUTTS: I started my own consulting firm last Spring, Phillip Stutts & Company, LLC. We offer general consulting for GOP candidates and state Republican parties. We also offer grassroots corporate consulting to chambers of commerce, trade associations and corporate clients. My website should be up soon, www.PhillipStutts.com. I've met a lot of political folks who all seem to fit into the same category, they are "campaign guy. You have been able to work in high-profile races, yet maintain a great sense of humor. Any thoughts on why or how?STUTTS: Thanks man. Yep, I love what I do. I am passionate about my work and the goals of my clients. I love to laugh, don't take myself too seriously, and realize that life is about giving back to your community, not about how important people perceive you to be. People believe DC is the most important place in the country, so by living here, they must be important. That is just plain goofy. I've lived in California, Arizona, South Dakota, New Mexico, Louisiana, Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts) and Alabama. The truly important people are in those states -- and everywhere else outside the beltway -- working hard, raising families and living honest lives. Don't get me wrong, I love Washington, DC, and there are great people living here, but far too many people in this town believe they are very important and frankly too many folks aren't comfortable in their own skin. The good thing is that it doesn't frustrate me; it cracks me up on a daily basis. Q: Lastly, I know you are a huge Tony Kornheiser fan. Any thoughts on his joining the Monday Night Football team?STUTTS: He will be great and I will finally tune in to the games (I love college football -- Roll Tide -- not pro football) but I'm totally heartbroken that he will ditch the morning radio show. My Kornheiser fix is like crack, what will I do?!?! :)
|
 Conservative leader Morton Blackwell has a long-standing maxim: "Don't get mad, except on purpose." The point is that looking angry can be beneficial to a leader, but you should never truly lose your "cool." Today, Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz examines the phenomenon of anger in politics: "Anger can be a useful instrument in public life. Think of Truman giving 'em hell, JFK calling steel executives SOBs, Reagan demanding that Gorby tear down this wall, Bush using a bullhorn to denounce the people who knocked down those buildings. (It should be noted that in every aforementioned example, the political leader knew in advance didn't just "fly off the handle" -- he knew in advance what he was going to say). ...More Kurtz: "But (anger) can also be cast as a liability by those who want to raise questions about an opponent's temperament , as if politics was played by Marquis of Queensbury rules. We saw this in the Bushian whispers in 2000 that McCain came back from the Hanoi Hilton with a few screws loose, and we see it again in the latest GOP swipe against Hillary." Kurtz also quotes from DNC talking points: "Anger is a real problem in American politics. Democrats lost the last presidential election in part because our side was so mad at Bush we couldn't see straight. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton consistently outfoxed Republicans because they hated him so much. Anger is so toxic that both party headquarters would do themselves and the country a great favor by steering their followers away from it." Once again, Morton Blackwell was right. In a fight (whether physical or verbal) the person who gives in to his or her emotions will often do stupid things. So if you're a public servant or political candidate, always remember, "Never get mad, except on purpose!"
|
Even though it's poking fun at "our guy," here's a pretty clever political spoof. The premise is that all Bush' speech gaffes are actually the ingenious invention of a genious "political speechologist" consultant, destined to make him sound like "America." Click here to watch the video.
|
I'm quoted in today's Washington Times: "This is the Democrats' Gordian knot; If they appeal to mainstream Americans, they alienate their liberal base, and if they appease the liberal bloggers, they show themselves as being out-of-touch," said Matt Lewis, who blogs for the conservative Human Events Online.
|
Newt on Huckabee's Turf?
Is it just me, or is Newt trying to steal some of Mike Huckabee's thunder with this quote: "When you have children who are dramatically overweight, parents have a responsibility. I think we as a society need to say that."
|
Message Guru on the Outs?
The Washington Post's The Fix blog is speculating there may be a rift between new Majority Leader Boehner and message guru Frank Luntz. According to the Fix, the feud goes back to the 90s, when Luntz was advising Newt Gingrich and Boehner was critical of Newt: "Luntz is quoted in the story as saying Boehner made a 'big mistake' with his criticism of Gingrich. The pollster also heaped praise on Rep. J.C. Watts (Okla.), who was challenging Boehner for the conference chairmanship. Watts defeated Boehner 121-93, throwing the Ohioan unceremoniously out of leadership. With Boehner's re-ascendancy, Luntz may find himself on the outside looking in more often than not. Revenge is -- after all -- a dish best served cold." The truth is that Frank Luntz has a reputation among some Republican political consultants as being bright, but also being self-promoter, and a bit of an egotist. One strategist recently told me that Luntz didn't invent anything, he just got famous for advertising ideas that have been around for a long time. The same could be said of famed liberal linguist George Lakoff, who is basically making a career out of rehashing ideas Tony Schwartz wrote about in the Responsive Chord, thirty years ago. I don't think we can criticize Luntz -- or Lakoff -- for taking ideas and bringing them to the political mainstream. In a sense, this is pedagogy, and I would encourage it, especially if it is geared exculsively toward informing conservatives of ideas, such as "framing." Last year, a liberal blog published Luntz's "Republican Playbook for 2006" -- which they somehow "obtained." Since the Left has seen it, I would encourage conservatives to also read it, too. Time will tell if Luntz will be able to get in the good graces of the Boehner camp...
|
Yesterday's Roll Call featured an article about Matthew Kerbel, a college professor,who has written a primer to help "progressives" craft a message and an effective strategy. (Hat tip to Mr. Tosi for the FYI) ... This "progressive" primer is called, "Get this Party Started," and includes essays from 13 "progressive" thinkers. For example, linguist George Lakoff's essay teaches "progressives" how to talk... "While conservatives rally around 'strong defense, free markets, lower taxes, smaller government and family values' progressive taxonomy, he believes, should include such words as 'stronger America, broad prosperity, better future, effective government and mutual responsibility." As Roll Call points out, "one would be hard-pressed to find a Republican who would disagree with any of the progressive terminology" -- and that's just the point -- to create language that "sounds" good. The book also devotes an entire chapter by former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet to the subject of "Teaching Progressives How To 'Speak American.'" Let me be the first to point out the obvious: It is humorous that "progressives" need to read a book in order to learn to speak "American." President Bush's use of "everyday words, short sentences, (and) simple statements of right and wrong that suggest he is decent and decisive ... Many people doze off while we drone on..." So let me get this straight: Liberals have spent six years making fun of Bush's public speaking style and now they want to emulate it???
The book does make one point that I agree with, and quite frankly, does concern me: "Being in the opposition gives us the time and luxury to rethink some of our ... tactics and ideas, "he continues. But 'at the state and local level' progressives are already seeing 'tremendous progress. ... The national level is always kind of a lagging indicator.'" Time will tell if these Lefty's will get it right. In the meantime, we will do our part to Teach Elephants to Talk!
|
"In the very heartland of the nation -- in Pennsylvania and Ohio -- the Republican Party is getting set to nominate black candidates for governor in the coming elections. In a nation that has not a single African-American governor -- not one -- from either party, this is its own little revolution ... These are not throwaway candidates in states where the GOP has no chance of victory. These are real candidates, chosen when there were plenty of white alternatives, that are en route to their party's nomination, with real chances to win." - Dick Morris
|
Scranton Out, Rendell is Next ...
More proof the Steelers' win on Sunday has political implications...
|
Yesterday's Washington Post included a pretty good book review for the new Carville/Begala book: Take it Back. Here's my recommendation. Don't buy this book; you'll only put money in their pockets. Besides, much of the book is just liberal rhetoric. Instead, go to Barnes & Noble and read the chapter titled: " Work the Refs." This chapter deals with the media, and is worth your time.
|
Here's yet one more reason blogs and politcs can be dangerous...
|
Swann Benefits From Steelers' Victory
Who was the big winner, last night? Steelers' coach Bill Cowher (who has certainly paid his dues) and Jerome Bettis (who likely ended his career in his hometown of Detroit) were big winners, last night. But the person who benefited the most didn't even suit up. Steelers' legend (and gubernatorial candidate) Lynn Swann probably gained as much last night as anyone on the field. Most political candidates would kill for the kind of free national publicity he received. I'm not just talking about the pre-game introduction. Im talking about a weekend of ESPN shows 'chronicling "Super Bowl greats." Lynn Swann was once again a rock star. But aside from the publicity, there's an even more important reason Swann benefits from this; The Steelers' Super Bowl victory (for the first time since the 1970s), makes Swann's campaign seem "destined" for success. I don't want to overemphasize this. It doesn’t escape me that John Kerry also lost his election the same year the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. But Swann obviously has a greater connection to the Steelers than Kerry has to the Red Sox. Clearly, Lynn Swann has gotten a shot in the arm from this. It's too bad the general election is still nine months away. Just as the NFL season is a long season, a gubernatorial campaign is a long game. It doesn't matter if you are winning in the first quarter; the score at the end of the game is what matters. To win, Swann will have to run like he's never run before. It seems like Swann will do pretty well in the Pittsburgh area. Of course, Philly is always a problematic area for Republicans. Who knows? Maybe Swann will look to the Philadelphia Eagles for an L.G. candidate (Mr. Swann, I would stay away from T.O. if it were me)? There are plenty of sports figures in politics. But I can't think of any political candidate who has benefited more from a single sports game than Lynn Swann did last night.
|
Pack the Room ...
 My new Campaigns & Elections article, Pack the Room: Holding a Successful Event, can now be read here.
|
Under-Whelmed by Boehner
When word came yesterday that John Boehner defeated Roy Blunt to become Majority Leader, most conservative bloggers were quick to jump on the Boehner bandwagon. As usual, I see things a little differently. Frankly, I'm under-whelmed. Aside from moving the party decidedly to the right, a Shadegg victory would have sent a dramatic message to the country -- and given Republicans a much-needed image change. Though Americans are traditionally conservative regarding change, it is a general rule that a predecessor will do better if he is strong where you are weak. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were really a response to Nixon. Then, Ronald Reagan was the antithesis to Carter's weakness. And in the House, Dennis Hastert was the laid-back answer to an aggressive Speaker Newt Gingrich. Of course, while the American people can demand some stark changes at the ballot box, the selection of a Majority Leader is, by definition, done by those who are out-of-touch with the common man. Instead of seizing the day, Republicans have opted for a milquetoast compromise. What is more, while there is no way of knowing whether the Abramoff imbroglio will lead to more scandal, Republicans have missed a golden opportunity to inoculate themselves from the attacks. But not only does this move seem wrong to me, as a Republican, I think Boehner may look back at this as a pyrrhic victory. Let's hope I'm wrong.
|
Flynn Files, Amanda Carpenter, and Football
Here are some random musings on this balmy Friday morning ...Writing from Europe, Dan Flynn criticizes Bush's SOTU: "Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution. George W. Bush believes government (is) the solution, not the problem." Let me preface this by saying Flynnfiles is one of my favorite blogs. But here's a point to ponder about the new media: Does the whole: "it's one thing to criticize the president when you're in America -- it's another thing to do so from a foreign land," rule apply to bloggers??? ...I can't wait to meet Amanda Carpenter. (If you read Human Event's Right Angle blog, you might assume we all know each other...that we pal around together and watch Seinfeld reruns, etc., not so). This spunky young lady has moxie. From infiltrating liberal meetings to bashing famous conservative writers, she says the things that others think, but do not say. Whether it results in encomium or animadversion, remains to be seen. One thing's for sure: It's an interesting read! ...2008 presidential hopefuls have descended on Detroit. Here's a quote for you: "It's great that the Super Bowl is in Detroit. This should cheer up the folks in the Detroit area with all these job losses," Allen said. (Hey, I lost my job, but at least we got this game...).
|
Pick it up...
If you're interested in campaigns, make sure to pick up the February edition of Campaigns & Elections Magazine (available on newstands now). You'll find a new article by yours truly. In addition, there's a good article about micro-targeting.
|
New ACLU Flash Ad
The ACLU has a new -- and brilliant -- flash ad about privacy. No matter how you feel about the issue, you've got to give them credit for creativity. You simply must check this out.
|
The Washington Post has a disappointing article today about John Danforth -- and his criticism of the Christian Right. Of course, the MSM never misses an opportunity to bash "Christian Conservatives" -- and if they can get a Republican to do the bashing -- all the better. I'd like to take this opportunity to rebut a few of the points made in this hit piece: According to the article, John Danforth "traced a relationship between increased activism by Christian conservatives and the collapse of collegiality." This might surprise you, but I will agree with that. Here's why: Before Christians got involved in politics, Republicans were happy to "go along to get along." (It's easy to have a "collegial" atmosphere when the Democrats are the overlords and the Republicans don't put up much of a fuss). Never mind the fact that these "moderate" Republicans were sitting back and allowing our country to fall apart, at least, there was "harmon" in politics. See, for forty years, Democrats dominated Congress. During that time, the Republican establishment accepted the fact that they were in the minority, and tried not to make too many waves (so long as they got an occasional bridge for their district). These Republicans were so demoralized, they figured they were lucky to get to play golf, and enjoy the "crumbs." Then, something amazing happened. There was an awakening among religious folks. They realized that part of their stewardship was making sure this country remained free. Then, in 1980, for the first time in modern history, Christian conservatives worked to elect President Reagan. And then, in 1994, they helped take Congress. This was a revolution -- and let me point out that revolutions are rarely "collegial."
Saying "Christian conservatives brought about the collapse of collegiality" is like saying, "the burglary was peaceful until the police showed up." It's pure revisionist folderol.
Another argument advanced in this article is that conservatives are using wedge-issues to anger the Republican base. While it is true that, as Morton Blackwell says, moral outrage is the best motivating force in politics, their argument is flawed: You cannot manufacture voter anger out of thin air. A prime example occurred in 2004. Republicans were able to motivate our base because the Democrat Mayor of San Francisco decided to break the law and marry homosexual couples. My point is that conservatives are merely pointing out how radically out-of-touch the Left in America is. If standing up for our values isn't seen as "collegial," well, too bad.
|
Dick Morris on Hillary's Problems ...
 "Bill Clinton -- the man whom Bush recently described as his 'brother' -- is capable of a wide range of rhetorical styles and does not need harshness to convey passion. A raise of his eyebrow often suffices. A nod of his head. A properly constructed glance. But the woman who, by deduction, is apparently the president's sister-in-law is not as capable. Indeed, she has two rhetorical styles: coy and strident. Off and on. Soft and loud. " -Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton's political failings.
|
Chafee's Anti-Alito Vote
Lincoln Chafee's handling of the Alito nomination reveals a failure to understand a political maxim that, "you can't make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends." In opposing Alito, Chafee may have thought he was "reaching across party lines" to Democrats. He may have even naively thought he would be rewarded by them. Wrong. Democrats have a funny way of repaying Republicans who help them. William Lynch, the RI Democrat Chairman, has actually criticized Chaffee for not being more vocal in his opposition to Alito, "Lincoln Chafee once again ensured his irrelevancy by sitting out of the fight to oppose the lifetime appointment of a Supreme Court nominee who will dramatically shift the ideology of the court towards the extreme right..." (Pawtucket Times). So if Chafee hoped his appeasement would win him friends on the Democrat side, he was mistaken. They want that seat, too. Of course, Chafee's vote against Alito also serves to bolster Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey's Republican primary campaign against Chafee. Let's face it, if you were on the fence about who to support in that race, Chafee's vote against Alito sealed the deal. I would venture to say that most of the people supporting Laffey are simply hoping to get back at Chafee. So, in on fell swoop, Chafee has managed to offend both Democrats and Republicans. This is all further proof that, in trying to be all things to all people, you often end up alienating everybody. As they say in Texas, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos."
|
Musings on the State of The Union ...
I figured I'd let the news folks cover the State of the Union before I chimed in with my random musings on the night. Here goes: Pre-Speech - How cool was it to see Judge Alito in that robe?!?! Is there a loose analogy to be made between the hostages being freed on Reagan's inauguration day -- and Alito being "freed" from the Senate before Bush's State of the Union. Probably not. Perhaps someone more daring than I could write an article about that... I also really enjoyed the pre-speech atmosphere where Members of Congress (from both parties) talk and pretend to like each other. It was refreshing to see all of them getting along, even if it was for the sake of the cameras. So what's up with Trent Lott and Hillary? MSNBC made some comment about the two of them being on a date... There has been a lot of talk that the State of the Union has become perfunctory, and may have outlived its usefulness. I think this public camaraderie is reason enough to keep it. It gives us hope that we can return to a more civil political atmosphere. By the way, there's been a lot of talk about the good 'ol days when Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan used to fight during the day, and then have a beer after work. Well, I'm no Ronald Reagan, but I am offering to drink a beer with you, if you're a Democrat blogger who is willing to come to Georgetown or Old Town, Alexandria... Cindy Sheehan - Of course, the big story was Cindy Sheehan's arrest. Cleary, her intent was to disrupt the speech -- which brings to mind a question: Is nothing sacred? The State of the Union is one of the rare times when our leaders come together (for the most part), and behave like adults. It's one of the few ceremonial moments each year when political shenanigans are "off limits." Obviously, some Democrat Members of Congress (such as Rep. Lynn Woolsey) were involved in a plot to protest President Bush during the speech. It seems that last year the liberal group Code Pink was also involved in a similar scheme. Is this the beginning of a new and alarming trend? Speech - Nice touch starting off by honoring Coretta Scott King. It was mostly downhill from there. Not that Bush was bad, just that it was a standard State of the Union speech. I would say it was average. I was happy to see him call for the line-item veto. Also happy to hear him talk tough on Iran. Funny line about Bush and Clinton both turning 60 this year. ...Funny and bi-partisan -- a double whammy! Kaine - I'm one of the few people who think it was smart to have the newly-elected Governor of Virginia give the Democrat response. It was good to hear from a Democrat with a bit of a southern accent. However, Kaine's performance showed that there is a difference between wowing Virginia voters, and speaking to a national audience. It was a good idea, but Kaine's performance demonstrated he's not quite ready for prime time.
|
| |
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
