|
Nofziger on Political Leadership
On Tuesday, I talked about Lyn Nofziger, the mentor. Well, I thought I'd share with you a few of the wit and wisdom I learned from him over the years ... 1. On the press: "... anyone can lie to the press, but confusing them with the truth is an art I am proud to have mastered." 2. On hardball: "I don't know why, but an awful lot of Republicans look on politics as the British look on cricket -- as a gentleman's game. It ain't; it's more like mud wrestling." 3. On campaigning: The "Nofziger thesis" states that, "... winning an election does not mean catering to the press. Winning an election means doing the things and having your candidate do the things that he can do most effectively and that will influence the most votes." 4. On staying "on message": "Most candidates have a compulsive urge to answer a question. It was my job, it is always someone's job in a campaign, to keep the candidate and the campaign on track. Otherwise, the other guy wins." 5. On frequent press conferences: "They convince the media that he's not afraid of them and that he may even, perish the thought, have their best interests at heart. They mean any person holding frequent press conferences doesn't have to remember so much or have to be briefed so thoroughly before each press conference. They mean the media has fewer topics about which to ask which again means the public figure has less to be concerned about..." 6. On campaign leadership: "One thing you quickly learn in politics is that, while the United States is a democracy and must be, campaigns cannot be. Somebody has to be in charge and the fewer who think they're at least somewhat in charge the better off the campaign is." 7. On delegating: "Reagan was the best candidate I have ever known because he instinctively knew what a candidate's role should be, just as later he instinctively knew the proper role of a president. He interfered only when these same instincts told him someone was making a wrong decision. " 8. Maybe his best line: At the '76 convention, "... an old-line Reaganite from San Mateo, called out, 'What should our demeanor be?' Without thinking, I replied, 'Da meaner da better." 9. On political "insiders": "While the party leaders may support a candidate for his dedication to and work in the party, most persons who vote in a primary don't give a hoot about the wishes of the party leaders." 10. On titles: "... out in the real world there is something special about the term "special assistant." It has a more important ring than just plain "assistant" and nobody ever heard of a deputy assistant." 11. On holding their feet to the fire: "I'm not even going to let them get away with the truth" (a witty comeback to President Nixon's instructions to him "Don't let them get away with any lies.") 12. On gimmicks: "Self-important people in the White House use two gimmicks to let us know they are important. One is to have their secretary tell your secretary that 'the White House is calling.' The other is to say, 'The president wants this done." 13. On political courage: "I learned from him, them, something I should have known all along: there are different types of courage. Leo was a brave flier and a brave prisoner, doing things in battle and enduring things as a POW that make me shrink to think of. But he lacked political courage." 14. On ground rules: "... never never talk to a reporter without setting the ground rules. If you don't, and he writes a story, you have only yourself to blame." 15. On debates: "There are a couple of rules regarding political debates that presidential candidates violate at their peril. One: it is almost always a mistake for an incumbent to debate unless he thinks he's going to lose." ***Note: These quotes come from the book, Nofziger (which I highly recommend). If you are interested in learning more about Lyn Nofziger, I also recommend Bare Knuckles and Backrooms and Reagan's Revolution... A few more observations: He was a gentleman. When my wife would accompany us to our occasional breakfasts (before she was my wife), he was always the most gentlemanly person; he would always walk on the street-side of the sidewalk, open doors, and help remove lady's coats. I got an email yesterday from a DC police officer who worked the beat near Lyn's old office in DC. He writes, "Mr. Nofziger and I became friends. Anything function that he had I was always invited." He will be missed.
|
MI Race Gets Nasty...
One race that is really heating up is the gubernatorial race in Michigan between Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) and Amway heir Richard DeVos (R). Until recently, Granholm was wildly popular. I remember hearing people bemoan the fact that (because she was Canadian), she could not run for president. As you know, Michigan continues to lose jobs. In '04, the Bush team tried in vain to tie Granholm to Michigan's woes. Rather than blaming her, voters rallied around her, and handed Bush a defeat. Well, for some reason, the mood has changed. Voters are finally blaming Gov. Granholm -- and this race is tightening. Of course, candidates with their back against the wall are more likely to lash out at their opponent. This race is no exception: According to today's Hotline, "MI Dems issued a release shortly after Jack Abramoff's sentencing, claiming that the lobbyist "has long been an ally" of Amway heir Dick DeVos (R). MI Dem chair Mark Brewer: "The public needs to know Dick DeVos has had meetings with criminally corrupt GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff." That was yesterday's news. Today, the Dems have issued a press release regarding Devos' resignation from the state Board of Ed. The truth is that he resigned because of a family health crisis. His father had a severe heart attack and Mr. DeVos had to take over the company. Of course, Republicans have issued their own release on the subject... Apparently, attacking the family is now fair game...this race is getting nasty.
|
What Dems Want...
National Journal's Hotline Reports: Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research presented its findings on the '08 Dem field this a.m. to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. Their focus groups tested Dem primary voters in NH and IA.
What do Dems want? Per the survey results: "When all is said and done, the emocratic nominee will be the person they believe has the best handle on the future and who can best bring about the change and reform they are desperately seeking." And "perhaps most importantly, they want the anti-Bush" who is not a "Bush basher." The Dems "don't want a grouchy, accusatory, finger-pointing yeller. They want someone smart but with good common sense, a leader with new ideas who believes and practices accountability."
The survey offers "10 Commandments For Democrats." They include: 1. Don't "feel my pain" -- "give me something to alleviate it. 3. Dems "don't want to hear about your church" in the primary. If they "really cared," they'd be Republicans. 6. "Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval."
|
Today is the anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Despite being seriously injured, Reagan's humorous remarks (which were first told to the public by Lyn Nofziger), went a long way toward reassuring the nation: "When one of the doctors said they were going to operate on me, I said, 'I hope you're a Republican.' He looked at me and said, 'Today, Mr. President, we're all Republicans.' I also remember saying, after one of the nurses asked me how I felt, '[All in all, I'd rather be in Philadelphia' - the old W. C. Fields line. "This was a very dangerous time, and I believe America was on the precipice of disaster. You have to remember, this was at a time when we had a series of leaders, such as JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, and even John Lennon -- had all been slain. America was still trying to recover from Vietnam, there were hostages, etc. Keeping in mind the depressing state of the country at the time, there is no telling what the ramifications of Reagan's death might have been... And I'm not talking about how the conservative movement would have been affected if Reagan had died before his Revolution -- I'm talking about whether or not America would be America if Reagan had died. If you haven't read When Character Was King, you should. It is a great book. But perhaps the most important thing I got out of it was just how close Ronald Reagan was to dying. There are times in our history when it appears there was Divine intervention. And, to me, this was one of them.
|
Quit Your Day Job...
National Journal writes, "Mitt Romney and John Edwards have some extra time on their hands lately, and it might be helping their potential presidential candidacies." I don't doubt it. Campaigning is serious business. Even at the state-level, I have seen that those candidates who try to run for state rep -- and keep a full-time job -- rarely have enough time to devote to the race.
|
More Lyn Nofziger Tributes
We are all still dealing with the loss of Lyn Nofziger, this week. Here is another great article about Lyn Nofziger... ...And here's another. BTW, how cool was it that, at his age, he still had a blog!
|
Often, there is a struggle between doing what is right in terms of policy, versus doing the smart political (pragmatic) thing. This immigration issue is tougher. Even if you put the policy stuff aside, it is such a "wedge issue" that no matter what Republicans do, we are in trouble. Simply put, the immigration issue is a political hot potato for Republicans. A few years ago, I authored an article for Campaigns & Elections on how to attract the Hispanic vote. This issue seeks to destroy all the groundwork that has been laid by Republicans who seek to build bridges with the Hispanic community. From a political standpoint, there is no upside to dealing with this. But ignoring it is also problematic (from a political perspective). In politics, a maxim is to "dance with the one that brung ya.'" All Bush has left is his base -- and if he ticks off the base -- what does he have left? Yes, this is a very difficult issue. Here's some background reading info for you: ...A R euters article asks if Republicans should alienate Hispanics or conservatives. ... Dick Morris weights in on the subject. ...The AP reports that Spanish-Language Media helped turn out the protesters in LA. ... NY Times quotes Grover Norquist: "There is a danger that if the face of the Republican Party is Tancredo that we could be weaker with Hispanics for generations," Mr. Norquist said. "If the face of the Republican Party is George Bush or Ronald Reagan, we win. This is up for grabs." ... The Washington Post Fix Blog writes: "... immigration (illegal and otherwise) falls into the same issue matrix with voters as issues like abortion, gun control and congressional ethics. None of these issues ever rate highly when people are asked about the pressing issues the country's leaders should address, but they are significant drivers of the political debate because of the passion they evoke."
|
The hiring of a new White House Chief of Staff has made me think about this point: It is ironic that this president -- who admires Ronald Reagan -- has failed to learn one of Reagan's most important lessons: The art of schmoozing. Unlike his predecessor, Jimmy Carter (who ran and governed as an outsider), Ronald Reagan understood the need to develop friends and allies in the press and in Congress. Symbolic of Carter's disdain for Washington was his 1977 selling of the presidential yacht -- the Sequoia -- which was often used by presidents to schmooze members of Congress. Reagan, of course, was almost always the exact opposite of Carter. Though he also ran as an outsider, Reagan understood that for his presidency to succeed, he would need to stroke the egos of the Washington elite. It takes a humble man to subject himself to stroking the egos of lesser men. This would mean attending dinners and dinner parties (even when he didn't feel like it) with pretentious people who would stab him in the back the next day. Reagan did it dutifully. In short, he would be, "in the DC world, but not of the DC world." In fairness, Reagan was no doubt helped by his days as an actor and governor of California, and by his wife, Nancy. For example, the Reagan's friendship with former Washington Post president Katherine Graham, is one example of that. Still, he understood that after campaigning to become president, he would then have to campaign to be president. The presidency is a heady job. Upon attaining that perch, you might conclude that you will never have to again be deferential to any person or institution. But the truth is that none of us are ever so important that we can afford to be through with the business of cajoling. Not if we want to get things done, that is. Has George W. Bush finally learned that lesson?
|
Classic Political Ads
 If you are a political junkie, you'll love this site of classic political ads!Want to see the infamous " Daisy" ad (the first "negative ad" -- which Lyndon Johnson used against Barry Goldwater)? Just click the picture of the little girl with the flower. Or do you want to see the " Morning Again in America" ad that Reagan used in '84? ...How about the Willie Horton ad that finished off Michael Dukakis? It's in there, too.
|
There is a lot of political news this morning... Andy Card has resigned as President Bush's Chief of Staff. This strikes me as a move that should have, quite frankly, been made a few months ago. Andy Card was very good at his job -- but it is a very demanding job. In fact, here is what I wrote over a month ago. I hope this helps build some new momentum... '527' Legislation Would Affect Democrats MoreFEC rules exempt blogs from political limits: From the Washington Post: Conservative blogger Mike Krempasky wrote: 'This is a tremendous win for speech.' Liberal blogger Duncan Black, writing under the pseudonym Artios, said: 'This could have been an utter disaster, but it appears to have all worked out in the end."
|
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Franklyn "Lyn" Nofziger, the rumpled and irreverent conservative who served President Reagan as press secretary and political adviser, died of cancer Monday at his home in Falls Church, Virginia. He was 81."Today, the conservative movement mourns the loss of one of our heroes.
|
The Dangers of Blogging
I've long told people "I'm not a 'blogger'." Instead, I'm a political guy with a blog. Like any phenomenon, there are some people who actually derive their entire identity from blogging. To me, that's sort of like putting the medium before the message. And the ones who are wildly successful at it tend to remind me of Paris Hilton (they are famous for being famous.) Today's National Journal's Blogometer makes a good point about the different kinds of bloggers... "The voices we feature in Blogometer are a mix of the expert who blogs part-time as an extra outlet, and the amateur whose blog is his/her only way of being heard. Some of the latter, perhaps, become successful beyond their ability..."I'm a fan of the written word. And I enjoy the medium of blogging. I see it as one venue to communicate, but not as a means unto itself. (Note: I am referring now to part-time bloggers. If you are a journalist, then this doesn't apply to you. It is your job to write). The lesson to be learned from this whole blogger controversy is that we all have to be very careful what we post. The pen is mightier than the sword -- and it cuts both ways. Unlike writing a column, blogging allows you to post something instantly. Of course, the danger is that you don't have a lot of time to revise and moderate your thoughts. This is the world-wide web, folks -- and everything you write can (and will) and will be used against you.
|
Ethics, Movies, Books, & Tips...from the weekend
Sorry that blogging has been minimal these last two days. Here's what I've been up to... ...My panel discussion at American University went well (aside from the fact that it took place at 9:45 on a Saturday morning). Here are a few of the topics we discussed:- "Bottom-feeder" political consultants who prey on weak candidates.- How an "end justifies the means" mentality can lead young political operatives down a dangerous path.- Whether or not the "lesser of two evils" theory is a good one (when determining which campaigns to work for).- How "negative politics" has always been around. In fact, it can be argued that things are more "tame" than ever....Speaking of ethics, the Red America blog came to an unfortunate end on Friday. The story is still developing, and hopefully it won't end up like this. After the panel discussion... ...Yesterday, I read Army of Davids. Here' s my take: For someone who hasn't read Toffler, Pink, or Florida, this book could be life-changing. But if you are familiar with the genre, it is still good, but less than "revolutionary." ...Last night, I went to see Thank You for Smoking (warning, this movie link has sound). I give it "2 thumbs up." Anyone who likes this blog ought to go see this movie. Political Tips from the Weekend:...When it comes to press conferences, never forget how important the "stage" is. For the GOP, this bad visual (warning: link has sound) is the gift that keeps on giving. ...Should a front-runner agree to debate his opponent? The Akron Beacon Journal's blog explains why it might not be a winning proposition.
|
More Red America controversy at the Post... Man, I'm not sure why, but the liberals have really come unglued about this. I guess the MSM is all they've got left, so they are willing to fight tooth-and-nail to protect it.
|
Matt's Summer Tour '06
Thank goodness it's Thursday! Hey, in case you are interested, it looks like I will be in both Austin, TX, and Orange County, CA, this summer, doing training. Speaking of which, for some weird reason, Californians dig this blog. I'm not sure why, but my stats always show that (by far) most of my readers come from CA. Granted, it's a big state -- but so is Texas. And I've done waaaay more training in Texas than I have in CA. If you have any thoughts on why that is...I am curious to hear them. And I know I shouldn't "mess with Texas" -- but California is making you guys look pretty weak (so tell your friends about this blog)... Oh yeah, and don't forget I am still looking for some ideas regarding my panel discussion at American University, this Saturday. The topic is ethics in campaigns. If you have any thoughts or stories, please do drop me an email...
|
Over at RedState, Blanton says it's time for some older conservative leaders to have an, um, exit strategy...
|
The Smoking Gun has posted Vice President Cheney's travel requirements. Quite frankly, it is very modest. I've been involved in working with much lesser-known politicians and celebrities who have much more extensive "requests." I don't see this simple one-pager as evidence that he is being high-maintenance. On the contrary, it is actually respectful to provide a simple list of your requirements that can be easily faxed to your host. For example, if you were to bring me to your town to speak, I have some standard requests that I can fax you... Temperature in room: 67.3 degrees Fahrenheit
TV's tuned to Andy Griffith reruns
Six-pack of Tab (soft drink) on ice (ice should not be chipped)
Latest issues of Vanity Fair, Human Events, and Sports Illustrated
Ala George Castanza, sheets should not be tucked in.
No carbs served (except wheat bread or whole grain)
Foam pillows (not down)
I will necessitate a driver (you can pick me up -- no need for a hired car)
|
We've Got Email...
My previous post about "targeting" generated this email question... Matt,
I was reading your piece on targeting. In your experience, would you consider the "Swing Voters" that you target ato be D's and R's who vote in General Elections but not the primary because if they are voting consistenly voting in that party's primary, then they are solid D's or R's? Is this fair to say?...Here' s my response: In a word: Yes.
First, a distinction: The blog I posted today about targeting has more to do with how presidential candidate's and party committee's focus on certain states (and ignore others). Your question involves a political candidate who focuses on certain voters (and ignores others).
Both can be effective ways of utilizing your limited resources to get "more bang for your buck."
Of course, this is a major decision that involves many strategic factors... Having said that, here is my general advice for targeting voters in a general election:
1. Start with a list of likely voters (for example, people who have voted in 2 of the last 3 elections).
2. Eliminate Republican and Democrat Primary Voters
3. Target the rest
By doing this, you will be focusing your resources on eligible, registered, likely, persuadable voters.
Technically, a "swing voter" is defined as someone who votes Republican sometimes and Democrat sometimes. This is different than a "ticket splitter," which can be defined as someone who (on the same ballot) votes for a Democrat and a Republican.
Don't get too hung up on that. Go with the formula I gave you above, and you will be good.
|
In Defense of Targeting...
Over at The Hill, pollster Mark Mellman is making the case for "targeting": "Targeting has somehow become a dirty word in some Democratic circles. Our egalitarianism resists giving more attention to some states and less to others. But in a close presidential contest, targeting can make all the difference. A change of 59,000 votes in Ohio would have made John Kerry president, even while he lost the national popular vote by 3 million. That is the potential power of focus."
|
Location, Location, BAD Location!
...Speaking of where to hold an effective campaign press conference, here's an example of what happens when you cross the line and go a bit too far. According to The Detroit News: "Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer gave a glimpse of the low road his party intends to follow in this year's gubernatorial campaign when he attempted to hold a press conference at the Dick DeVos for Governor campaign headquarters in Lansing. Police had to be called to end Brewer's stunt and escort him away. It was a classless act."
|
Any good PR professional will tell you that the backdrop of a press conference matters. So instead of holding a boring press conference in some hotel conference room, hold it at a location that actually underscores your message. According to the Washington Times, Republicans are criticizing a Democrat memo which encourages members of Congress to do just that... "Democratic leaders also recommended that members hold press conferences this week at ports, local veteran halls and factories to sell their agenda aimed at protecting Americans' security here and on the battlefield."
|
PennPatriot has some good thoughts regarding the Santorum/Casey race. Although Casey is up in the polls, this article demonstrates that there may be some cracks beginning to emerge....
|
PA Activists Aren't Forgetting...
 Pennsylvania activists are still peeved at members of the PA General Assembly for giving themselves a huge raise. And they are vowing not to forget it. They've come up with a pretty cool bumper sticker to express their displeasure...
|
I just discovered this website: TheBlackGOP.com. It' s really cool. Check it out.
|
More Q&A's Please...
During a breakfast a few years ago, Lyn Nofziger told me presidents should hold more press conferences with Q&A sessions. His reasoning: They prevent controversies from building up too long before being addressed. Like John Kennedy before him, Ronald Reagan was able to use the media's questions to advance his campaign aspirations. As a gubernatorial candidate, Reagan used Q&A sessions to overcome the myth that he was merely an actor. (Granted, there were some predictable gaffes, but overall, this strategy was a huge success and proved Reagan wasn't merely an "empty suit.") And when Nofziger ran Governor Reagan's communications office, the practice continued. Unfortunately, according to Nofziger, President Reagan's handlers in the White House would not allow him to hold weekly Q&A sessions. Nofziger believes this was a mistake. It seems that after five years, the Bush team has finally decided to follow Nofziger's advice. By holding frequent news conferences and speeches with Q&A, Bush is sending a signal of openness. Some people, who view the media as the enemy, call this tack "appeasement." But while the primary goal of any politician is to advance his strategic goals -- not to necessarily make the media happy -- doing the former is sometimes necessary to achieve the latter. And keep in mind, the target audience isn't the press corps -- it is the public. In a sense, the media is a prop. Bush is using them to show the public he is being open. For example, When Bush called on Helen Thomas today, he realized he wasn't going to win her over. But calling on her sends a signal that he isn't afraid of answering tough questions. Of course, there are certainly downsides to openness. One problem with holding frequent press conferences is that he may not have any new information to give. Again, while this is a problem, I still believe I'd err on the side of encouraging more communication. Another danger is that the more a politician speaks, the more likely it is that gaffes will occur. No doubt, that is the underlying reason this closely-guarded White House has heretofore eschewed Q&A sessions. In fairness, they do have a point: I'm listening to his press conference right now, and President Bush has lost his cool a couple of times. He's trying to be funny, but it's not really working. He just accused a reporter of going to sleep during a previous press conference... Well, he isn't Ronald Reagan, and even if he was, you can't expect immediate results from any new strategy. But like any investment, I expect it will pay dividends in the long run.
|
War Stories ...
A few days ago, I asked you for your campaign "war stories" regarding unethical behavior in political campaigns. I received this email from a reader, and thought I would share it with you. Note: I have removed the name of the alleged campaign, but the story still illustrated an example of what may have been "unethical" campaigning. Additionally, it should serve as a warning to young conservatives of the hardball nature of politics. Yes, there are people out there who will seek to take advantage of you ... While I was campaigning for XXXX in the last four days of the election, I got a phone call from a New York reporter saying that she would love to get footage of a young, passionate collegiate engaged in political action. She said she was a producer from HBO, and completely non-partisan. Naively, I admit, I permitted her and her husband to shoot footage of me walking door-to-door and interview me for over four hours. At one point, I got into my car and checked my messages, and had several panicky messages from the hierarchy of the XXX camp telling me to stop wherever I am, and to quit giving information to the enemy. Apparently this "non-partisan" interview was being executed by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. Yeah, she wasn't a XXX campaign staffer, but it seemed too coincidental to be above board, ...How advantageous it would've been for them to have gotten something potentially very bad for the XXX campaign. Note: It is hard to tell whether this was an example of a legitimate interview or if it was, in fact, a "set-up." Either way, it is important for conservatives to be "wise as serpants and gentle as doves."
|
"Mudcat's" Advice for Dems...
Virginia political consultant Dave "Mudcat" Saunders has co-written yet another playbook for how Democrats can take back the White House. The title is, "Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must Do to Run 'em Out." According to The Roanoke Times, the book recommends Democrats to the following: Lose "the wuss factor" and bone up on the culture of country people -- even if it means forgetting about the women's studies professors and the gay-rights activists. (They'll vote for Democrats regardless, the authors argue.)
Instead, concentrate on broadening the base: Show rural people in the South and the heartland that, while you may not personally play the banjo, hunt deer or go to NASCAR races, you appreciate that they do.
If urban areas tend to go Democrat and suburban/exurban areas go Republican, "The swing vote is what's left, and it lives in rural America," Saunders says. "These people have been voting Republican, but they're not really Republicans, and we need to show 'em why."
Democrats need to reframe the debate and start talking about what rural Americans really worry about, he says.
|
Our good friend, Ellen Dunagan, was quoted prominently in last Sunday's Washington Post Job Section. Here's some good advice we can all benefit from... "Ellen Dunagan, a 36-year-old career coach with Traverse Management Solutions in Arlington, had a similar realization. "Resumes are important, but not as important as how you present yourself once you get in the door. My old employers were actually good sources of future employment, and that door should not be closed shut."Kudos to Ellen for her continued work to mentor job seekers!
|
GOP Insiders Working Against Black Candidates?
Recently, GOP leaders have talked a lot about the need for more black Republicans to seek public office. But talk is cheap. Over at NewsMax, Paul Weyrich claims some GOP insiders are working behind the scenes to undermine two black Republican candidates...
|
Ethics in Campaigns...
This coming Saturday, I will be part of a panel discussion at American University on the topic of ethics in campaigns. Obviously, I am anticipating questions such as: "Is negative campaigning ethical?" and "where do you draw the line between hardball politics and being unethical." The truth is, this is a very important subject to teach -- especially in a business where there is no prize awarded for "2nd place." I wish more young political operatives were exposed to these ideas before they are thrown into campaigns. Please email me your thoughts, ethical dilemmas, and campaign horror stories. I'd like to read some of the best emails during the panel discussion...
|
As the Washington Post reports today, "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has bagged a big one"... "Terry Nelson, who served as national political director for President Bush's reelection race in 2004, has signed on as a senior adviser to McCain's Straight Talk America political action committee."
I've had the privilege and honor of working directly under Terry, on a day-to-day basis. I can attest to the fact that he is one of the smartest and hardest-working Republican leaders out there. This is yet another major coup for the McCain campaign.
|
Promote Thy Self...
I'm quoted in today's Grand Forks Herald, regarding North Dakota's new Congressional Candidate.
|
 I just finished reading Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics by Jerome Armstrong (who used blogs and Meetups for Howard Dean's campaign) and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (founder of DailyKos.com). Like the authors of this book (who have clearly learned from conservatives), I'm always interested in learning from the other side (even if it means enduring some liberal rhetoric, in the process). But if your purpose for reading this book is to learn how to be a more effective activist, this book is not for you. Sadly, the authors (who are very successful bloggers) chose not to share any trade secrets (now that would have been interesting). Nor do they (with the exception of recounting the Dean campaign's rise and fall) spend much time on the subject of using the internet to become a better political activist. Rather than writing a book that would play to their strengths and expertise, the authors have chosen instead to act as political strategists. They are clearly more focused on the message than the medium. This is a bit disappointing because there is no dearth of books by Democrat strategists (like James Carville, Paul Begala, and Dick Morris), who have much more experience in actually winning campaigns. Of course, the authors would argue that their vision for the Democrat Party is 180 degrees different from "consultants," like Carville, Begala, and Morris. By the way, if you're looking for a book to actually teach you how to be a "netroots activist," Joe Trippi's book, The Revolution Will Not Be Publicized is a better pick. But while Crashing the Gate does not offer many tips for how one might become a more effective activist, there is still plenty to be learned from reading the book. For example, the authors do a good job of recounting recent political history, including the rise of the conservative movement. (This is done in order to draw a comparison between the way conservatives seized control of the Republican Party -- and their recommendations for how "progressives" should seize control of the Democrat Party). The authors criticize the insider establishment of the Democrat Party for following the advice of the "consultant class" (even though these Democrat consultants continue to lose election after election.) They also lament that the liberal movement is composed of interest groups who are more focused on their single issue than on the good of the liberal cause. While I don't agree with all their prescriptions for revitalizing the Democrat Party, they do make one very good point: The New Deal Democrat coalition is gone. Democrats who are hoping to go back to pre-1994 days are fighting a losing battle. In this sense, the authors would argue that the choice they are offering the Democrat Party isn't a "progressive" versus moderate choice, but a new versus old approach.
|
I'm glad they finally got a candidate. But why on earth would anyone hold a press announcement on a Friday? Friday is the day you pick if you want to drop bad news. It certainly isn't the day you want to kick-off a campaign... BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - State Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, began his campaign Friday for the Republican endorsement to run for Congress, saying he would bring a stronger North Dakota voice to Washington.
|
Nationalizing Mid-Term Elections?
For the past several months, we've been seeing a lot of bad numbers for Republicans. Of course, there are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics -- so you've always got to question the accuracy of polls. For example, do they measure intensity?, do they poll only "likely" voters?, do the national numbers matter (in the case of primary elections, they don't), etc. However, when it comes to '06 mid-term elections, this is, perhaps, the scariest thing I've read... "Asked which would be more important in determining how they vote, their own representative's position on national issues or their representative's performance in their district, 44% said 'national issues' and 40% said performance in the district. That's a greater percentage choosing 'national issues' than in October 1994 (35%)."
Based on recent poll numbers, -- and President Bush's current approval ratings -- if Democrats are able to "nationalize" the elections in November, we could be looking at two very long years...
|
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
 When Irish eyes are smiling, Sure, 'tis like the morn in Spring. In the lilt of Irish laughter You can hear the angels sing. When Irish hearts are happy, All the world seems bright and gay. And when Irish eyes are smiling, Sure, they steal your heart away. Read A Ronald Reagan St. Patrick's Day here.
|
Door-to-Door Advice
A reader emailed me this question about door-to-door -- and I thought I'd share it with you... Q: Do you think when a candidate goes door-to-door and writes "Sorry, I missed you -- John" on the palm card that it makes any difference to that voter when they get it? Or does it not have any effect?  A: Yes -- it definitely makes a difference. I highly recommend it. When volunteers are door knocking for you, they should also handwrite, "Sorry I Missed You" on the door hanger or palm card. They should not, however, sign your name. That would be crossling the line and could backfire. Just by writing "Sorry I Missed You," people will assume you were there.
|
New Advertising Revolution is On Demand?
 According to National Journal's Hotline, Comcast On Demand may be leading the way toward a new advertising revolution: "Comcast is selling On Demand political advertising as an environment for candidates or advocacy groups to "elaborate on their causes." Since DVR advertising is not bound by the same constraints as television or radio, it allows campaigns to run spots of up to 60 minutes and gives viewers the freedom to decide which messages they are interested in watching.
(...)
"Dem strategist Joe Trippi notes that this technology could prove beneficial in targeting voters, and is certainly "something campaigns should take a look at." Particularly on the Congressional level where resources tend to be more limited, this could become a significant medium to access specific voters. Due to the capabilities of DVRs to track personal habits and information, a new means of targeting becomes
available.
(...)
"As Trippi notes, many political firms are still traditionally buying the four major networks. "It will take a major win from a pioneer campaign" for this to gain recognition, similar to the way the Howard Dean campaign launched the internet revolution."
|
The Texas Dems have kindly posted their training manual on line. Check it out.
|
South Park Hypocrisy
 Isaac Hayes' decision to leave South Park for making fun of Scientology is making waves. His departure has been universally panned as being "hypocritical." According to South Park co-creator Matt Stone, Hayes has "cashed plenty of checks -- with our show making fun of Christians." Liz Kelly at The Post writes, "Resigning shortly after an episode poking fun at Scientology can't help but be viewed as knee jerk and intolerant." And blogger Dan Flynn comments, "Hayes should have known that his beliefs were due for the South Park treatment." According to FOXnews.com, the outspoken Scientologist responded by saying: "There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins..." Fair enough. But does this mean others should complain, too? Should Tipper Gore get involved in this? Perhaps we can label these episodes with some sort of "intolerance" warning? And on the political front (this is a political blog, right?) there is still no word as to how Gov. Romney feels about the South Park Mormon episode. I'm guessing he does not own the dvd. In the end, the show will go on with, or without, Chef. No doubt, they will have fun making fun of this incident -- and in fact -- the publicity could be good for the show. As for me, so long as they don't mess with Cartman's voice, I'm cool with it. BTW, the Scientology episode will air tonight on Comedy Central. Check it out.
|
Be Careful with Visuals...
Graphics can either attract -- or detract -- from your image. Somehow, I don't think this Democrat Senator realized how this sign would make her look.
|
Over at The Hill, pollster Mark Mellman debates whether political environment or structural dynamics is the more important determinant of election results...
|
Was Russ Feingold's move to censure Bush really about his own presidential aspirations? According to this Washington Post story, it looks that way: "The left wing of the party has greeted Feingold's censure call ecstatically. He was the front-runner in a Jan. 31 survey of 2008 presidential candidates by the liberal blog Daily Kos. Feingold garnered 30 percent support among the more than 11,000 respondents, eclipsing retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who dropped to second place after leading in the previous five bimonthly polls."From a selfish strategic standpoint, Feingold’s move seems smart. Hillary Clinton has been working to moderate her image, so there may now be room in the race for someone to go to the left of Hillary -- and occupy the territory that Dean carved out in 2004. This is nothing to be sneezed at. Although he ultimately lost, Dean went from being an obscure governor of a small state, to being a frontrunner for months. The liberal wing of the Democrat Party is a tremendous resource for money and activists, especially in a primary. Feingold may see this as his chance to become "the liberal" in the race. Of course, Democrat strategists hope this scenario does not come into fruition. A strong liberal candidate would only serve to force Hillary to defend her left flank in the primary, thus making it harder for her to appear as a moderate in a general election. But Feingold's maneuver isn't just problematic for Hillary in '08. At a time when Democrats were beginning to score points over the ports issue, in one fell swoop, Feingold has put the Democrat Party back on the wrong side of the national security issue. This is the work of either a very selfish politician, or a very naïve one. Following is an excerpt from the O'Reilly Factor, back in January of this year. It illustrates why Democrats should not be talking about the wire tap issue: DICK MORRIS: ... There is no such thing as a negative story about George Bush on Homeland Security. The more Ted Kennedy talks about overreaching executive authority, and NSA wiretaps, and Bush's extensive use of The Patriot Act, the more they're helping Bush, not hurting him. But the more you talk about. O'REILLY: Why, why, why? DICK MORRIS: Because the public is overwhelmingly with George Bush on that issue. And the negative press coverage of The Times and everybody else can't change that. It's a 70-20 issue for Bush. And all they're doing is calling attention to it by the criticism. By the same token, there is no way that Bush will ever succeed if the articles are about healthcare, and the price of drugs, or with the environment or global warming.Feingold's little scheme may be a personal power-play to excite liberal bloggers, but it ultimately hurts his own party. We should be thankful that every time Republicans mess up, a Feingold always seems to come to our rescue.
|
The AP has more info regarding Gov. Romney's surprise 2nd place finish at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference...
|
A good friend of mine, Allen Rodgers, put together a great cd a few years ago. If you like "bitter sweet melodies and carefully crafted lyrics," then I urge you to check them out (the band is called Bridge). To listen free, click here.
|
Looks like our friend Chuck DeFeo is doing some good work over at Salem... BTW, premium members of campaignleadership.com can read our interview with Chuck, here.
|
Note: If your candidate is out-of-touch with the voters, do not (repeat) do not admit that to the press -- as Joe Lieberman's campaign manager recently did to the Hartford Courant ... "He ran for vice president. He ran for president. He hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while. He is looking forward to it."What? Lieberman ran for president two years ago and he hasn't talked to voters since then??? If I were a constituent of his, I would be saying: "please spin me!... At least respect me enough to pretend you've been paying attention to me ... " As the liberal Daily Kos opined: "Somebody needs to go back to spin school."
|
There's a nice little story today about Condi Rice's speechwriter. It's called, The Young Speechwriter Who Captured Rice's Voice. Here's an excerpt: "Brose said one of his aims in Rice's speeches is to connect her life story -- growing up black in a segregated South -- with the struggle to build democracy in faraway lands. Rice's recounting of the difficulties African Americans have faced in gaining a voice in U.S. society seems to strike a chord with audiences here and abroad, in part because it adds a note of humility to a democracy project that many overseas view warily."
|
A "Very Special" Posting...
Every day, we gain more and more readers, so I thought (for the sake of new readers); I would tell you a bit about why I started this blog. (For those of you who've been reading this blog from day 1, this post may seem a bit like one of those "flashback" situation comedy episodes). First of all, I do not consider myself a blogger, per se. I am a political person who has a blog. If that makes me a blogger, then so be it. Being a blogger is not how I define myself. This blog is merely one medium I have to communicate to you. So why did I start this blog? For many years I worked full time to train conservatives how to be more effective candidates and activists. To this day, I speak to thousands of conservatives at training seminars, each year. It is, without a doubt, one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in my life. Until a few years ago, I believed that the only way to train people correctly was at a seminar. My reasoning was that training in person is more effective, plus, it is easier to keep this information from being passed on to liberals, if it is done within the confines of a seminar. (It's not that we would screen people out. It was self-selecting. It takes less moxie to buy a book or surf the net than it does to "infiltrate" a training seminar). Today, I realize that was short-sighted. How did I come to this realization? Perhaps, my favorite author is John C. Maxwell, the famous author of many leadership books. Maxwell teaches that most people tend to make the mistake of putting a lot of emphasis on "events" and not as much emphasis on process (this is called "The Law of Process). What he means is that people who attend a seminar believe that this one event is the end all and be all of training. But the truth is that students only retain a portion of what they learn during a seminar. Maxwell's argument is that seminars are good at inspiring us to start working hard -- and pointing us in the right direction. But they are not good at actually taking someon from one level to the next. As I thought about the Maxwell's "Law of Process," it immediately occurred to me that I had been wrong all these years. After all, through his many books, John Maxwell had been mentoring me for years. Yet I had never heard him speak live (though he does go on tour). If Maxwell had changed my life via his writings and cds (and I'd never heard him speak live), then by creating more opportunities for conservatives to learn, I could also touch more lives. At about this time, I decided to move on from the Leadership Institute (where I was running the grassroots department) and go be political director at GOPAC. I had always believed that LI was better at putting on seminars -- but that GOPAC (thanks in large part to Joe Gaylord) -- had always been better at putting out tapes and books, etc. My goal was to merge LI's training with GOPAC's merchandising. Unfortunately, my tenure there was very short-lived. I ended up moving to North Dakota to run a Congressional campaign. On the campaign (this was late '03 into '04), I started a campaign blog (this was my first time blogging). I also ended up reading Joe Trippi's book that year (when I could find a spare moment, that is), and a lot of his thoughts really rang true to me. As soon as I got back to DC, I immediately started working on building this blog, publishing a book, and growing an email list. I also created a website with resources, such as downloads and interviews of political experts. (Students who hear one of my talks receive a free passcode that allows them to access this premium info for free). We're always looking for new ideas and new ways to help grow conservatives. For example, I am also very excited that sometime this year I will be releasing a dvd of my campaign training. (It is based on a lecture series that I did all across Texas, last year. ) Again, this is another step toward putting useful info into the hands of grassroots conservatives (who may never hear me speak, live). The purpose of all these resources is for me to better serve conservatives who are interested in improving. For example, instead of training some students in California, and then disappearing, the new paradigm is to find ways to continue mentoring them on a daily basis. Ultimately, the goal is to train conservatives and help them grow into politically savvy operatives. Since growth takes time, I am in this for the long haul. My emails (you can sign up to the left of this screen) are specifically campaign tips. I don't really get into philosophy in the email tips (it is focused on strategy and tactics). Conversely, the blog (Matt Lewis & The News) does inject a bit of my opinion. Usually, I try to use current events to illustrate timeless political maxims. Granted, what I do is not for everybody. I know I have a target niche, and that is okay. There are a lot of blogs out there to choose from, and it occurs to me that not everybody is interested in what we do here. That is okay. This whole experience has been very rewarding for me. For one thing, having to come up with constant material has forced me to do more reading and writing. I have also learned that the biggest secret to the success of a blog is simply to keep at it. This has also turned into a dialogue where the readers keep me posted on new ideas and new technology. In fact, please feel free to email me with your thoughts on how I can continue to be a resource for conservatives.
|
How Romney Finished 2nd
Franklin Roosevelt once said, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." ...So you can bet that when a Governor from Massachusetts comes in second place in the Hotline's straw poll held in Memphis, TN, of all places -- it's not the result of an "accident" -- it was "planned that way." In fact, the Tennessean today reveals some of the behind-the-scenes planning that made it happen. According to the article, "Romney supporters in Tennessee helped pay the way for more than 50 college students..." It is quite a coup for Romney to come in second place (behind TN Senator Bill Frist) at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. Granted, it's early in the election cycle, but this is one more hurdle he has jumped -- and it helps build momentum. While winning a straw poll may not make or break your campaign, doing well is certainly better than doing poorly. Again, I don't begrudge him for orchestrating this second-place finish. This is the stuff that good campaigns do.
|
This quote from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) certainly underscores John McCain's changed campaign strategy, this time around: "... there's a huge difference between being the leader of a movement and a leader of a party. That means you've got to take folks that disagree with you and bring them into the tent and try to broaden the scope of the party. If (John McCain) does run, I think he feels very comfortable with the idea that this time around will be to lead the party."In a sense, I agree with him. Barry Goldwater, for example, was the leader of a movement. His rhetoric was confrontational and divisive (for example, " extremism in defense of liberty..."). While this rhetoric served to inspire those already in the choir, it was absolutely repulsive to anyone on the fence. Just 16 years later, Ronald Reagan became the leader of a movement -- a party -- and a nation. His language was inclusive (for example: " You and I have a rendezvous with destiny"). While his rhetoric was certainly tough ("Tear down this wall!," tough), he also had a warm side that attracted a group of people who came to be known as, "Reagan Democrats." As you can see, Reagan's ability to be likeable and Goldwater's ability to be objectionable had more to do with stylistic differences than with philosophical differences. Both were conservative, but Reagan was a better communicator. Clearly, in 2000, John McCain's "straight talk" was also sometimes divisive talk (at least within the Republican Party). In that sense, he would do well to stylistically pattern himself more after Ronald Reagan than after fellow Arizonan, Barry Goldwater. But he must also resist the notion that becoming leader of a "big tent" party means no longer taking stands. Ronald Reagan did not become the leader of the party by becoming as liberal as GOP party "insiders" were in the 1970s. Instead, he used his leadership ability to move the party (and the nation) to the Right. Good leaders do not get to the top by becoming so watered-down they do not offend anybody. Rather, they adhere to their core beliefs, and find a way to bring the party -- and the nation -- with them. John McCain is, perhaps, the current Republican frontrunner for the 2008 presidential race. It remains to be seen whether or not he will be able to unite the party behind him. But as a political observer, I have to say he is running a very good campaign, so far. It will be interesting to watch.
|
We've Got Email
Every day, I get emails from conservatives who have attended our campaign training. I usually only share the ones that I think would be instructive. Here are some good thoughts about recruiting volunteers, from a person who attended our training in Texas: "One of your emails recently asked for ideas as to things done during campaign. We went to our local colleges and approached the political science professors and you would not believe the results. We have had between 10 - 20 college kids even some from other countries. Many are still interested in being involved. Yes they were told to put in a certain number of volunteer hours, but the attitude of these kids was awesome. They did not act like they were there to just put in time -- they interacted. It was our hopes to not only give them a positive experience but also learning experience."
|
Inflation is out of control (when it comes to political campaigns). It took Al Gore about $50 million to sew up the Dem nomination in 2000, but just four years later, John Kerry spent about three times that to in the 2004 primaries! According to this article, a legitimate presidential candidate will need to raise about $35 million to be viable in the primary. What is more, there are predictions that the successful nominee will need to raise more than $400 million by the General Election. Most of the early money comes from big donors who can "max out." "If the pattern of 2004 holds for 2008, the huge surge in small donations over the Internet and through direct mail will not begin until two candidates have effectively locked up their respective nominations, probably in early March 2008."And, of course, networking is key... "One of the least known but most important dimensions of the early competition to raise cash is securing the support of men and women who have proven effective in the past at raising large sums -- usually from a well-tended network of business associates, corporate subordinates and clients."
|
Anti-Port Deal Had Simplicity and Emotion
Just to put the final exclamation point on this port deal story (for now), I think it is instructive to consider what role messaging played into the decision to pull the plug on the port deal. In politics, there is a rule: "If you are explaining, you are losing." The fundamental problem with the pro-Dubai argument was that it required a lot of explaining. As has already been discussed, it was simpler to understand (and explain) the anti-port deal side of the argument. The average person could understand why the port deal was bad, merely based on common sense. Common sense dictates that no foreign country should be in charge of our ports. That's something a guy sitting on a bar stool in Des Moines can understand just as easily as the guy driving a cab in Jersey. Conversely, arguing in favor of the port deal was much more difficult. The most convincing argument I heard in favor of the Dubai deal (and this didn't surface until days after the story broke) was the argument that the UAE is one of the few Arab allies we have, and that we cannot afford to alienate them. I believe this argument could have gotten more traction had they gotten it out earlier and used emotion to describe how desperate we are for allies in the Middle East. (Cleary the arguments that opposing the port deal were "racist" did not resonate any better than the claims that those of us who opposed the Miers nomination were "sexist.") The only way you could possibly support this deal was if someone really explained it to you -- and even then you may not agree with it. I listened to twenty some hours of Rush Limbaugh explaining why this was a good move, and I still wasn't really sold on the idea. But there is another factor that pretty much guaranteed the Dubai deal would fall through: Emotion. Which side had emotion? Clearly, the anti-port deal side had emotion on its side. Keeping Americans safe is fundamentally an emotional issue (President Bush has typically benefited from this politically). The argument in favor of the Dubai deal was strictly based on logic. Generally speaking, if you were to tell me there was some generic debate -- and that one side was emotional and easy to understand (compared to the other side) -- I would tell you not to waste your time.
|
President Bush is very lucky that the port deal fell apart the way it did. I'm not sure if it is the result of some backroom maneuvering or just plain serendipity, but as it turns out, Americans get what we want, GOP Members of Congress will not be tainted come November, and President Bush gets to save face. Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio is quoted in today's Washington Post, saying: "If the Democrats had been able to use this, it would have been horrible, horrible." He is right. But the Democrats won't be able to exploit this issue as they would have liked. And considering the hand we were dealt, this appears to have resolved itself as well as could be expected. But you won't hear the media report that... Instead, the media wants to focus on the perceived schism between GOP Members of Congress and the President. The truth is that Members of Congress represent us -- not the White House. It is a healthy thing for Democracy for there to sometimes be a little disagreement between the branches of government, and it shouldn't imply disloyalty or even perceived weakness on the part of President Bush. The bottom line is this: Considering the electoral disaster this could have become, it appears that we have dodged a bullet.
|
- John Edwards' has a new blog. It's pretty flashy and innovative. Seriously, this is pretty cool... - Senator Russ Feingold is hosting a "text chat" version of his trademark listening sessions to the World Wide Web on March 10, at 10:30 AM Eastern. For more info, click here.
|
Don't try this at home...
As The Hill reports, in some parts of the country, being a " carpetbagger" doesn't hurt you...
|
Somehow, I missed this from a story in the Post the other day, regarding how the Dems can't even settle on a slogan... "Even the party's five-word 2006 motto has preoccupied congressional Democrats for months. 'We had meetings where senators offered suggestions,' Reid said. 'We had focus groups. We worked hard on that. ...It's a long, slow, arduous process."That slogan -- "Together, America Can Do Better" -- was revived from the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry. It was the last line of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's response to President Bush's State of the Union address, and Reid, Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have used it in speeches. But there is an effort afoot to drop the word "together." It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect."Hilarious. Aside from the fact they are attempting to resurrect a line from John Kerry's failed campaign, it is humorous that they can't even agree on a slogan. Personally, if it were me, I would go with " We Can Do Better!" Never mind the focus groups, I kind of like it... But when it comes to the Democrats, maybe the slogan should be, "Together...we can find a message!"
|
In what was meant to be a joke, Senator John McCain recently accused North Dakotans of being cheap. Obviously, he's never stayed at the Hodo...
|
Yesterday, lawmakers took the first steps toward stopping the port deal. Regardless of who is right on the issue, from a PR perspective, this is a tough issue for the Bush Administration to defend. The problem is that it is very easy to demagogue this issue. It's easy to make a common-sense argument that the port deal is bad. In politics, simplicity wins. Perception is reality. But that's not what I'm writing about today. In reading the Washington Post story, I stumbled upon a very interesting quote from Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (it's toward the end of the story). The Post quotes Nick as saying the port issue fits "into a national discussion about which party is better equipped to win the war on terrorism, and Republicans win that issue every time." I have heard several people make this argument over the last several weeks. What Mr. Nick is basically saying is that political debates are won and lost -- not based on the specific details of an argument -- but based on whose "turf' the battle is fought. This is because every issue has a built-in skew to one side or the other. Voters have deep-seated beliefs regarding which political party is better on which issue. So if the subject is healthcare, for instance, Democrats automatically will win. And, so the argument goes, if we're talking about national security, Republicans win. By and large, I subscribe to this theory, myself. It's called, "staying on message." As long as you're talking about issues that your side wins on, you're winning. ...But what happens if there is an issue so big that it shifts the paradigm? I mean, that is possible.
Isn't it dangerous to assume voters will always believe the GOP is the "national security" party? Is it wise to assume we own the national security vote? For many years the "Party of Lincoln" was the party for African-American voters. Then, something changed. The great depression came along, and FDR changed everything. Suddenly, the Democrats were perceived as caring more about people. Since then, African-Americans have voted in large percentages for the Democrat nominee. My point is that dramatic events can and do sometimes change perceptions regarding the parties. Now, I am in no way saying the port issue is significant enough to create a paradigm shift in which the Democrat Party becomes the party associated with national security. It will take a lot for the Democrats to overcome forty years of evidence that the GOP is the party best suited to keep Americans safe. But why in the world would we do anything to risk this favorable image?
|
Victory
I guess when you win a race so convincingly, you earn the right to celebrate a little. ...This is kinda' funny.
|
The Calendar is Your Friend...Usually
I've long advised local political candidates to use the calendar as a guide to help plan their campaign and fundraising events. For example, on April 15, you are very likely to be able to latch on to some easy-to-get press coverage if you talk about, um, you guessed it...taxes! (So if you're running for office, go ahead and put a circle around that date on the calendar). In PR, that's called "riding the wave." Instead of swimming upstream, you figure out what the media is going to talk about anyway -- and you just find a way to ride along with it. When it comes to fundraising, the calendar can also be your friend. Birthdays and wedding anniversaries are a convenient excuse to host a fundraising event to "help the candidate celebrate the big day..." ...Of course, the only caveat is that it's bad form when you blatantly copy what your competitor's ideas (and get caught doing it). According to Roll Call, Susan Allen (wife of Senator George Allen, R-VA) sent out a fundraising e-mail message on Monday that was "strikingly, if not embarrassingly, similar to the one Karyn Frist sent out last month asking supporters to sign a surprise online 'birthday album' for the Majority Leader." I know, I know, there are no "original" ideas left in politics. But couldn't they have come up with a slightly new angle?
|
Several months ago, I wrote an article for Personal Democracy Forum titled: Why Republicans are Winning at Tech. My premise was that while Democrats have garnered a lot of publicity by creating "on line communities," and "blogging," it was Republicans who were using technology (such as micro-targeting) to win elections. (I attributed this to a predisposition Republicans have toward being businesslike and results-oriented.) Not surprisingly, the article was quite popular among many of our Republican friends. Patrick Ruffini even wrote, "...for us online politicos, Matt Lewis's commentary in Personal Democracy Forum is big, exciting, juicy stuff." ...As you might imagine, my opinions were not as well received on the Left. Today, two developments seem to corroborate my position... First, The Washington Post reports: "A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage." Of course, the fact that the Democrats must rely on a "private effort" to build an effective database implies the DNC has not been doing their job, with respect to improving campaign technology. (No doubt, this is "help" that DNC Chairman Howard Dean probably sees as a slap in the face -- which it is). I'm not sure whether or not to take this seriously. For one thing, this maneuver could simply be a way for the "Clintonista's" (who used to run the party until the "Deaniacs" seized it) to undermine Dean and pry back the party apparatus, just in time for Hillary's presumed run for the White House. Additionally, it seems that every couple of months there is a big Washington Post article about how Democrats are launching a new training program, building a new database, doing some sort of new outreach, etc. In fact, it seems like I've read this story before... Morton Blackwell, who has been observing political technology for years, once cautioned me not to read too much into these types of stories. His argument is that the real advances don't end up in the newspaper. In short, you don't send out a press release about your technology if it's the real deal. Morton ought to know. He managed to train thousands and thousands of conservatives how to win elections and organize college campuses before the mainstream media finally started taking note. Still, I've always thought it is wiser to overestimate your opponents than underestimate them. So I'm sounding the alarm... In related news, Hotline's "On Call" blog today features a post about how Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) is using a new form of an old technology to hold town hall meetings -- the telephone. It's called, Tele Town Hall technology, and in short, it's like a conference call where constituents also get to ask questions. Interestingly, Democrats have also taken a pass on this technology. According to the blog, the problem isn't Democrat staffers or consultants, it's the member's themselves. It seems they don't want to spend any of their franking budget on the technology. So once again, the Dems find themselves behind the technology curve. ...Who knows? Maybe Bill Clinton can find some donors to pay for this, too?
|
Why Straw Polls Mean Something
All political eyes are on Memphis and the start of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. This conference has been described by some as the unofficial start of campaign season. Of course, the big news will be who wins the Hotline Straw Poll. Every campaign worth their salt will pull out every maneuver possible to win. Some pundits view these straw polls as irrelevant because they say the results are manipulated. Well, I believe these straw polls are more telling (at this point in an election cycle) precisely because they require the candidates to do some political maneuvering in order to win them. To illustrate my point, let's compare what it takes to win a national poll versus what it takes to win a straw poll. A national telephone poll demonstrates a candidate's name ID. While that's all well and good, the results mean little when it comes to running fifty separate races where some states hold caucuses, etc. Besides, national polls measure voter preference, but they don't measure voter intensity. Intensity is what really matters. That's why political insiders don't worry too much about polls that show Rudy up by twenty points. Conversely, winning a straw poll requires a candidate to build an organization capable of orchestrating a victory. Nothing moves in politics unless it's pushed, or in layman's terms, winning a straw poll doesn't just "happen." You don't just win these straw polls by luck -- you do it by dragging as many of your supporters as you can find to the convention. If you can build an organization to help win a straw poll, the odds are you can also build a grassroots organization to win a primary election. And straw polls also measure voter intensity. Let's face it: it's easy to answer a few questions over the phone, but if you're willing to go to Memphis and sit through a convention, you are committed to the candidate. Taking the time to vote in a straw poll implies you're not going to change your mind. It means you might be willing to trudge through the snow in New Hampshire. It means you might keep knocking on some doors -- even when you're knuckles get sore. When John McCain won the CPAC straw poll, a lot of us felt it legitimized his national poll numbers. Granted, we realized he must have found a way to stack the votes (it's hard to imagine conservatives being so supportive of McCain). But frankly, we were more impressed with him for having pulled it off.
|
House GOP Seminar: How to Handle Bloggers...
This past Friday, House Republican press secretaries met on Capitol Hill to talk about the power of blogs (see the agenda here (this is a PDF). According to National Journal's, a two-page primer on blogging was handed out at the meeting. Here are some of the tips included in the handout: Start one. The problem with congressional Web sites (and Web sites in general) is that they never have fresh content so constituents, students and others visit a Web site, hopefully find what they need and move on. Why not keep your constituents involved with what you're working on (for them) and your progress? To do so, consider establishing a blog on your Web page or create a blog with a third-party vendor and prominently link to it from your Web site. Write conversationally. Consider using a voice similar to that you would use for a statement or an op-ed. Establish relationships with bloggers, and keep them updated on what you are working on and give them access. Most bloggers freely list their contact information on their blogs. Keep in mind that bloggers often have "day jobs" and are not paid to cover Congress. Make their job easier by letting them know what you're boss is working on and why they may find it interesting. Do your homework and know your blogger. Bloggers cover the issues they care about. Find their interests, and share your news with them. Do not simply send your press release to a wide list of blogs. Choose one blogger and share your story, and provide the materials to back it up. If they do not want it, ship it out to a wider group. Do not expect instant gratification. For six baseball seasons, Babe Ruth led the National League with more strikeouts than any other player, but that didn't deter him from taking a swing in hopes of hitting his next homerun. WARNING: Bloggers are "friendly," but you should understand that there could and probably will be criticism and questions from the right, so choose your issues well. You can read the handout, here (note this is a PDF).
|
This is a clever idea; check out the new website about Bob Casey, Jr: www.WheresCasey.com.P.S. There is a hidden Easter Egg and if you click on it, Howard Dean pops out (try the peg on the barrel).
|
Worried about how the GOP is doing? Fear not, there is still another party even more inept: Democrtats. Remember, the other side has troubles, too...
|
This morning's Post claims the DeLay and Abramoff scandals are hurting the GOP with Jewish voters. I'm not sure if that's true, or not. It may affect things on the margins, but the real problem is the same problem we've been confronting all along... Although the conservative movement -- and the Republican Party, in general -- have been (for the last forty years) the pro-Israel party, many Jewish voters fear politicians who wear their Christianity on their sleeve. Frankly, some Jewish voters have decided a secular party (the Democrat Party) is safer for them than a Christian party (Republican). Of course, I totally disagree with that conclusion. Christian theology actually says the Jews are God's chosen people (which explains why so many conservative politicians are so pro-Israel.) ...And many on the Left are hostile to all people of faith -- not just Christians... But it doesn't matter what I think. By the way, this problem has caused many a frustrated GOPer to throw his hands up in the air and shout: "It's just not logical that all these groups keep voting for the Democrats, when polling shows they agree with us on the issues!"
...Well, who ever said voting was a matter of logic? It isn't. The GOP can continue to make real good logical arguments about how the GOP is the logical choice for Jewish voters, Hispanic voters, Black voters, etc. And we can talk till we are blue in the face. So why does this problem persist? The bottom line is that voters -- no matter what race -- make our decisions based on emotion ... not logic! When we are surprised that our "logical" arguments fail, we are forgetting a fundamental rule of politics: "Logic leads to conclusions, but emotion leads to action."Many voters (regardless of race) have strong emotional ties to the Democrat Party. And many younger conservatives may not appreciate the fact that years ago some in the Republican Party did earn a bad reputation regarding race relations. So it's no surprise that strong emotions last for years. And the truth is that it takes time to change emotions. I don't have a silver bullet, here. There's no quick fix. I believe we are moving in the right direction. But it will take time...
|
The Washington Post has a story today about the nascent trend of online political fundraising. According to the Post: "The Internet is perhaps the single most important development in political fundraising, and Democrats appear to have taken better advantage of it than Republicans. More than half of Democrats gave online, more than double the percentage of Republicans. More than 80 percent of the contributions by people ages 18 to 34 were made online. Almost half of all small, online donors gave without being asked first by the campaigns."But be ye not mislead... As I've pointed out in the past, while it is true that nationally-known candidates can raise lots of money this way, the danger is that the average candidate will think online fundraising is the answer to their fundraising problems. ...It isn't. Sure you should have a website that can accept donations. But don't think that your local state senate campaign will fund one single project this way. The truth is that the best way to raise money is to ask for it personally. ...To hear more of my ranting on the subject, check out my article, Why Most Candidates Can't 'Hackett.'
|
On Tuesday Texas primary voters will decide whether or not Tom DeLay should represent the GOP in the November elections. My take: Tom DeLay has earned our respect and support. While some in the national GOP establishment would like to throw him overboard, I urge Texas Republicans to stand by your man!
|
How to Connect on an Emotional Level...
National Journal's "Ad Spotlight" recently featured an interview with Rob Hennings, a partner at McCarthy Marcus Hennings (R), an advertising and strategic-communications firm in Washington. Here's an excerpt of their Q and A: Q: What makes an affective campaign and/or issue-oriented ad?Hennings: To connect with voters in an emotional way, people need to see themselves -- or someone they care about -- in the ad (literally or figuratively). All the production value in the world can't buy you that connection unless your message invites voters to imagine how they will be better or worse off by the choices they make.
|
Special thanks to Terry Strine and the DE GOP for inviting me to come out to Newark, DE today and speak. Here's some info about it. It was a great time!
|
RNC Seeks Women's Involvement
The Republican National Committee has begun a major outreach to a frequently undervalued constituency in the party: women. The Washington Times reports five training sessions across the country will be held for grassroots leadership training. House Democrats are not the only ones to have women in positions of leadership. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH) serves as the chair of the House Republican Conference and incidentally has a section of that website dedicated to Women's History Month. In grassroots work, I have most often seen women doing much of the volunteer activity. On the county and city level, women often make up a majority of the force that knocks on doors or mans phone banks. The more the Republican Party recognizes the need for their leadership at all levels, the more women will be even more excited and committed to involvement at every level. The party can only benefit, too, from moving away from an image of the "party of old, rich, white men."
|
What Goes Around . . .
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) now sits as an outsider for the Democratic 2008 nomination. But, as Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post blogs, he should not be counted out. He has managed to $250,000 in 24 hours for three Iraq war veterans. In the last six months, he has raised over $1 million and has totaled over $2 milion in the 2006 election cycle. By donating the money to state and federal candidates and party PACs, he earns the goodwill of those candidates. In the 2004 presidential election, he raised more than $80 million on the Internet and created a list of 3 million donors. Cillizza speculates, "Should Kerry decide to run again, his Internet fundraising capacity will form the backbone of his financial effort. If he takes a pass, he becomes a major powerbroker by deciding which candidate can use (or buy) the list."
|
I posted what some might describe as a libertarian-leaning blog today over at HumanEventsOnline. It was about this newly released pre-Katrina tape of Bush. Come to think of it, some of my thoughts could also apply to the story about the Leftist teacher in Denver who was also caught on tape comparing Bush to Hitler... My blog is focused on the question: Where did the tape come from? There is now speculation that "Brownie" or Chertoff leaked the Bush tape.
|
If you are interested in blogging...
For those of you interested in the phenomenon of blogging, two new books promise to give you the inside scoop:
-Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.com is coming out with his book, Army of Davids, How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, in about a month.
Here's a quote about Army of Davids:
"Glenn Reynolds has written an essential book for understanding how technology and markets are creating a bottom-up shift in power to ordinary people that is changing business, government, and our world. Packed with fresh ideas and adorned with graceful prose, An Army of Davids is a masterpiece." - Joe Trippi
Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (of the liberal blog, DailyKos) have written: Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics. (This one is just out).
Here's a quote about Crashing the Gate:
"No one is spared in this lively, pointed book -- and that makes it a lot of fun. Democrats should read Crashing the Gate to find their way out of the political wilderness. Republicans should read it to understand what their opponents might do if they get smart." - Larry J. Sabato
I plan on reading both, and will give you my thoughts in the future...
|
The Trouble with Email...
This is a sign of the times. In the last month alone, politicians in Ohio and Maryland have made major snafus involving email. This sort of thing could truly happen to anyone. I guess the morale is to just be very careful...
|
This is a great way to illustrate the fact that your opponent didn't show up. But the story behind it is even more interesting... 
|
DeLay Targets Voters
Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) is using technology normally seen in national-level races to hone in reelection efforts on certain voters. The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that his campaign spent $30,000 for a database software made by Aristotle International, Inc., that not only makes lists based on voting behavior, but also records snippets of information such as car bumper stickers and college support. In a four-way primary where DeLay's biggest lead is in money, his campaign is using every piece of information it can get to communicate with voters more effectively. If perspective supporters return a tear-off from a mailing or tell door-to-door volunteers they want a sign or a bumper sticker, they are also likely to get more mailings that correspond to the other bits of information collected about them. The hope is: the more personally a campaign can identify with an individual voter, the more likely he or she is to vote for that candidate.
|
...For those of you who were following my recent blogs about Michael Steele's race in Maryland, today's Washington Times asks an important question: Black vote no longer a lock for Dems? There are some surprising quotes in here from African-American Democrats.
|
Catching the Wave
Roll Call reports today that Republican House members are joining the blogging craze. The Kingston Theme Team, a group of 85 members who promote the Republican message, will host a conference tomorrow morning to introduce members and their aides to blogging. Roll Call reports House GOP Vice Chairman Jack Kingston (GA) "believes that the blogosphere is the poised to become the next big thing in the GOP communications machine's armada." Like talk radio, Republican House members hope blogging will help motivate Republican grassroots efforts. House members, like Kingston and Mike Conaway (R-TX), have used blogging to get around the mainstream media and communicate directly with constituents.
|
Do You Take the 1st Amendment for Granted?
The Chicago Tribune reported on a McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum survey that showed that only a small minority of Americans know their First Amendment rights. While 20 percent could correctly identify all five family members on "The Simpsons," fewer than 1 percent could name the five rights granted individuals in the First Amendment. Dave Anderson, director of the museum, said, "I think people take their freedoms for granted." Twenty-one percent of respondents said the right to own pets was a First Amendment right, while 17 percent said driving a car was a right protected by the 1st Amendment. A truly scary 38 percent of people said "taking the 5th Amendment" fell under the First Amendment. The five protections under the First Amendment are: freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and to petition the government.
|
Another 2004 Theory
Pollster Mark Mellman offered a 2004 election theory in The Hill that rode less on get-out-the-vote efforts by both sides and more on the basic issue, national security. In his article, he argues that Democrats suffered because enough of a certain section of citizens, less-privileged women, moved away from Kerry and voted for Bush just because of national security concerns. Their priority on safe borders, support for Iraq involvement, and desire for more security led them to peel off from their traditional party and vote Republican. Mellman admits that national security is a perennial weakness for Democrats, so Republicans should respond to this poll data and stay on the message of improving national security.
|
| |
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
