Campaign Media Watch - The Hidden Story of Kerry's Unofficial Medals

Ned Barnett (c) 2004

Chicago Sun-Times' reporter Thomas Lipscomb has found several major discrepancies that are appearing on Kerry's online record of his combat medals, but which cannot be official, since the awards themselves violate official US Navy policy. This is not the he-said/he-said dispute Swift Boat veterans dispute - rather, this is a story about several major discrepancies with official U.S. Navy policy.

You might think that the vast host of mainstream media reporters, like Leslie Stahl, who were clamoring for every jot and tittle of Bush's National Guard record would be all over this story - but instead, this story is being left to the very few reporters who are willing to dig for the truth.

"Kerry said don't trust the Swifties - look at the Navy's official record. So we did, and we found all kinds of serious discrepancies between the record Kerry presents on his website and what the Navy says is policy," Lipscomb just explained in a radio interview.

"The Navy is saying that the records on Kerry's website are phony records," Lipscomb said. "And the Navy Secretary says that citation is a phony citation. And this is just the beginning - I've got a lot more that I'll be coming out with. I don't know how this phony material got on Kerry's record, but I intend to find this out, and to report it."

He summarized his medal-problem findings as follows:

1. The Combat V on his Silver Star - the Navy does not (never has) award a Combat V for a Silver Star, because the Silver Star is ONLY given for combat valor (unlike the Bronze Star). Kerry has "upped" his award to something that has never been given in Navy history ... and intentionally or not, Kerry is falsely claiming a combat honor that he could not possibly have earned (since nobody ever earned such an award).

2. Kerry claims four combat stars for participation in four recognized battles. However, in a dozen years in Nam, there were only a baker's dozen battles for which stars were given. While Kerry was in Vietnam, only two of those battles took place - so at best, Kerry could claim two (though he may not have participated in any of them, or only one). So Kerry is falsely claiming at least two combat stars.

3. Kerry has THREE different citations for a single Silver Star award, and the most flowery one has been disowned by the man who supposedly wrote and signed it, Navy Secretary John Lehman (who was just on the 9/11 Commission) said he never saw it, never wrote it, and never signed it.

4. Kerry is now admitting that his first Purple Heart award (one of three needed to get out of Nam early) was not earned under the rules by which the awards are given.

"This is not about what the Swifties are claiming," Lipscomb explained, "but about what the records say. There are major problems with the awards Kerry claims on his website. Nobody is entitled to a Combat V on a Silver Star - yet that's what Kerry claims. Nobody is entitled to combat campaign stars for battles which occurred when the soldier was not in combat. Nobody is entitled to a Purple Heart for wounds not inflicted by enemy fire. And nobody is entitled to multiple new-written citations for a single award - if you lose an award, the Navy just photocopies the original and replaces it.

"The Navy is saying that Kerry has two false medals posted on his website," Lipscomb pointed out. "It will be interesting to see how this plays before the veterans - Kerry will be speaking to a major Veteran group next week."



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Campaign Media Watch - Kerry and "Discernment"

Ned Barnett (c) 2004

Senator John F. Kerry has made a big issue out of "discernment" - claiming that President Bush was at fault over Iraq because he couldn't discern which of his advisors, and which of his intelligence reports, were really accurate. However, the Senator's own record suggests that his own discernment skills may not be Presidential in caliber - that he is, in effect, easily conned by those among his allies who tell Kerry what he wants to hear ...

The Senator is correct - it IS important for Presidents to be able to discern the quality of the information they receive, as well as the quality of the men and women on whom they rely.

Recently, Senator Kerry has dinged George W. for both - for believing what proved to be inadequate and inaccurate intelligence, and for trusting some of his advisors. For instance, just this past week, Kerry was again calling on Bush to dump Cheney, and on other occasions he's demanded that Rumsfeld resign.

To this, I have two words: Al Hubbard.

Who is this Al Hubbard?

Al Hubbard was the Executive Director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the group that helped make Kerry became a national figure in 1971 and 1972. Al Hubbard claimed that he had been a Captain in the USAF (an O3 in military jargon), and that he had been wounded over Da Nang in 1966 - and decorated by the Air Force for his bravery.

Al Hubbard toured American with John Kerry, advocating a radical anti-war stance; and together, they appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on April 21, 1971.

Al Hubbard is the man who, a somewhat nervous NBC, decided to investigate - but only after his Meet the Press joint appearance with Kerry. This was reported by Frank Jordan on NBC Nightly News - a day after the Meet the Press presentation - as well as on the Today Show the next morning.

Al Hubbard is the man who NBC discovered was:

a. A man who admitted on the air that he'd made up the story about his being a Captain in the Air Force

b. A man who never rose higher in rank than Air Force E5 (a kind of sergeant)

c. A man who had never served in Vietnam, and who never had been wounded

d. A man who never received any medal for Vietnam service (he would have automatically received a Vietnam service medal even for a single brief cargo mission to Vietnam)

e. A man who did not receive a Purple Heart - though he did receive a partial disability payment from the Air Force upon his discharge, it was not for a combat wound

In short, Al Hubbard was a fraud. He gulled Kerry, and he conned NBC - until, that is, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Frank Jordan got a tip (after Hubbard and Kerry's Meet the Press appearance) that Hubbard had never been an officer. Jordan, an experienced and ethical journalist, decided something wasn't kosher, and further decided to investigate and re-interview Hubbard. Only then did the truth come out.

However, while NBC ultimately became suspicious of Al Hubbard, John F. Kerry never did. Although ex-Lieutenant Kerry worked with Hubbard, traveled with Hubbard and made many joint public appearances with Hubbard, John Kerry never discerned that Hubbard was a fraud.

Kerry had been a Naval officer with a rank equivalent to a USAF Captain (i.e., an O3) - yet he couldn't tell the difference between an O3 and an E5.

Kerry was a wounded and decorated Vietnam veteran, yet he couldn't tell the difference between a man who'd been to Vietnam and a man who never went.

Kerry, a thrice-wounded combat officer, couldn't tell the difference between a man who'd been wounded and an uninjured man who'd never been shot - or even shot at.

Kerry's complete inability to spot Hubbard as a fraud, in spite of long acquaintance with the man, says something for Kerry's powers of discernment.

This is especially important when you consider Al Hubbard's role in Kerry's infamous Senate testimony in 1971.

Al Hubbard organized the "Winter Soldier" program in Detroit. In his Senate testimony, which has so outraged Vietnam Vets and which was used by the North Vietnamese in their torture of American POWs, Kerry cited so-called atrocities that were presented at this "Winter Soldier" event, "testimony" often presented by men who'd never even been in the service, let alone in combat.

Winter Soldier was discredited by a Congressional Investigation started by senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon and conducted under Congressional auspices by the Office of Naval Intelligence. This "Winter Soldier" event, of which Kerry participated - and of which he testified so movingly - was also thoroughly researched by New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan.

Sheehan was the Harvard-graduate reporter who first obtained and published the Pentagon Papers (i.e., he was no stooge of the Nixon Administration), and who later won a Pulitzer for his anti-Vietnam book "Bright and Shining Lie."

This Congressional study and this reporter's independent investigation showed many "Winter Soldier" participants had never served in Vietnam - some had never even been in the military - while others had not been in the situations they described. Winter Soldier co-Organizer Mark Lane later admitted to Sheehan that he did not check military records, as he believed that "confirmation of details (i.e., the truth) was not relevant," a callous disregard of truth that Sheehan later equated to the McCarthy-era hearings.

Based on the investigations by Sheehan, it became clear that some of those who proved to be fraudulent - but whom the "discerning" combat veteran Lt. Kerry believed - include:

Michael Schneider, who deserted in Europe and deserted again in the US.

Terry Whitmore, who was in an unpopulated area of Vietnam and did not see combat.

Chuck Onan, who instead of heroic action in Vietnam, was actually a stock room clerk in a Marine Corps base in Beaufort, S.C.

Garry Gianninoto, who was a medical corpsman at battalion headquarters and did not see combat.

Vietnam Vets Against the War member Elton Mazione, along with fellow "Winter Soldiers" John Laboon, Eddie Swetz, and Kenneth Van Lesser, all claimed to have killed children and removed body parts as part of the notorious Phoenix program. The Congressional/ONI study and Sheehan's own research found these four men - all close advisors to John Kerry in the Winter Soldier program, were neither in Phoenix nor in Vietnam.

Michael Harbert, another VVAW member, lied about his Vietnam service.

Yoshia K. Chee claimed Phoenix operatives routinely resorted to the most hideous forms of torture, threw people out of helicopters, and decapitated prisoners. He also proved to be a fraud - Chee was not in Phoenix and not in Vietnam.

Mike Beamon, an alleged "Winter Soldier" SEAL and Phoenix assassin, was never even in the military.


Senator Kerry claims that being able to discern real "intelligence" from lies is vital to a President - and in this, he's right.

Kerry claims that being able to judge your principle advisors is vital to a President - and in this, again, he's right.

However, the record shows that Kerry seems incapable of performing either of these vital attributes of the Presidency.



Note - the facts presented here come from multiple online sources, none of them of a partisan political nature. There are many partisan sites that discuss Hubbard and Winter Soldier, and they may be true in what they say, but I did not rely on them for my facts. Chief sources included NBC, the online Free Dictionary Encyclopedia and History News Network online.


About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Campaign Strategy Watch - Stifling Free Speech A Losing Strategy

Ned Barnett (c) 2004

There is a serious strategic mistake-in-process, one that could shatter much of Senator John F. Kerry's credibility with some of his core groups.

Kerry, a man with impeccable liberal credentials - is trying to stifle his opponents' freedom of speech, a move almost certain to boomerang, except, perhaps among the most virulent Bush-haters.

For long, the Left has charged Attorney General Ashcroft with attempts to stifle debate and intimidate opponents - it has been an issue with deep resonance among those who oppose the Presidents.

As a matter of course, many liberals are strong supporters of free speech (including the ACLU and their supporters) - and, at least when they see Conservatives behind such moves, they are quick to recognize the "chilling effect" of threatened (frivolous, but expensive to defend) lawsuits.

However, such "chilling effect" lawsuits are just one of Senator Kerry's repressive new tactics as he fights a bitter defensive war against many of his former military comrades.

The Kerry campaign, and statements by Senator Kerry himself, are showing what appears to be a remarkable disdain for freedom of speech - at least the freedom of speech enjoyed by Senator Kerry's vocal opponents, the 264 combat veterans of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Imagine the reactions of the media - and the Left - had Mr. Bush taken a similar repressive stance.

Not much more than three weeks ago, the Senator challenged opponents to "bring it on!" But when some of his fellow Vietnam vets did just that, Kerry cried "foul" and began demanding - of President Bush, of the media, of anybody who would listen - that these vets be deprived (directly or indirectly) of their right to free speech.

He also launched what could only be called a smear campaign against the Swifties, as individuals, and as a group - however, such smear campaigns are "business as usual" in hardball political campaigns. What is unusual is Kerry's determined efforts to deprive his opponents of their very right to speak, to tell their story.

FIRST - the Kerry campaign had their lawyers write threatening (but obviously hollow) letters to all the TV stations scheduled to run the first of the Swifties' ads. While the legal precedent cited was without merit, and easily debunked, the threat of legal action was not. These stations gross just $400 or so per 30-second ad, and the Swifties ad placement buys were not large. Yet the cost to the stations of having their lawyers review the case law and affidavits provided by the Swifties (more than 60 pages of them) would run into the thousands of dollars - for each station. So the mere threat from Kerry's campaign had real teeth - what the media like to call (when referring to Conservative actions) "a chilling effect" on free speech.

Those letters were made public, to a remarkable "yawn" from the media, even though they were clearly intended to infringe the free-speech rights of 264 Vietnam vets, as well as the free press rights of the TV stations involved. Notably, none of the stations buckled under to the threat - but the key issue here seems to be "intent," not the ultimate impact. Kerry's team tried to stifle free speech and free press rights.

NEXT - Kerry personally ordered his campaign to file a complaint (a complaint without merit, according to both the Washington Post and NPR's All Things Considered) to the FEC about the Swifties' 527 Organization, based on low-level "connections" between a few donors and people who know George Bush, some campaign volunteers and one hired-gun lawyer. This in spite of the fact that Democratic-leaning 527 Organizations - such as the one headed by former two former Clinton Administration officials. For instance, Harold Ickes heads two 527s - the Media Fund and Americans Coming Together - both created to "bring down the president and help Democrats nationwide this fall" and together targeting a war chest of $150 million ad dollars. John Podesta is President and CEO of the 527 organization known as American Center for Progress, another big-bucks player in the 527 campaign to retire George W. Bush after one term.

Both of these men - and their organizations - are representative of left-leaning 527 groups with far closer ties to Kerry than anything alleged about the Swifties. Those left-of-center 527 organizations have received 83% of ALL of the 527 Organizations' donations, and have placed (already) more than $69 million dollars in ads. Compare this to the Swifties' half-million dollar ad buy.

NEXT - Kerry called on the publisher of "Unfit for Command" to cease and desist the publication of this book - a kind of suppression of political thought more common in dictatorships than in a freedom-loving democracy. Oddly, this is not the first time Senator Kerry has suppressed a book. However, the first time this kind of suppression happened, Senator Kerry suppressed his own book, The New Soldier. Long out of print, Kerry has consistently refused to permit a reprint of this virulent anti-war screed to be re-published. Rare copies can be found on E-Bay for over a thousand dollars - but recently, a bootleg copy has appeared online. For those who want to read it, go to: http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com/ - do it soon, as I imagine that Kerry-funded legal actions are already being taken to shut down this website, too.

NEXT - Book store chains have been reporting (though the media has been largely ignoring) the fact that they have been receiving letters pressuring them to not carry the book "Unfit for Command." Some of these letters have compared this book to "The Hitler Diaries" fraud of two decades ago. These charges were leveled even though this book carries the sworn testimony (affidavits have been provided to the media on this - but that, too, has been largely ignored) of more than 60 men who served with Kerry in Swift Boats. Although the book is #1 on the NYT Best-Seller list, there are still many bookstores that do not carry or display it. In Las Vegas, I personally found that "Unfit for Duty" was not on display at five different B&N and Borders bookstores - making it the only book on the NYT bestseller list so ignored by these stores. News reports from Virginia cite B&N and Borders stores who proudly proclaim that they will not carry the book, in spite of it's best-seller status and 550,000 (so far) press run.

FINALLY - The Kerry campaign has been demanding that the President suppress this one 527 group's right of free speech. This was manifested again recently when the campaign staged a lame "media event" at Crawford, misusing war vet/amputee (and Bush Administration appointee) Max Cleland in a Michael Moore-like effort to deliver a letter to the President, calling on him to illegally demand that the Swift Boat Veterans stop their ads. Illegal, because any coordination between the campaign and a 527 is against the law.

These efforts are all attempts - heavy-handed and of limited effectiveness - to deny the rights of free speech to 264 combat-decorated Vietnam Veterans who served with Senator Kerry, and who remember his service in a different light than does the Senator himself.

There is a good reason for all of this. At the time of the Democratic Convention, Senator Kerry and President Bush were running 50-50 among Veterans - but just before the second Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ad hit, that same CBS poll showed Kerry down 18 points among Veterans. That's a huge drop, echoed in other major media-sponsored polls, and the drop hit in a short time. Such a swing among a major voting block could prove critical in such a tightly contested race.

Just how critical may be shown by the recent LA Times poll which, for the first time since Kerry became the presumptive nominee back in February, had Mr. Bush running ahead of Mr. Kerry - a five-point swing since the previous LA Times poll a couple of weeks before. Again, this switch in leadership was echoed in other major media-sponsored polls.

In the face of that kind of free-fall decline in poll numbers, one might understand why Senator Kerry might be tempted to try to suppress the opposition's free speech rights. Tempted, yes - but not to act. In our society, there is no justification strong enough to justify the suppression of political speech during a Presidential election.

BOTTOM LINE - If President Bush or his cronies had tried to stifle (not complain about, but actually suppress) the free speech rights of anybody on the Left, the media would be blowing Jericho's own trumpet (or should that be Joshua's own Trumpet?). But for the most part, the media are "mum" on this subject, apparently abjectly afraid to connect the dots and determine that Kerry and Cronies are undertaking an effort to suppress the free speech of a group of Americans, people who are (like Kerry himself) decorated combat veterans of Vietnam.

Such suppression of free speech is - and should be - anathema to all Americans, regardless of party, and to all who value free speech. Instead, it's being ignored, or wall-papered over, by the press who should be our first bastion of free speech protection.

For them, like Senator Kerry, the need to defeat George Bush seems to justify any action, no matter how ignoble or dangerous.



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Campaign Media Watch - Media AWOL on Major Story that's Missing In Action

Ned Barnett (c) 2004

Here's a potentially major story that's "missing in action" - a filing by Judicial Watch (filed on August 18, more than a week ago) to request that the US Navy review Senator John F. Kerry's medals in light of the allegations made by many of his senior officers about the integrity of those medals, and in light of actions then Lieutenant j.g. Kerry took while still in the inactive US Navy Reserve that were unbecoming an officer.

In the press release is a link to the actual filing, which seems both factually accurate and incendiary in it's implications to the Senator.

This adds a dimension to the Swift Boat Vets' story, but only if it gets media attention. So far, the mainstream media seems more interested in slamming the Swifties - "soft targets" and relatively easy to "discredit" - and have ignored the media-savvy Judicial Watch's actions.

Judicial Watch, Inc. was established in 1994, as a non-partisan, non-profit foundation based in Washington, to serve as an ethical and legal "watchdog" over our government, legal, and judicial systems to promote a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.



http://www.judicialwatch.org/3794.shtml

.

For Immediate Release
Aug 18, 2004 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

Judicial Watch Calls For Investigation Into Kerry’s Medals, Anti-War Actions

Formal Complaint Filed Over Senator’s Vietnam Awards, Post-Service Activities

(Washington, D.C.) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today filed a request with the U.S. Navy and the Defense Department for an investigation into the awards granted to Sen. John Kerry during his service with the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. Judicial Watch also requested that military authorities investigate Kerry’s anti-war activities, including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while a member of the Naval Reserve.



Judicial Watch also is requesting an investigation of Kerry’s anti-war activities. After he was released from active duty but while he was a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve, Kerry joined the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War and traveled to Paris to meet with delegations from North Vietnam and the Communist Viet Cong. He held a press conference in Washington, D.C., following the meeting and advocated the “peace proposal,” which included war damage reparations, put forth by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.




To see a copy of the complaint, click here.



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Convention Media Watch - Media Duck Reporting on Failed Protest Goals

Ned Barnett - (c) 2004

Before the big "anti-war" protest earlier today in NYC, the organizers were promising the media a quarter of a million protesters. But it's now clear that the US anti-war movement is far more hype than reality - at best, they delivered no more than 40% of what they promised (or threatened) ... but you won't hear that from the mainstream media. Instead, you have to parse the media's statements, review the organizers' earlier predictions, then draw your own conclusions.

United for Peace and Justice, the group that sponsored this protest, included the following in one of their press releases:

"The UFPJ-organised march is expected to draw at least 250,000 participants. More than 360 groups — including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks — have endorsed the August 29 march and rally."

Now, the media (AP is what I'm looking at, but others are doing it too, including CNN) are ducking the implication of a drastically lower anti-war turn-out by not giving numbers and by not citing previous predictions. Instead they are merely referring to "tens of thousands" of protesters."

Sure, lots of folks turned out - but this is like the Left's "Million Mom March" efforts that couldn't turn out anywhere near even a hundred thousand people - but since the group's name is "Million Mom March" they still create a (false) impression of real strength, commitment and numbers.

The highest estimate of the march is ABC's "100,000" - but they are "covering" for the protesters, too, not mentioning that this is only 40% of what was predicted just yesterday.




About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Campaign History Watch - Combat Record and Presidential Candidates - A Surprising Non-Issue

By Ned Barnett

© 2004

Just heard this unanswerable question on Matt Drudge's talk radio program that got me thinking about the role of prior military service on a Presidential candidate's electability – and what I realized is surprising. Since 1960, honorable military service has had no positive impact on Presidential electability. Surprised? Me too.

Here's the question:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

As a frequent "historical expert" (their term, not mine) on the History Channel, I decided to take a historical perspective view of that question – you might be surprised to find out what the answer was – I certainly was.

Since Ike defeated Stevenson in 1952, there has been no obvious link between honorable service and electability – and since 1968, Vietnam has been a deadly "third rail" – nobody who tried to make the war a big issue has won the Presidency.

Item: Navy veteran John Kennedy beat Navy veteran Dick Nixon in '60 – but both served, and their service was not a decisive issue in the election.

Item: Navy one-mission (as an observer on a milk run) "veteran" Lyndon Johnson beat Air Force General Barry Goldwater – and even this early, the issue was Vietnam, and Goldwater (who wanted to either get out or capital-W "win") lost on his perceived stance on Vietnam.

Item: None of the several prominent Democratic anti-war candidates in 1968 could even get nominated. The election in November was won by nominal (not particularly a hairy-chested combat vet) veteran Richard Nixon, who defeated non-veteran Hubert Humphrey. In that election, the decisive issue wasn't war service, but Humphrey's defense of the Johnson failed Vietnam war policy.

Item: Nominal Navy veteran Nixon easily beat legitimate combat-pilot war hero George McGovern, over McGovern's strong anti-Vietnam war stance – once again, Vietnam proved to be a deadly "third rail" for those who made an issue of it.

Item: Decorated Navy combat veteran Gerald Ford lost to former post-war Naval officer Jimmy Carter. Combat service clearly wasn't significant as a benefit for Ford.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan (he was an actor-in-uniform, and didn't consider that "real" military service) easily defeated Naval Academy graduate Jimmy Carter.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan defeated post-war Army corporal Walter Mondale.

Item: Combat Navy Pilot George H.W. Bush defeated Dukakis, who served in the Army and was stationed in Korea after that war – both served honorably, and the varied nature of their service was not an important political issue.

Item: Bill Clinton admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, but in 1992 he still beat decorated combat pilot George H.W. Bush – avoiding Vietnam was not a dominant negative issue for Clinton, though Bush tried to make it so.

Item: Bob Dole has a crippling war wound, earned in heroic service against the Nazis, and he couldn't get to first base against admitted Vietnam draft dodger Bill Clinton. Again, dodging Vietnam was not seen as a liability, though Dole tried to make it so.

Item: The Other Kerry (Senator Bob Kerrey) won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam – where he lost a leg – yet he was a non-starter in the Presidential sweepstakes four years ago.

Item: George W. Bush's relatively anemic National Guard record, vs. the almost equally anemic service record of nominal Vietnam non-combat veteran Al Gore (he was a reporter for Stars & Stripes) was a non-starting issue in 2000. Gore tried to make Bush's Guard service an issue, but it didn't prove decisive.

Item: A more recent election was not Presidential, but it’s still related. Triple amputee Max Cleland, after a long and honorable career in the Senate, was voted out of office in 2002. Georgia’s voters realized that his many years of voting in the Senate (badly, apparently, from conservative Georgian's perspectives) trumped his unquestioned heroism in Vietnam. That voting record also trumped his unquestioned sacrifice (his horrendous wound). As Dole had learned before him, honorable wounds – even visible wounds – do not make a winning election issue.

Here's the bottom line. History has shown that Vietnam is a third rail in Presidential politics, and has been since 1964. Time and time and time again, Vietnam has proved to be an attraction – seductive as an issue (to candidates who think they can exploit it), but ultimately Vietnam has always proved to be a fatal attraction for those who think they can exploit it. Candidates who tried to make Vietnam, including opposition to – or service in – Vietnam, an issue ALL failed.

Beyond that, history has shown that heroic service – and heroic wounds – are not significant assets in Presidential elections.


Which brings us to this 2004 election. Given all those facts above, let's consider that provocative question again:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

Who's "bright idea" was it to bet the farm, in 2004, on making a 35-year old war one of (if not the) major issues in this campaign?

Especially when Kerry's combat record has been controversial at least since 1971.

As a historian, and as a long-time political campaign speechwriter, media handler and strategist, I have got to ask, "what were they thinking?"



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Teresa and Four More Years of Hell

Ned Barnett
(c) 2004

For background on this latest "issue," see my other Barnett on Politics blogs: "The Candidate's Message - Stay on Message" (http://barnettonpolitics.blogspot.com/2004/08/candidates-challenge-stay-on-message.html) and "Kerry finds an Attack Dog Surrogate" (http://barnettonpolitics.blogspot.com/2004/08/kerry-finds-attack-dog-surrogate.html)



Yesterday (August 2, 2004), after some pro-Bush hecklers shouted out "Four more years" at a Teresa Heinz-Kerry rally in Milwaukee, the feisty First-Lady-In-Waiting snapped back, "Four More Years in Hell."

She may think this response is akin to Harry Truman's famous statement during the 1948 debate. At a rally, a supporter yelled out, "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" Truman replied, "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

What President Truman said was funny, pointed - and it captured the spirit of the man, Harry Truman - in fact, he's come down in history to us as "Give 'em Hell Harry."

However, Teresa's comments - while sharing the word "hell" - are not at all in the same vein, and will not "play" with the public in the same positive way as did Truman's comment. Mrs. Kerry's comment is more in line with her self-appointed role as Kerry's "attack dog" - but it also reflects an attitude that has not, heretofore, been found in America's first ladies (at least not in public).

This difference was reflected in media coverage of her statement - much of that coverage positioned her statement against her husband's call for a "high-road" campaign in his acceptance speech last week. The comparison was not, for the most part, favorable.

It is becoming ever more clear that Mrs. Kerry has a thin skin and a quick temper - and that very human vulnerability (one most professional politicians quickly learn to control) means that reporters wanting to "create" a major story out of yet another business-as-usual stump speech will try to find ways of triggering her temper. If those temper outbursts play well, they will helps the Kerry campaign; but if her reactions are seen as negative (and public displays of temper are often seen as weak or in bad taste by the media and the public), then her off-the-cuff candor will hurt her husband's candidacy. In such a close race, even minor negatives can get blown out of proportion, and Teresa's temper certainly has that potential.

On the balance, from a public relations point of view, Teresa Heinz-Kerry is becoming one more polarizing element in what is already the most polarized election in recent memory. There is nothing Senator Kerry can do - his wife is not only a free agent, but she also seems to feel the kind of independence that comes from huge and unassailable wealth. If reporters who are eager for sensational stories - and if Bush supporters who want to keep triping her up - keep triggering that now-famous temper, Teresa Heinz-Kerry will quickly become a liability. This liability for Kerry will especially be felt among the independent/undecided voters who will (as they always do) decide the election.

On the other hand, she her temper will almost certainly help to solidify Senator Kerry's vocal feminist base - and perhaps by becoming a polarizing "cause celebre," Teresa will serve to motivate a greater turn-out among those feminist voters.

However, from a purely public relations point of view, I believe that - on the whole - a continuation of Mrs. Kerry's off-the-cuff anger will hurt her husband in November. While she's flamboyant and unquestionably interesting, Teresa Heinz-Kerry is projecting an image that will leave many Americans uncomfortable ... because rightly or wrongly, we have expectations of First Ladies that more closely reflect the quiet, dignified role that Laura Bush plays as First Lady.



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

The Candidate's Challenge - Stay on Message

Ned Barnett
(c) 2004

Senator Kerry is facing a serious PR-related problem – fringe stories are dragging Kerry "off-message" when he desperately needs to stay on-message. During Convention Week, there are three glaring media distractions: the NASA Bunny Suit photo op/flop, Teresa’s "shove it" dust-up, and the "salute." None of these is a big issue, but each is an unwelcome distraction – and they’re coming at a time when Senator Kerry cannot afford distractions.

The NASA photo flop was just bad campaign management (I know, I've been campaign media manager before). The Kerry campaign knew that both NASA and media pool photographers were there taking still and motion pictures – one look will show Kerry posed for them. But beyond that, EVERY event a candidate attends is photographed – that’s SOP for campaigns, and the media, and the Kerry Campaign’s managers know this, as does the candidate himself.

Afterwards, NASA submitted the photos to the campaign before they posted them. There were no problems until the media started to make fun of the photos, and of Kerry in his “bunny suit.” Some said he looked like a Saturday Night Live-skit “human condom;” others thought he looked more like Woody Allen’s “human sperm” from his “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex” film. Regardless, the candidate was being made fun of, during Convention Week!

Immediately the campaign's chairwoman, Mary Beth Cahill, went on Brit Hume’s Fox News Channel program, where she charged that this photo op was a Republican set-up. She claimed that the campaign knew nothing about these "surprise" photos. This was blatantly false, as NASA proved and Hume pointed out, but Cahill’s “conspiracy” claims kept the story alive for another news cycle. Then NASA was pushed to take the photos off their official website (Kerry’s campaign complained that the Hatch Act, of all things, was being violated), which kept the story alive for yet another news cycle. The next day, NASA's attorneys said "this is no Hatch Act violation" and told NASA to put the photos back up, keeping the story alive for a third extra day. At a time when Kerry needed to stay on message and focus on his candidacy, his campaign self-inflicted an annoying PR screw up, keeping this minor story alive for three extra days, and making it seem far more significant than it really was.

The "shove-it" comment by Teresa Heinz-Kerry was, in itself, is no big deal; however, in the middle of a dull campaign, you just know that lots of reporters (especially those covering Teresa) suddenly realized that she's got a thin skin and a quick temper. From now on, they'll be "gunning for her," trying to provoke her into making more on-camera (or on-mike) angry statements – not because those statements are momentous news stories, but rather to get themselves a quick 90 seconds on the national news. This will prove to be especially true for local-market reporters wanting a bit of national exposure. From now on, Mrs. Kerry is a "target-rich" environment for reporters on-the-make. And each time a reporter succeeds in provoking the now-famous Teresa temper, the story itself will be a small thing – but each incident will once again distract the media away from covering what Kerry wants them to cover.

(However, there is one balancing factor for the campaign out of this – see Kerry finds an Attack Dog Surrogate blog for details)

The third annoying distraction – the one Kerry could have prevented all by himself – is the "salute." Every veteran and many other citizens know that the US military has a very specific way of saluting. Each raw recruit has had this salute drummed into his head, and every veteran recognizes the difference between a real salute and a bogus one. I had the only official salute drummed into my head in ROTC, and I have never forgotten it. However, for whatever reason, US Navy veteran John Kerry saluted the convention (and the world) in a way that is nothing at all like a US military salute.

Now, at a time when the Senator is trying to win over veterans, and many of those veterans feel insulted by his non-regulation salute. And, at a time when more Vietnam vets oppose him (the last numbers I saw were 48% against and 42% in favor), at a time when the campaign is vigorously pushing Kerry's Vietnam record, this kind of simple-to-prevent dust-up is just exactly what Senator Kerry does not need. Not only does “salute-gate” distract at least some of the media from his message, but it risks tearing down the one element of his record that Senator Kerry most wants to promote ... his role in the military.

Bottom line for Kerry – in a very tight race, coming out of a convention that yielded – at best – a dead-cat bounce, the Senator just cannot afford these kinds of distractions.

This election is just as tight for President Bush, too, but – after a dropped-ball winter (with his endless ROTC-record “problem” which went away as soon as he released his records), and after a dismal three-month run of news in Iraq and on Capitol Hill, the President (for the moment) seems better able to keep things on-message. That could change tomorrow, but for now, the President seems to be winning the “on-message” competition.




About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

The Dead-Cat Bounce is Hurting Kerry

Ned Barnett
© 2004

Here's something that (at this writing) has so far has stayed off the media's radar.

Today, August 2, 2004, we've seen the first real evidence that the Democratic Convention's dead-cat bounce is hurting Kerry. Without making any announcements of a change of plans, the dynamic duo of Kerry and Edwards quietly scrapped their joint bus-tour of the United States.

As announced on July 29th (and begun on the 30th, right after the Convention), Kerry and Edwards were going to travel together from coast to coast in a 3,500-mile trek through 21 states. This bus tour was modeled after the Clinton-Gore bus tour after their convention triumph. And it seemed to make sense - polling shows that Kerry plays better with Edwards by his side - Edwards lights up the room, something Kerry's somber demeanor makes difficult.

Of course, the Kerry-Edwards planners knew they could reach more people in more states if the two candidates traveled separately, but the benefits of a two-fer tour seemed to outweigh the benefits of sheer numbers. In planning for the immediate post-convention rush to the ballot box, Kerry's planners clearly thought that the Convention bounce would give them a cushion that would enable them to safely travel together in a journey that would run for more than two weeks - grabbing press coverage away from President Bush in the days before the RNC convention.

Oops.

The dead-cat bounce they got out of the Convention meant that Kerry and Edwards didn't have the cushion they were counting on - and while they're careful not to admit this strategy mistake, Edwards was today campaigning, on his own, in Miami - Kerry stayed with the bus tour, pretending as if nothing has changed.

But if you read the press coverage of the tour's beginning - just last Friday (scroll below for a representative sample of just-starting tour press coverage) - you'll see that they were planning on a two-week joint tour ... and that as soon as the post-convention poll numbers came in, they realized that this was no longer viable. The media doesn't seem to have picked up on this - yet - but anybody watching the campaign can easily connect the dots.


San Jose Mercury News/Knight Ridder - Posted on Fri, Jul. 30, 2004

Kerry, Edwards start post-convention bus tour

by James Kuhnhenn and Thomas Fitzgerald
Knight Ridder Newspapers

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/9282519.htm?ERIGHTS=4926609208812976563mercurynews::ned@barnettmarcom.com&KRD_RM=8oqtxusswprwurxoxwtooooooo|Ned|N&is_rd=Y

BOSTON ­ Under sunny skies and with Bunker Hill rising behind them, John Kerry and John Edwards declared themselves the heralds of hope and optimism Friday as they launched their post-convention coast-to-coast journey through the most politically contested states in the country.

Against a tableau of party harmony and family unity, the two Democrats appeared at an early morning rally with several hundred backers before roaring out of Boston in a 10-bus caravan bound, ultimately, for Seattle.

Kerry strategists hope the 3,500-mile trek through 21 states will extend the enthusiasm from the Democratic convention and reach out to a smaller-than-normal group of undecided voters.

Kerry, who is running as a security and defense minded Democrat, used Boston’s Revolutionary War landmarks as a backdrop to kick off the two-week tour and take a jab at President’s Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.

“This is where America was shaped,” he said. “These are the places where people dared to stand up and put their lives on the line to take a risk for something that they believed in very deeply.

“One if by land, two if by sea and the message was right,” he continued. “Come to think of it, they had better intelligence back then that we do today about what’s going on.”

Kerry and Edwards showed up looking surprisingly refreshed after a late night of revelry that followed Kerry’s 45-minute speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination. The two men, wearing open collared shirts and identical blue blazers, were joined on the stage by their wives, sons and daughters as well as Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and actor Ben Affleck.

Edwards, invoking the image of Boston’s Fenway Park and its famously imposing left field wall, declared that Kerry’s address the night before was a “homerun.” “It cleared the Green Monster, sailed past the Citgo sign and is headed for the White House!” he said The campaign had reason to be pleased. Democratic delegates displayed remarkable unity during the four-day convention, despite deep-seated differences over how to proceed in Iraq. The campaign also announced that in two days at the height of the convention Kerry raised $8.9 million over the Internet, shattering their previous records.

The two men then traveled the first leg of the trip ­ Boston to Scranton, Pa., -- in the procession’s lead bus. Five buses were assigned to the campaign ­ one for each candidates, one for both families and two for aides and advisers. Media covering the campaign trailed in five more buses.

The entourage rolled into Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes the fifth largest prize in the election and one that both sides have designated a battleground. An average of recent public-opinion polls shows Kerry with a 5 to 7 point lead in the state.

Scranton, the state's third largest city in the heart of the anthracite coal region, forms an important part of the Democratic base in the state. Harrisburg is a Democratic island in the GOP-leaning central heartland, a splash of blue amid a sea of red.

Jennifer Donahue, researcher for the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, said that Pennsylvania has been pushed into the likely Kerry column by a trifecta of negative economic trends.

The main factor pushing the state into the likely Kerry column, she believes, is that the major economic trends are negative.

"Wages, inflation and unemployment have all worsened in Pennsylvania since 2000, and that's a deadly combination," Donahue said. She said that the rate of wage growth has been the most reliable predictor of the vote in the past five presidential elections.

"I think Bush faces an uphill battle in Pennsylvania," Donahue said.

But pollster Terry Madonna, of Lancaster's Franklin and Marshall College, said that the state is still very much up for grabs because Kerry must prove to voters in the suburban swing areas around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that he can be trusted with national security.

While Kerry is expected to continue pushing his national defense credentials, citing his service in Vietnam and his foreign policy work in the Senate, pocketbook issues will likely begin to dominate the campaign as well.

Polls show that the economy still ranks high, if not as the top concern of American voters. A poll by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey found that among voters who said they could still be swayed only 22 percent believed the economy was good or excellent, significantly fewer than those who had firm positions on who they would vote for.

“Jobs are still a major concern for Missourians and others in the battleground states,” said Ken Warren, a political scientist at St. Louis University in St. Louis, Mo. “The problem is that Missourians who lost jobs and then regained them have regained jobs that are paying 30 percent less.”

But Kerry’s support is soft, Warren said, and is based primarily on antipathy to Bush. That means Kerry still needs to make a sale with so-called “persuadable voters,” to win over Bush’s less than solid backers and hold on to his own.



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Kerry finds an Attack Dog Surrogate

Ned Barnett
© 2004

As I publish this story, the media hasn't quite connected with it - but they will. However, when they do, it probably won't make any difference ... As actor Sam Shephard said in "The Right Stuff" (playing Chuck Yeager, discussing Gus Grissom's failed Mercury mission) "sometimes you get a pooch that can't be screwed ...

Traditionally, the Vice Presidential candidate (especially for the challenger) serves as a pit-bull attack dog, allowing the candidate to remain on the high road while still ensuring lots of "red meat" for the party faithful. Sergeant Shriver did that, Bob Dole did that (when he ran for VP), even Al Gore did that in '92. But everybody agrees that John Edwards is both too "sunny" and too light-weight to fulfill this essential campaign role.

So the Kerry campaign has found a useful surrogate for the VP attack-dog role ... and they didn't have to look very far. Teresa Heinz-Kerry has proved to be an effective surrogate VP, launching brass-knuckles attacks on Bush ... and unlike VP candidates (who can be, in turn, attacked with brass knuckles), she seems likely to remain invulnerable to in-kind attacks. No matter what she says, it's unlikely that Bush will lower himself to attack the wife of his opponent - he's too much of a gentleman, and he knows that any such in-kind attack would be seen as boorish (and counter-productive). As a result, in spite of her controversial nature, Teresa Heinz-Kerry may prove to be her husband's secret weapon - a gutsy street fighter who's also invulnerable to any return-fire attacks.

Is that the proper role for a potential First Lady? Clearly, Mrs. Kerry doesn't care - she's in her element, and she's made it clear that she plans to keep gut-punching the President right up to election day.


Here's the story that triggered this realization:

Reuters: Heinz Kerry: Four More Years of 'Hell' if Bush Wins
2 hours, 45 minutes ago http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040803/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_heinz_dc_1&printer=1

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Teresa Heinz Kerry, the outspoken wife of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, pulled no punches on Monday in telling a rally what she thought of the Bush administration - hell.

And later, discussing the war in Iraq, Heinz Kerry subtly questioned Republican President Bush's intellect, saying: "It's vital for anyone with intelligence to acknowledge mistakes and change positions - hello."

When a Bush supporter with a bullhorn shouted "four more years" from the back of a large crowd packed into a downtown Milwaukee park, Heinz Kerry, who was introducing her husband, responded: "They want four more years of hell."

"Three more months!," she declared, referring to the Nov. 2 presidential election.
Last week at the Democratic Convention in Boston, where Kerry formally accepted his party's nomination as Bush's opponent, Heinz Kerry briefly caused a stir when she told a reporter to "shove it."

"She speaks her mind and she speaks the truth and she's pretty quick on her feet too," the Massachusetts senator said when he took the microphone in Milwaukee.
"That's why America is going to embrace her and she'll make a spectacular first lady of the United States of America."




About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

Pro-Action - In Politics (and Business)

Ned Barnett

(c) 2004

When it comes to public relations, there are often two competing needs. In one, you want to "get the word out" - to the right audiences, generally as quickly and completely as possible. But for the other, you want to stop "the word" from getting out - generally because of a concern of negative backlash from the release of that news.

From a human perspective, that second need is understandable; but from a PR perspective, it's almost always a bad idea. In our open society - made far more open by the Internet (including Blogs such as this) - it's almost impossible to keep a secret. So instead of trying to keep "the word" from getting out, often the correct PR answer is to manage the way that this "word" gets out. To get it out pro-actively, rather than responding to the news once somebody else "leaks" it. In today's society, trying to stifle the news can only lead to others putting that word out, generally in a context that's less favorable than you'd use yourself.

Sometimes, timing can be an issue. For example, some years ago I was working with a county hospital that - in an extremely competitive labor market - was faced with the need to significantly raise wages. This would, in turn, lead to a rise in rates - something that was sure to play less than enthusiastically among the county's budget-conscious voters. There was a natural desire - among the hospital's executives - to wait until the last minute, hoping this situation would just "work out" - but as the hospital's PR consultant, I didn't think that was a sound long-term PR strategy.

So I proposed an alternative, and it worked.

In March, we announced - as a routine item at the monthly board meeting (covered by the press) - that if the competitive labor market situation didn't change, the hospital would be required to implement the wage increase the following October - six months in the future. The media noted this, but did not think such a long-term measure was particularly newsworthy.

Then, at the October board meeting, we announced that - as we'd said the previous March - stiff competition for key personnel (registered nurses, primarily) had forced the hospital to implement the previously proposed wage increase. The media remembered that we had, in fact, announced this increase six months previously, and decided that this was "old news," not really worth covering in depth.

So, instead of a problem - one that could have become a crisis in this politically contentious county - the necessary wage increase was implemented, in full public view, with only minimal public comment. In both March - and again in October - the wage increase was mentioned, but well down in the routine press reports of the monthly board meetings. In neither case, did the press highlight it, and in neither case did the public raise any objection. The legal and moral requirements of running an open operation at a publicly-owned institution were met, in full, but in a way that strongly limited the potential for public criticism of an action the board felt was fully justifiable.

This same principle has been followed many times - by my clients and by the clients of hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of other PR professionals who understand the value of taking the sting out of "breaking news" by acting pro-actively.

Which leads us to politics, today.

There is a ticking PR time bomb out there - right now - facing one of the two Presidential candidates. If I was consulting with that campaign, I'd advise a swift and pro-active de-fusing of this time bomb, following the pattern noted above.

Here's the background: A week or so ago (as I write this), following a request of the Tribune Media Company, a state judge in Los Angeles ordered the release of previously sealed divorce records of a man running for the US Senate from Illinois (who had been divorced about four years earlier, in California). That the judge was appointed by a Democrat and that the candidate was a Republican may or may not have had anything to do with the decision - it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that judge created a persuasive legal precedent - the public's right to know now "officially" trumps any private reason for a political candidate to keep his or her divorce records sealed.

This state judge's action could now have profound impact on Presidential candidate John Kerry, who's own 1988 divorce records have been similarly sealed. The ruling becomes more relevant because the Tribune Media Company also owns a media outlet in Boston, where the Kerry divorce was finalized. There is current public and media discussion about the potential of a similar media request (from the Trib or other media organizations) seeking to force the release of Senator Kerry's divorce records. Not surprisingly, spokespersons for the Kerry campaign are arguing against any such release, while Republicans are pointing out that this is a media issue (not something they are doing).

Adding to this context, the campaign has already been fighting to keep another generally private record just that - private. Specifically, the Senator's wife has declined to release her own (filed separately) IRS tax records - something that no other spouse of a Presidential-level candidate has ever successfully done. Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro's husband did try to keep his records private, back in 1984, but intense media and public pressure finally forced the release of these records - which showed nothing of any consequence.

As a general rule, I personally and strongly support the rights of free citizens to keep their personal business private. However, when a person offers for election - especially for the Presidency - that claim of privacy seldom stands for long. The public (or at least the media, acting for the public) demands full and open disclosure, and when candidates resist this pressure, they face a negative and repetitive news story that just won't go away.

That is why I would counsel Senator Kerry to pro-actively go public with those divorce records. Chances are there is nothing in the divorce records that would cause more than a ripple of interest - after all, the ex-Mrs. Kerry wrote a tell-all book back in 1996 - and that book didn't actually tell very much, beyond the fact that it's hard for someone suffering from clinical depression to be the wife of an ambitious politician.

That "revelation" is hardly a secret, or a surprise.

At the same time, I would suggest that the current Mrs. Kerry release her tax records - records that have certainly been carefully completed by some of the most astute CPAs in the country, and which therefore certainly contains nothing illegal - and chances are, nothing particularly embarrassing. After all, the current Mrs. Kerry has been the wife of two United States Senators (Senator Heinz died in a tragic plane crash quite a few years before she married Senator Kerry) - she's lived a very public life for more than two decades, and in that kind of fish-bowl life, it is extremely unlikely that she's done anything likely to be problematic. The public already knows she's a billionaire - which is no crime - and I frankly can't imagine anything else in those records that could cause much of a problem.

By going pro-active and releasing all this information, all at once, the Kerry campaign would take a pair of probably pointless stories that are nonetheless sure to nag them every week or two from now until the election - and convert them into a single story that would run a news cycle or two, then disappear forever. If they released this news now, before the upcoming Democratic Party Convention, the story would have already disappeared by that time - well before most undecided American voters begin to make their who-to-vote-for decision.

Just as in my client hospital's experience, something that could have become a serious problem would, instead, disappear from view.

Bottom line: making potentially controversial news stories "go away" - not by covering them up, but by releasing them at the right time and in the right context - is one of the most important (but one of the most mis-understood) roles of professional public relations.


About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.

Campaign History Watch - Eerie Historical Parallels - America's Presidential Elections of 1864 and 2004

Ned Barnett

(c) 2004

I've been reading a lot about the Civil War recently, prepping for a History Channel program on which I was a talking-head expert, as well as a behind-the-scenes "advisor," and that research has made it rather shockingly clear to me that there are some eerie parallels between the challenges (and the paths taken) by the Democratic party in 1864 and the Democratic party in 2004. This is not to imply that old saw, "those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it" (in part because it's in no way clear that the Democratic Party in 2004 is "doomed"), but it does make it clear that historical parallels can be remarkable, and fascinating.

In 1864, the Democratic Party started out by opposing President Lincoln - which was purely natural, since they were, at that time, the opposition party - but over the time between 1862 and 1864, this opposition to the President himself morphed into an opposition to the War to save the Union (and even into an opposition to Lincoln's efforts to abolish Slavery).

The extreme anti-war segment within the Democratic Party took control of the party, and of the party's 1864 Presidential convention. This group even went so far as to pass a platform that claimed the War to save the Union could not be won. This plank called for an immediate cease fire, and the speedy negotiation of a peace treaty with the Confederacy. Then, hoping to win the election in a country that was by no means as anti-war as was the Democratic Party itself, the convention's delegates nominated a former military man - General George McClellan, who had been head of the Union Army in late 1861 and early 1862. However, upon nomination, McClellan made it clear that he would NOT stop the war.

Now for the parallels. In 2002, most leading Democrats voted to support the President in a proposed invasion of Iraq, though they did not support President Bush himself, and found fault with the way he proceeded. However, since that time, a powerful faction within the Democratic Party has pushed the party from a position of opposing the President (which is only natural), to a position of also opposing the war and subsequent post-war reconstruction of Iraq. However, they have voted (as a party) to nominate former military officer John Kerry, who has repeated said that he would NOT stop America's post-war reconstruction actions in Iraq, even though he is (as McClellan did) eagerly accepting the support of anti-war Democrats.

To date, the parallels are almost eerie. However, at this juncture, we have no way of knowing if history will repeat itself or not - in spite of the parallels, there are no guarantees.

In 1864, it worked out that, just two days after the Democrat Party (in that party's convention) formally announced that the War to preserve the Union was hopeless and unwinnable, General William T. Sherman took Atlanta. A couple of weeks later, General Phil Sheridan won three battles (in the period of just one week) in the strategic Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. These two events, on top of Admiral David Farragut's recent success in capturing the fortresses guarding Mobile Bay (a battle in which he uttered the immortal "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"), made it clear that the war not only could be won, but that it WAS being won.

Our future remains just that - the future, as yet unwritten. However, with the Iraqis enjoying now sovereignty, and with Saddam Hussein on the block for his crimes - before an Iraqi court - it is at least possible that history (which has repeated itself so remarkably so far), might entirely repeat itself.

But that decision won't be left up to history - it will be up to America's voters.

And that brings up one last eerie parallel. In 1864, the rest of the world was amazed that, even during a war, not only did the United States hold an election, but the soldiers who were fighting were allowed - even encouraged - to vote. In fact, official voter registration teams from states permitting absentee ballots were given priority access to men from their states - and, for states that had no provision for absentee ballots, whole regiments of soldiers from states were furloughed home to be able to vote. And, although some have expressed concern that terror attacks might disrupt (even force the government to postpone) our elections, I am confident that in this case, history will repeat itself. No matter what terrorists might try, America will vote - for either the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate - on November 2, 2004.

In that regard, we will be exactly as we were in 1864.


About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.