W

hen we train corporate execs for media confrontations, one of the reporters we always prepare them for is the one we’ve called the endlessly barking dog.

You may know him as Charles Gibson.

Reporters that are endlessly barking dogs ask the same question multiple times. There are only two reasons why they do this. First, they hope that in one of the answers the interviewee will make a misstatement that will make a good lead for the next day’s story. Second, they hope the interviewee will blow up, start screaming and let something rip that will make a headline across the top of page one.

You witnessed the endlessly barking dog style of journalism in Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin.

He came out the doggy door yapping seven questions on the “are you ready to serve line.” If I had coached Palin, on the fourth question, she would have said, “Now Charlie, you’ve asked that question four times now, and I’ve given you three clear and consistent answers so far. Do I really need to answer it again?”

Had she done that, the rest of the interview would have changed, and the ball would have been very much in her court. But she didn’t, and he kept yapping.

Next came three questions on Russia and Georgia, followed six on the Bush Doctrine – which would have been three if Palin hadn’t stumbled. It seemed apparent that she didn’t know or couldn’t remember what the Bush doctrine was, so the first three questions involved Gibson probing her knowledge. (Maybe she didn’t stumble – see my second thoughts.) It certainly looked like she didn’t know. Whether she knows or not, it’s not particularly troubling that a governor from Alaska doesn’t know the exact definition of the Bush Doctrine – the right of preemptive strikes to protect our national security – but it’s very troubling that her handlers didn’t brief her on it.

The final three questions in this series were classic dog-yapping, on our right to attack Pakistan. Her answers weren’t as strong as they should have been, so if she had cut off the repeat questions early in the interview, she would have looked stronger at this point.

Gibson closed by barking out three questions on whether she thought we were fighting a “holy war” in Iraq, which she handled very well.

Gibson had the first crack at the most sought-after interview in America and he ended up asking just five or six questions because his motivation wasn’t to illuminate Sarah Palin to us, it was to create a gaffe or worse. That’s why yapping reporters yap. He didn’t get what he wanted, and we didn’t get what we wanted.

A perfect example of the MSM at work, isn’t it?

Two more points: First, Gibson’s tone was cold and condescending, a sharp contrast from the interested, engaged persona of Bill O’Reilly when he interviewed Obama. O’Reilly was seeking information, to nail down what Obama really believed, as opposed to the patter. Gibson personified the elitism of the New York media with the dripping flatness of his tone, his misunderstanding of central American values (defending America, believing God has a plan), and his assuredness that the only valid passport to the presidency is an American passport with tons of visas stamped on its pages.

Second, Gibson proved my point that hostile questions of Palin are exactly the same questions that should be asked of Obama.

6 Comments »

Putting The Freak In Eco-Freak

“I

‘m crying,” emailed Incredible Daughter #2, “because I’m laughing so hard.”I laughed too, but I also was more than a little troubled by the clip she attached to her email:

(If link is broken, click here)

This wailing and flailing over fallen trees is terrifically funny because they all seem so foolish, so out of whack with normal priorities and sensibilities, so ignorant of the cruel ways of nature.

But these people are the reality of the hardcore environmental movement, and watching them you look into the soul of the movement and discover how sick and extreme it really is.

So watch, laugh … and ponder. Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

Fight with me. Fight with me.

Fight for what’s right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God Bless you.

T

here were 34 variations of “fight” or “fought”‘ in John McCain’s speech last night. Has something interesting shown up in the McCain polling data to justify lacing up the gloves so emphatically?

At first blush, I just don’t get it because this keeps running through my head:

Q: What’s the biggest fear of McCain promoted by the Left towards the middle and undecideds in order to drive them towards Obama?

A: That he’ll drag us into another war we don’t want to fight.

Playing up McCain as a fighter does little to relieve people who worry that if McCain is elected, we’ll be fighting in Georgia and Iran within months. (Versus getting bogged down with a ground war in Afghanistan and the eruption of Pakistan if Obama does what he says he’ll do. Big if.)

Maybe it’s just to fire up the still hesitant among the GOP, to give them the sense that they’ve got a champ in their corner who can KO BHO. But to do this so forcefully before the biggest audience of undecideds and moveables he’s going to see all season is a high-risk proposition.

What it’s not is a stumble. Nomination acceptance speeches are so thoroughly vetted that a mistake like having the wrong primary theme can’t happen.

I think what it all comes down to is this: John McCain is at his core a fighter. It’s just how he sees himself. For the most important speech of his life, he decided to go back to his fundamentals because he knew that he’s a lousy speaker, but is a better speaker when the material is natural to him.

Back that up to the high favorables Sarah Palin’s got as a result of her own image as a corruption fighter, and toss in a bit of polling data, and you’ve got 34 mentions of “fight” in a convention speech.

By comparison, BHO’s speech in the temple included just four fight/fought references, two to Iraq and Afghanistan, one to America’s troops in general, and one to his experience as a (drum roll, please!) community organizer. It couldn’t be more clear that he sees himself as something other than a fighter.

All in all, the words provide a pretty darn good measure of both men, don’t they? Obama is going to go out there and talk for us; McCain will fight for us. Both options are justifiable, depending on your view of the world. It’s going to be a close election.

4 Comments »

We’ve been doing some water district research here at the shop and came across what I’m sure it’s a fine, public-spirited agency … but there’s no doubt it’s one that’s a bit clueless about branding.

Their name: The Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District.

Their url: www.acidwater.org

Yum. Pour me a glass!

No Comments yet »

Absolut has posted on its Web site a response — not an apology — regarding its reconquesta ad from Paula Ericsson, VP, corp. communications:

The In An Absolut World advertising campaign invites consumers to visualize a world that appeals to them — one they feel may be more idealized or one that may be a bit “fantastic.” As such, the campaign will elicit varying opinions and points of view. We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population.

Note the phrase “We have a variety of executions running….” What’s said and what’s missing tells us that Absolut and its agencies created this ad, that it was not solicited through some sort of contest. It therefore is the product of the company and must reflect their point of view at some level.

This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility.

Again, “was created,” not “”was submitted.”

In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues.

Honey, saying it isn’t so doesn’t make it not so. Messages need to ring true or they clang like a gong. The ad does offend and disparage (more on that later), it obviously advocates a change in the borders because it shows a reconoquista border as an “absolute,” which is inherently anti-American. And the fact that reconquista and the radical anti-immigration law movements are one and the same makes it impossible to run the ad without reflecting immigration issues.

The statement should have said, “We regret that to many, this ad offended, and was disparaging towards America …” and so on through the entire list.

Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.

Hmm. Isn’t that statement itself offensive and disparaging? Doesn’t it seem to advocate an altering of borders (on behalf of the entire population of Mexico, not a part of it, which probably offends a fair amount of Mexicans)? Don’t you feel it lends support to an anti-American sentiment, and reflects immigration issues? I thought so. Me too.

As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the US — that ad might have been very different.

In a global world, companies should realize that what they do in one market will be seen in other markets, and implying that it’s OK with them if an American Absolut ad is flagrantly anti-Mexican — when we know they would never run such an ad — just insults our intelligence.

And that’s not what you want to do with your messaging. Ericsson should have apologized, but the world “apologize” or “sorry” does not appear anywhere in the statement. It is, in short, one of the worst responses to a crisis communications challenge I have ever seen. And the comments it generated on the Absolut site show many agree with me:

Ex-Absolut Drinker, who apparently is in the entertainment biz, said:

I guess you could say your Absolutly f***ed. I will be sure and have a rider with the shows I book that no Absolut will be served during any of my artists shows.

Old-Fashioned American Patriot, who owns some bars, commented:

This will not be sold in my bars, and I will petition the bar-owners in my area to likewise boycott.

If only we had the ability to prevent the import of the product, it’d wind up in the harbors much like a certain tea did a couple-hundred years back…

And Perry the Cynic wrote:

You have every right to advertise anywhere in any way you like. I have every right to adjust my purchasing habits accordingly. I intend to never buy your brand again, OR that of your parent company (Pernod Ricard), and I will endeavor to educate my friends and acquaintances about your appalling attitude towards out country, and particular towards the great state of California.

That’s just part of page 1. There are 49 pages of comments already posted.

You can join the fun via the first link above (you have to type in an age over 21 to enter), or you can email Paula direct at paula.eriksson@absolut.se.

And if you must drink vodka, stay away from Absolut, of course, and Stoli, too, since it is also a Pernod Ricard brand.

No Comments yet »

The last week in Iraq has been a tough one — so tough that Gen. David Petraeus is calling for a slow-down in the troop draw-down. At the center of the deterioration is a man who’s absence from the war has been the cause of a period of relative safety: Muqtada al Sadr.

Explosions rang out across central Baghdad as rockets or mortars fired from Shiite areas targeted the U.S.-protected Green Zone for the second time this week.

The violence was part of an escalation in the confrontation between the Shiite-run government and al-Sadr’s followers — a move that threatens the security gains achieved by U.S. and Iraqi forces. At least 22 people were killed in the Basra fighting.

Al-Sadr’s allies have grown increasingly angry over raids and detentions against them by U.S. and Iraqi forces, who insist the crackdown only affects rogue elements loyal to Iran.

Al-Sadr’s headquarters in Najaf also ordered field commanders with his Mahdi Army militia to go on maximum alert and prepare “to strike the occupiers” — a term used to describe U.S. forces — and their Iraqi allies, a militia officer said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t supposed to release the information. (AP)

The MSM is full to overflowing with this story today:

• McClatchy: Is ‘success’ of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?
• LA Times: GOP senator retracts prediction of troop cuts
• CNN: Iraqi raids anger Shiite militia

For the US media, this isn’t really drum-beating against the war timed to advantage the Dem prez candidates. After months of barely disguising their yawning over the lack of “newsworthy” stories coming out of a more peaceful Iraq (not that there weren’t plenty of positive, newsworthy stories there), the press is responding as necessary to what appears to be the start of a more violent period.

That’s not to say that drum-beating isn’t going on; it is. The drums in Najaf are deafening. Al Sadr and his men are seeing two things they don’t like: The Iraqi government is starting to re-open the doors to allow Suni participation in the government, and suddenly there’s an increasing chance a pro-war president will be elected in the U.S.

Thus, the call to prepare to “strike the occupiers” is a clear signal that the cease fire — such as it is — may be coming to an end. In Basra, it already has:

The BBC‘s Adam Brookes says three Iraqi army brigades were deployed from Baghdad to Basra as back-up for the offensive, and that up to 15,000 troops could be involved.

Some of the fiercest fighting in the operation – dubbed Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) – has focused on Mehdi Army strongholds.

Of the suspected militants known to have been killed so far, four died in street fighting and five in a coalition [British] air strike.

British military spokesman Maj Tom Holloway told the BBC no UK troops were involved on the ground.

This is a pivotal battle for the Iraqi army. Even to hold its own against the Medhi Army will be a sign of great progress; a tip of the scales towards victory will represent very positive news.

Don’t count on such subtle commentary from the Dem prez candidates. They will focus only on the increase in violence, not on the causes — which all speak to the progress of the Iraqi government and military, the effectiveness of the surge, and terrorists’ fear of McCain.

For McCain, the messaging line that he alone among the candidates called the need for the surge correctly needs a tune-up. The new message — Iraqi troops are getting better, but troop levels will have to remain higher than we’d like — clashes against his “100 years in Iraq” mis-message, so he’s got a challenge.

No Comments yet »

Note: Updated a bit as the story developed today.

Geraldine Ferraro won’t shut up. And that’s probably a good thing.

In 1988, when asked if then-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson got softball questions because he was black, she took it a bit further, saying:

“If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”

Then just last week, she told the Daily Breeze, a South Bay daily in LA we lovingly call the Daily Sleaze,

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Let’s understand that right. Obama has one thing to thank for his place as the front-runner for the Dem candidate for POTUS, his close encounter with the most important job in the world. Without it, the mobs would throng around him, and Hillary would have clinched the nomination three heartbeats after Iowa and New Hampshire.

And that is that he’s a black man. Sort of. Half way.

Before you slam me and call me racist, read on. I understand that Ferraro’s comment minimized Obama’s accomplishments and pinned them on one factor — race — when actually much of his appeal has nothing to do with his race. In that regard, Ferraro’s comment doesn’t cut it. But there is a kernel of truth in what she said. She missed that kernel entirely, as did most radio commentators. But I didn’t.

First, anyone with smarts and honesty needs to recognize that for some people, voting for Obama is all about race. You need not look any further than the results in Mississippi (95 percent of the black vote?!) or the blogstorm surrounding Ferraro’s comments. To quote one of the more temperate examples:

So, being Black is now a CONCEPT.

A CONCEPT, People.

Well, she can CONCEPT this.

Kiss.My.Lucky.Black.Ass.

Did you even catch the word “concept” in Ferraro’s quote? If you did, did it strike you as racist? Of course not; no more than “fairy tale.” And that’s why being black gives Obama three advantages, which I have not heard anyone lay out:

• “America’s first black president” captures the imagination much more than “America’s first first-term Senator president” ever could.

• It gives him a cushion, a usually subtle but sometimes quite evident protective field, discouraging tough questions.
• And most importantly, it gives him the “”you’re racist” defense for any tough challenge. Not said by him, mind you, but by leagues of people like the blogger above, who will circle the Obama campaign like a protective black cloud.

As the too-tough-talking Ferraro told the Breeze:

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.”

I wrote about this last month, when the race was even more up in the air than it is now:

As the Dems are all too eager to tell us, this election is about change: We’ll either have a black or a woman running from president — and that changes everything for the GOP, setting up what will be the most difficult campaign to message in the GOP’s history.

If Bill Clinton gets charged with using dirty, racial politics for calling an Obama position a “fairy tale,” how in the world will serious questions be raised by McCain, old white guy that he is?

How indeed? The gal who ran for Veep just may have the answer:

“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

There’s some serious victimhood going on there, especially given that Ferraro admits that she would not have been on Mondale’s ticket if she were a man. Still, it takes some serious huevos to throw something so obvious and straightforward into the PC cesspool that is American public discourse today, and God bless Ferraro for not giving enough of a darn and just doing it. I would say it differently, however:

Asking questions of a political candidate, as I have, certainly is not racist. Attacking me because I asked questions of a candidate who is a black man most certainly is.

The McCain staff should be building a file of questions and statements about him that would be called racist or sexist if they were asked of Obama or Clinton, so when the question arises, the McCain team can answer it with their own question.

And call me racist or sexist, but the McCain team also should be considering a Veep who is not a white man. Like Sarah Palin, who, as Gov. of Alaska, has appeal far beyond bringing him a state he’s already assured of getting and could care less about.

There’s another thread that’s worth exploring as we struggle to deal with the messaging challenge posed by either Obama or Clinton: Ronald Reagan earned his “Teflon” status, but Obama/Clinton is demanding that it be issued to him/her as standard equipment for black people/women.

Remembering Reagan in this manner will help not just with the rank and file of the party, but also with all the Reagan Democrats, who just might be looking a bit askance at their party’s offerings.

By the way, if you want to read an excellent case history on the cushion being black provides, read Rhymes with Right’s The Pittsburgh Airport Incident and ask yourself, how would this have turned out if Monique were white?

Finally, upon getting the news that Ferraro has resigned from Hillary’s finance committee, Hugh Hewitt pointed out to his radio listeners that Ferraro’s gone, but Eliot Spitzer’s still in office — which means bringing up the subject of race in America is a more heinous crime today than all that Spitzer is charged with.

Hmmm. He may have something there.

No Comments yet »

You’re a smart cookie; you’ll figure out what massive message gaffe Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) has made even before MSNBC reporter Dan Abrams points it out.

C’mon, Jack, this is Messaging for Dummies, here. If you’re going to say someone’s got bad breath, you’d better use Listerine before opening your yap.

But before we pile too much on Kingston, be sure not to miss Abrams’ great profession of patriotism when Kingston presses him on his own lapel flag-wearing habits:

I’ve worn one I think once in my life … for something.

Maybe for a few minutes after the 9/11 attacks, Dan, before America got safe again?

Hat-tip: TPM via the Token Dem

No Comments yet »

As the Dems are all too eager to tell us, this election is about change: We’ll either have a black or a woman running from president — and that changes everything for the GOP, setting up what will be the most difficult campaign to message in the GOP’s history.

If Bill Clinton gets charged with using dirty, racial politics for calling an Obama position a “fairy tale,” how in the world will serious questions be raised by McCain, old white guy that he is?

And with Cindy, his cute, blond, prototypical political wife by his side, how will McCain take on She Who Does Not Bake Cookies without being vilified for representing glass ceilings and old boys clubs?

Even if there were a line fine enough to appease the keepers of political correctness in the black, feminist and media communities, and there’s not, the GOP will be charged with crossing it. There is no way the GOP can get to November without being called every “ist” in the book.

Because I make my living off of messaging strategies, I’ve been turning this problem over in my mind for about a month now. This morning, I see from Politico that I’ve not been alone:

Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.

The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.

(If you want a glimpse on the Left’s take on the GOP’s dilemma, which is both obscene and predictable, read the comments to this Kos post. hat-tip Jim)

Politico quotes Jack Kemp, who’s always been a pretty on-point message guy, saying:

“You can’t run against Barack Obama the way you could run against Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry. Being an African American at the top of the ticket, if he makes it, is such a great statement about the country. Obviously you have to be sensitive to issues that affect urban America. …You have to be careful.”

“Urban America?” Ooops! Kemp has been caught placing all blacks in urban settings, turning his back on decades of upward mobility which has seen blacks move to the suburbs in comfortable numbers. See how impossible this is?

The fact of the matter is, the GOP effort cannot be about, as Politico said, protecting the GOP from charges of racism or sexism. Those charges will come no matter what, so while it’s important to prep messaging in order to avoid or reduce charges of racism in the campaign ahead, it’s more important to develop a strategy for responding to those inevitable charges.

This will not be easy, which is why this passage troubled me considerably:

The McCain camp is only beginning to explore this dilemma, aides said.

McCain’s strategic team still lacks survey research on either of their likely opponents in the general election, inhibiting their capacity “to discuss it intelligently,” a top adviser said. The campaign is currently occupied with “getting our act together structurally.”

“But my basic thought on it is that McCain is not much of a negative campaigner anyhow,” the advisor said. “When he does get into debates with people it’s on issues, substance. So I don’t think we are going to have to train our candidate not to insult people.”

How could they not have started working on this? The nomination’s been tied up since Romney stepped out, so they’ve lost several valuable weeks that should have been spent researching and planning.

The excuse that McCain is “not much of a negative campaigner” shows the advisor is minimizing what the GOP will be up against. This will not be about how McCain campaigns; it will be about how he, his running mate and every GOP candidate and spokesperson will be scrutinized by the race- and sex-card players for anything that can be called a gaffe, and how those gaffes, alleged gaffes, false gaffes and made-up gaffes will be used by the Dems.

Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway has a good take on it: You can’t allow the GOP to be “Macaca-ed.” That means two things: First, you can’t use words like “Macaca.” And more important, you can’t let any charges that you’re a racist or a sexist stand.

You also can’t look uncomfortable searching for the correctly PC word, especially if you’re John McCain. When he’s uncomfortable, he really looks uncomfortable, and in this case, that telegraphs that he’s searching for an acceptable way to cover up his true (read: racist/sexist) feelings.

The correct vocabulary has to be memorized and drilled until McCain and those campaigning for him can instantaneously come up with the right word for the moment with a natural ease that reflects molecular-level comfort with the subject.

Race-card playing race-baiters (or sex-card playing fem-baiters) cannot be allowed to enjoy the immunity that’s been extended to Jesse Jackson, the Irreverent Sharpton, or the flock of feminists. Perpetrators of such baiting need to be shut down in language that appeals to GOP and independent voters; forget appeasing the Dems. Here’s a first take on such a message:

“This is a defining moment for [race/women] in America, and we all must stand up to those who are playing the tired and empty [race/feminism] card, trying desperately to cling to an America that simply is no more. I am sick of people who want to shame America and embarrass it globally for the sake of their selfish power. I will not allow them to redirect this campaign to the past when I am looking to the future, and neither should you. Tell them you’re done with the dirty politics of division.”

And if a Macaca-like phrase ever slips a lip, the only credible response is to laugh, say “oops,” and go to message: I am sick of people who want to shame America ….

It’s not going to be easy; in fact, the road ahead would be a challenge even to an eloquent campaigner like Ronald Reagan. I’m not sure if McCain is up to the task. Ironically, Mike Huckabee, whose campaign has turned me off even though we’re spiritual kin, is someone who could handle this message deck with ease.

There may be a place for him on this ticket after all — a thought I had rejected for strictly political reasons until I began this analysis. Bringing evangelicals to the ticket didn’t strike me as enough of a plus on its own, but bringing a good sense of humor and the ability to breeze through difficult messaging is a real plus.

Except that he’s a white guy.

This is going to be tough.

No Comments yet »

Scott, one of my senior staffers, recently attended a presentation by Reed Dickens, former White House Assistant Press Secretary. I’m copying Scott’s notes below because Dickens’ presentation was both interesting and relevant to anyone who’s interested in campaigning and messaging.

Macro narrative

Bush beat Gore in 2000 because his macro narrative/strategy was better. Testing showed Bush could only win on one platform: I’m real/Gore’s phony and weird (changes suits 17 times before a speech). Polling showed Gore should have won, but he used too many narratives to define why he should win.

The same thing occurred in 2004. Bush had one narrative: I’m strong/Kerry’s week (flip flopper, etc.). Kerry was all over the place. The Bush team ensured all its messaging and strategies fell under the narrative for each election cycle.

For people (like us) in messaging, we should seek a simple narratives to guide campaigns. It’s easy to see how we could lose a campaign against an opponent who’s macro theme is good vs. evil and we’re trying to articulate all the great things a project has to offer.

Micro strategy

A micro-strategy is the strategy used for getting people to do something you want them to do. Bush’s 2004 micro strategy was successful. They went around the mainstream media and talked straight to voters. Values was the message (who do you agree with more on values issues) and it energized the base. There was a 20% increase in voter turnout in 04 and 90% of that group voted Republican. People told their friends and family to vote for Bush.

Treadmill test:

You need to know what someone will say about you/your client while they are running on a treadmill, out of breath and only have a breath to say what they think. He says Obama’s team neglected to understand this and that’s why so many people still think he’s a Muslim … and why he has to mention he’s a Christian in every speech. Giuliani’s team also failed the treadmill test.

Interesting stuff, eh?

No Comments yet »