Barnett on PR and Politics - The Strategy Behind the Message

It’s called Newton’s 3rd law, Mr. Obama!

2009-10-13T23:29:00.000-07:00

This column was originally published in India in 4Ps B&M, one of that nation's most prestigious business and public relations magazines.

Ned Barnett is a Senior Political Media Analyst with experience of running media campaigns for former US Presidential candidates at state level. He writes exclusively for 4Ps B&M on why Obama’s PR campaign is backfiring...

America’s politicians are typically divided between two parties (there are other parties, but they seldom gain representation in Congress, and virtually never achieve real power, even in local or state elections); and typically, politicians “follow the party line.” However, because they are elected individually and are required to live in and come from the district they represent, they tend to oppose their own party when they fear for their own re-election. By pushing the American people so hard that they feel inclined to push back, the Obama administration has motivated hundreds of thousands of Americans to actually pay attention to politics, to get involved and to CARE.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama’s background as a “hardball” community organiser worked remarkably well – however, now that he’s governing, it is backfiring. Why? Because he seems to not be listening to Americans – and when Americans don’t feel that they’re being heard, they speak louder. Please remember, that in the US, the first element of the Bill of Rights allows us Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Petition the Government for the Redress of Grievances. By not listening to people’s free speech and by ignoring their petition to redress grievances, the Obama administration is courting that backlash.

There is a group – once called “the Silent Majority” – of people who tend to not speak out. They often vote, but they don’t protest or demonstrate. They are used to doing things for themselves, and they are much more comfortable “writing a letter” to an elected official, or the local newspaper, than going out in public with their home-made signs. However, because of Obama’s community organising initiatives and his “Change” agenda during the campaign, they have found the courage to step out of their comfort zone and speak out in public. They are not career protesters or life-long political agitators-for-change – this is not their natural milieu, and because of that, they are more emotionally tied up in being heard (and much more prone to real, sustained anger when they’re not listened to).

I am not implying that America is on the verge of a real revolution (of the armed revolt kind), but please remember this from our history if we want to understand this backlash – that it was not the Stamp Act (taxation without representation) that caused the revolution in 1776 – it was the refusal of King George and his Parliament to listen with interest to the American Colonists’ legitimate grievances that led directly to the Revolution that created the American Republic.

There are indeed precedents where Presidents have used the power of organised supporters (union members for instance) to push hard for their programs – the most obvious example is President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the depths of the Great Depression. He was a master at twisting people into activism, and it was effective. However, without the alternative media of today (cable news, Internet), the opposition was unable to push back. His efforts in passing the Communications Act of 1934 (he became President in 1933) reinforced the mandate that broadcasters had to broadcast “in the public interest” which enabled him to monopolise the media as never before to reach people. However, the times were different – especially the technology – so it is hard to compare them directly.

This is especially important in light of the question about how Obama’s media handling is going to change – I don’t think it will. To date, President Obama has seemed to be “tone deaf” – he hasn’t learned from mistakes (he hasn’t even acknowledged his mistakes – he’ll apologise overseas for America’s past actions, but won’t acknowledge his own mistakes). This is, in fact, remarkable. Even Nixon acknowledged mistakes – only Obama among all of America’s Presidents has refused to admit his mistakes.

Clearly, he’s seen his poll numbers fall – he’s seen how his confrontational tactics, especially in the last few weeks, have only ramped up anger and activity of the opposition Yet, he’s only gotten more confrontational. So – unless he has a real “eureka” moment, he’ll continue as is – waiting out his opposition, seeing if they will continue or – like the opposition in Iran and China – fade out after the initial enthusiasm. That may indeed be the right strategy – in democracies, it’s hard to maintain the focus of the “silent majority” who have jobs to go to, bills to pay, families to raise and other life issues that take them away from politics and re-immerse them in what we call “real life.”

Guest Editorial - Why All Candidates Need PR

2009-09-27T22:26:00.000-07:00

By Jube Dankworth - Net Media Consultants - jube@netmediaconsultants.com

Why All Political Candidates, Local to National, Need a Public Relations Professional

Although most candidates and all politicians believe they are immortal, the truth of the matter is we are all besieged with human tendencies, just ask Governor Sanford. When Immortals go into battle, they need a Watcher –someone to watch their backs. Unlike the Watchers in the famous Highlander saga, the politician’s Watcher – his or her Public Relations Professional – is (or should be) involved in the Immortal’s strategy and planning before the battle. These savvy communications pros evaluate and improve the Immortal’s performance before the next battle. They manage the staging (what is behind the candidate, who is around the candidate and what the candidate is wearing), the message and the conditions of each encounter with the media and the public.

Okay, I know what you are saying, that’s the job of the Chief of Staff, the campaign manager or the campaign consultant. However, most Chiefs of Staff, most campaign managers and especially most political consultants do not understand public relations – at least not from a public relations point of view; they see everything only through their political glasses, and miss great opportunities for good PR (and often overlook impending gotcha moments). They understand the battlefield. They know which precinct chairs, state party leaders and activists are on their candidate's side and which ones are not. They know what it takes to change those views. They know the fund raisers and who has the best coffees and cocktail parties. They know the field. Their job is to set the strategy for the campaign and implement it.

However, having a public relations professional on the team is similar to having an extra general on the battlefield. The PR Pros can keep an eye on the whole field while the consultant and manager are in the field with the troops, in contact with the enemy. The PR Pro can see counterattacks coming in – and they understand when a strategic move for the campaign is not a good move for the candidate, or when a seemingly clever gimmick has the potential to blow up in their faces, thanks to the ever-watchful “gotcha” media. A good Public Relations Professional would never have allowed Governor Palin to have 3 interviews with Katie Couric, no matter what the campaign folks thought – and a good PR pro would have cautioned Michele Obama to leave her $6,000 purse at home That pro would have also pointed out that an unannounced fly-over of Manhattan would be a media disaster of the first order.

Even working with local candidates, a good Public Relations Professional can enhance the campaign while keeping the candidate out of trouble. Public relations has its own timetable for events and media contacts, and a PR expert with a keen sense of the media’s schedule knows where a candidate’s message can fit into a breaking news trend or how it can dovetail with a local group’s cause, movement or event. With these extra tools, candidates will attend events and talk to groups outside the normal political box of events, all while avoiding costly mistakes.

A Public Relations Professional would also create a “war room” fast-response team whose job it would be to keep tabs on negative reports on the candidate, both in the regular media as well as blogs, social media and websites. By finding and addressing this sort of negative publicity when they first begin, the Public Relations Professional can avert many media storms that would otherwise sideline a candidate. A positive response in the same news cycle can kill bad publicity – but a day-late denial only sounds defensive, and prolongs a story instead of burying it.

If you are an Immortal – a political candidate or office-holder about to mount up for the fight – consider the ramifications … then find a good, savvy Public Relations Professional who believes in your cause and can help you win the fight. After all there can be only one.

Four Lies

2008-10-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases forPeople Earning Under $250,000 …

And for Those Earning as Little as $25,000 a Year

By Ned Barnett

Note - this article has been published in edited form in American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com) on October 27, 2008. Thanks to editor Thomas Lifson for permission to reprint that article here.

I confess.

Senator Obama’s two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of “working Americans,” intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I’ve earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes – I might even get a break – and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

However, Senator Obama’s dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises to make me look at what I’d been paying before President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline – they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the “Bush Tax Cuts” lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

I’ve worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns – I know how “promises” work – so I analyzed Senator Obama’s promises by looking for loopholes.

The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn’t “count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse – allowing the rates to return to a higher levels – is not actually a “tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.

See the difference?

Neither do I.

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up – a lot – but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won’t actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he’s passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama’s claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase – they’ll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. This is detailed in the charts (below).

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 – Senator Obama’s benchmark year – you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn’t call it a “tax increase,” but your taxes under “President” Obama will increase – significantly.

Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I was keeping score, I’d call that Tax Lie #1.

The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 – the most recent year for which tax data is available – only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual’s earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap – and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket – and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers – but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer’s share of the tax increase.

However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/FactSheetSeniors.pdf) that he “might” create a “donut” – an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn’t raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama’s “donut plan” was quietly removed from his website.

This “explanation” sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I was keeping score, I’d call this Tax Lie #2.

Senator Obama has also said that he will raise Capital Gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he’s aiming at “fat cats” who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans have capital investments – through IRAs, 401Ks, in pension plans and in personal portfolios. Half of all Americans will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.

Under “President” Obama, if you sell off a $100,000 investment – perhaps to help put your two boys through college – instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you’ll pay $20,000 under Obama’s plan. That’s a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

No question – for 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses – and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 – and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don’t “pay” taxes – they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you ca see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation’s own taxes go up, you don’t see it – its automatic – but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product’s price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices – those pass-through taxes – when corporate taxes go up.

No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

There’s not a politician alive who hasn’t be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips – no new taxes” proved false, he lost the support of his base – and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

This year, however, we don’t have to wait for the proof – Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he’s also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that’s the truth.

“President” Obama’s Hidden Tax Increase

How Allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to Lapse Will Raise Taxes for

Everybody who Pays Federal Income Taxes

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tax: Single	$10,581	$9,304	$9,231	$10,581	$1,350
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$8,293	$6,796	$6,781	$8,293	$1,512
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$11,143	$9,304	$9,231	$11,143	$1,912
Tax: Head of Household	$9,424	$8,189	$8,094	$9,424	$1,330

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $75,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000	$75,000
Tax: Single	$17,923	$15,739	$15,620	$17,923	$2,303
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$15,293	$12,364	$12,219	$15,293	$3,074
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$18,803	$16,083	$15,972	$18,803	$2,831
Tax: Head of Household	$16,424	$14,439	$14,344	$16,424	$2,080

Tax Rates – and the Obama Increase - $100,000/year Taxable Income

	2000 Tax Tables	2003 Tax Tables	2004 Tax Tables	2010 Tax Tables – (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired)	Increase with Obama Tax Increase*
Taxable Income	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Tax: Single	$25,673	$22,739	$22,620	$25,673	$3,053
Tax: Married – Filing Joint	$22,293	$18,614	$18,469	$22,293	$3,824
Tax: Married – Filing Separate	$27,515	$23,715	$23,504	$27,515	$4,011
Tax: Head of Household	$23,699	$20,741	$20,594	$23,699	$3,015

* When “President” Obama allows President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase -

Is the election over (four weeks out)? History says "Hell No"

2008-10-08T12:30:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett (c) 2008

A lot of spinners are contending that the election is now over - we can all go home, because Obama has it in the bag. And, while some polls show Obama ahead by single digits (but outside the margin for error), Zogby has the election within a single point.

Zogby's right. History (going back to '68) tells us that this election is not over - it will be finally "decided" no sooner than the last weekend before the election.

You can always tell when somebody has drunk deeply from the Kool Aid when he pronounces this election is over, and does so four weeks before the ballots are cast. The last time a US Presidential Election did NOT come right down to the wire was ’84 with Reagan (if somebody cared to argue how not-close the Clinton/Dole election in '96 was four years before the election, I won’t argue, but it was a lot closer than most like to recall, and that even in ’96, Clinton didn’t get a simple majority).

In recent times, ultra-close elections include

· Humphrey/Nixon ’68 (Humphrey was in the lead across the board right up to the last week – he peaked too early and Nixon won by a whisker)

· Ford/Carter ’76 - it was right down to the wire, and while not as close as '68, Carter won by a razor-thin margin ... the election might have turned on Ford's "Poland" gaffe in a pre-election debate

· Carter/Reagan/Anderson ’80 (it was single-digit until just about two weeks before the election, when the “misery index” - "are you better off now than you were in '76" question began to resonate with the populace)

· Bush/Dukakis ’88 (the Duke was 17 points ahead on Labor Day and he was still leading in some polls mid-October)

· Bush/Clinton/Perot ’92 – Clinton won with 43 percent of the vote

· Clinton/Dole/Perot ’96 – Clinton won with 48 percent of the vote, and he was only one blunder away from losing (of course, he didn’t blunder until a couple years later, with Monica)

· Bush/Gore ’00 – this was decided a month after the election by the Supreme Court – and the media only finally satisfied themselves that Bush really did win Florida a year later after the “non-partisan” media Election Fact-check commission tried five different ways to calculate the votes so Gore could have won, and failed in all five tries and finally gave up

· Bush/Kerry ’04 – not as close as ’00, but still right down to the wire, right down to the final days

With this history, and with the election polls in what is essentially a dead heat (in the last two weeks, first McCain was ahead by single digits outside the margin for error, then Obama was ahead by single digits outside the margin for error, now Obama is ahead – in one major poll – by just one point, well within the margin for error) – the election is far closer (at four weeks out) than Carter/Reagan was in ’80 or Bush/Dukakis was in ’88, and closer than any of Clinton’s or Bush-43’s elections at this point.

In short, unless you drink the Kool Aid, this race is too close to call – each candidate is just one big blunder away from giving his opponent a decisive-seeming lead (which could erode if terrorists attack, or if Wall Street takes another 1,500-point plunge, or if something embarrassing and personal came out about either candidate). Almost any scandal or "gaffe" could overturn the margin of victory, for either candidate, right up to the last weekend before the campaign.

This election could go either way, but the only thing we can be certain of is that nobody who says the election is over knows what l he’s talking about. Either he’s ignoring the news or he’s ignoring Presidential election history.

What Senator McCain Must Do To Remain Competitive

2008-06-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

Note - this article is based on my interview with my most recent interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business. An edited version of this article appeared June 15th published in American Thinker.

It’s often been said that, “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” – and if that is true (and it is), Senator John McCain seems intent on going on a hunger strike.

Senator Obama has proved to be the most effective fund-raiser in the history of American politics, at a time when Republican candidate-presumptive Senator John McCain seems to be doing all he can to make sure that he cannot raise enough in campaign contributions to stay competitive.

If Senator McCain fails in his bid for the presidency, more than any other candidate in recent memory, he will well and truly have been “hoist on his own petard.” His McCain-Feingold law deprives him of the resources he might raise from well-heeled individual donors – including his remarkably wealthy wife, Cindy, who is as incapable today as Theresa Heinz Kerry had been four years ago of financially supporting her candidate husband. However, it’s not too late for Senator McCain to recognize what he’s done to himself, as well as how he can turn this around.

Because of restrictions placed on fundraising by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill became law, big donors are dramatically limited. This, in turn, puts a premium on the quantity of donors, rather than the quantity of donations, and elevates the importance – for each candidate – of continuing to court their party’s “core” who are the most likely donors. Senator Obama has done an exceptional job of capturing the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party’s core, and millions of core Democrats have opened their wallets.

These core party loyalists’ per-donor contributions average under $100 – and, according to an article in the June 9^th issue of Crain’s Chicago Business, “45% of the $265 million Mr. Obama has raised came from donations of $200 or less,” and The Hill reports that Senator Obama may raise as much as $100 million in June alone – the sheer volume of those donations has created a tidal-wave of political “mother’s milk” for himself and other Democratic Party candidates.

On the other hand, with the sole exception of his stirring and persuasive CPAC speech in early February, Senator McCain has adopted a strategy of running away from his conservative base in an effort to attract moderate and independent voters. While that strategy may work in attracting voters, it has proved – so far – to be a dismal failure as a foundation for successful fund-raising.

Since his speech at CPAC in early February, where McCain made a seemingly effective effort to paint himself as a conservative, he has done nothing to reach out to his Conservative base, and many things to alienate that Conservative base. While McCain may be right that it will be Independent voters who will put him over the top in November, it is wrong to think that Independents will donate to his campaign. Donations are the realm of the motivated true-believers, and McCain has intentionally alienated them (figuring that, in November, they’ll have nowhere else to go). That could be his fatal mistake. That may explain why MAPLight.org, a non-profit campaign financing watchdog group, reports that while Senator Obama has raised more than $272 million as of June 9, 2008, Senator McCain has raised just $106 million dollars – barely 39% of the amount raised by his opponent.

Traditionally (i.e., in the campaigns since Reagan defeated Carter in 1980) Republicans have always out-fund-raised the Democrats – and they did this primarily because they were able to motivate their passionate Conservative base – men and women ready to put their money where their mouth is. However, this year, Democrat Obama easily out-raised McCain at every turn. Core Democrats are highly motivated by a positive call to change America and the world.

Core Republicans, on the other hand, have been largely turned off by maverick Republican McCain’s consistent Bush-bashing, along with his “crossing the aisle” support of issues dear to the hearts of Liberals … but not Conservatives. At a time when he desperately needs the passionate support of the Conservative base, Senator McCain has been so busy proving that he’s not running for “Bush’s Third Term” that he’s starving his campaign of donations – the money he needs to stay competitive.

What can Senator McCain do to turn this situation around – to remain competitive for moderate and independent voters while appealing directly to his Conservative base?

He needs to run against the Bush’s Third Term charge, but he needs to do so in positive terms, not negative terms, and he needs to give Conservatives solid and affirmative reasons to not only vote for Senator McCain, but to contribute to his campaign.

For instance, he could propose several major Conservative initiatives, such as these three representative samples:

1. Appoint Supreme Court and Appellate justices who will interpret the constitution, rather than rewriting it – then publicly provide Conservatives a short-list of the kinds of people he’d appoint. This would be a list of about a dozen rock-solid judges who are not partisan and not prone to legislating from the bench – men and women of sterling character and exemplary judicial experience – men and women who will ease the concerns of Conservatives without alienating moderates and independents.

2. Expand and energize the development of the missile defense shield. With Korea a nuclear country with operational medium-range missiles, and with Iran threatening to become yet another rogue nuclear country, also with medium-range missiles, Senator McCain could commit to implementing a missile defense shield that will protect the US, our European allies and Israel from premeditated covert nuclear attack. Again, this will reassure Conservatives without driving away thoughtful moderates and independents.

3. Implement trade regulations that exactly mirror those of countries who are our trading partners – so those countries who want free trade with us will have to return the favor, while those who won’t extend free trade rights to US countries (i.e., China, Japan) will face restrictions identical to those they impose on US companies. This would delight even the most ardent free-trade Conservatives, while resonating among moderates and independents as being eminently fair.

An approach similar to this would serve to differentiate McCain from Bush – while at the same time gaining accolades from the Conservative Base. Instead, to differentiate himself, the Senator has joined the legion of Bush bashers – he may hope to win over liberals, but in doing so, he is alienating his Conservative base – the most likely potential source of campaign financing.

Can McCain Remain Competitive?

2008-06-15T12:22:00.001-07:00

By Ned Barnett

Originally published in American Thinker, June 15, 2008: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/can_mccain_remain_competitive.html

If money is the mother's milk of politics, then Senator John McCain seems intent on going on a hunger strike.

Barack Obama has proved to be the most effective fund-raiser in the history of American politics, at a time when McCain seems to be doing all he can to make sure that he cannot raise enough in campaign contributions to stay competitive.

If Senator McCain fails in his bid for the presidency, more than any other candidate in recent memory he will well and truly have been hoist on his own petard. His McCain-Feingold law deprives him of the resources he might raise from well-heeled individual donors -- including his remarkably wealthy wife, Cindy, who is as incapable today as Theresa Heinz Kerry had been four years ago of financially supporting her candidate husband. However, it's not too late for Senator McCain to recognize what he's done to himself, as well as how he can turn this around.

Because of restrictions placed on fundraising by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill became law, big donors are dramatically limited. This, in turn, puts a premium on the quantity of donors, rather than the size of each donation, and elevates the importance for each candidate of continuing to court their ideological core, who are the most likely donors. Senator Obama has done an exceptional job of capturing the zeitgeist of the Democratic Party's left and many youths, and millions have opened their wallets. Small donors outweigh those who max out.

About 45% of the $265 million Mr. Obama has raised came from donations of $200 or less, but a third came from contributions of $2,300 or more.

The Hill reports that Senator Obama may raise as much as $100 million in June alone. The sheer volume of those donations has created a tidal-wave of political mother's milk, with spillage onto other Democratic Party candidates. Small donors can make multiple contributions, and with 4 and half months to the election, this motivated group will continue to give.

On the other hand, with the sole exception of his stirring and persuasive CPAC speech in early February, Senator McCain has adopted a strategy of running away from his conservative base in an effort to attract moderate and independent voters. While that strategy may work in attracting voters, it has so far proved to be a dismal failure as a foundation for successful fund-raising.

That could be his fatal mistake. That may explain why MAPLight.org, a non-profit campaign financing watchdog group, reports that while Senator Obama has raised more than $272 million as of June 9, 2008, Senator McCain has raised just $106 million dollars -- barely 39% of the amount raised by his opponent.

Traditionally (i.e., in the campaigns since Reagan defeated Carter in 1980) Republicans have always out-fund-raised the Democrats. They did this primarily because they were able to motivate their passionate Conservative base, people ready to put their money where their mouth is. But this base has been largely turned off by maverick McCain's consistent Bush-bashing, along with his crossing the aisle support of issues dear to the hearts of Liberals. At a time when he desperately needs the passionate support of the Conservative base, Senator McCain has been so busy proving that he's not running for "Bush's Third Term" that he's starving his campaign of donations -- the money he needs to stay competitive.

McCain must turn this situation around, remaining competitive among moderate and independent voters, while appealing directly to his Conservative base. He needs to give Conservatives solid and affirmative reasons to contribute to his campaign., volunteer, and turn out to vote, while not alienating centrists. He needs to campaign on issues that put the left on the defensive. Three examples:

Judges: McCain could campaign on his pledge to appoint Supreme Court and Appellate justices who will interpret the Constitution, rather than rewriting it and publicly provide Conservatives a short-list of the kinds of people he'd appoint. Enforcing the law as written has gut level appeal to the base, and it makes sense to most people not on the left. He could supply a list of about a dozen rock-solid judges who are not partisan and not prone to legislating from the bench.

Missile Defense: McCain could campaign on expanding and energizing the development of the missile defense shield. With Korea having operational medium-range nuclear missiles, and with Iran developing medium-range missiles and nukes and proclaiming Israel a goner, Senator McCain could commit to implementing a missile defense shield that will protect the US, our European allies and Israel from premeditated covert nuclear attack.

Small Government: McCain sells himself as a fiscal conservative, and is positioned to appeal to centrists sick of taxes and stories of wasteful spending. But he rarely sells himself as an advocate of small government. This is a core value with crossover appeal.

Ned Barnett is a political strategist and the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, Nevada, and writes a regular column on crisis PR for the International Association of Business Communicators.

Hillary Clinton’s Last Ditch Nuclear Option

2008-05-08T10:57:00.000-07:00

Originally published in American Thinker, May 9, 2008

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/hillary_clintons_nuclear_optio.html

By Ned Barnett © 2008

Hillary still has a chance.

Most pundits are telling Senator Hillary Clinton that it’s all over but the shouting. The math is against her. However, the math is also currently against Senator Obama – neither candidate can earn the needed majority in the remaining primaries. The decision will be made by the Democrat’s “super delegates,” who are not obligated to decide who they support until the convention – and they are empowered to change their allegiance at any time, based on their “read” of what’s best for the party.

This means that until that Convention, Hillary still has a chance.

Conventional wisdom among those who pretend to know why Senator Clinton is hanging in there say she’s waiting – and hoping for – an Obama scandal that will make Reverend Wright look like a footnote. Because Senator Obama is so little known among the public, they’ve got their fingers crossed that some scandal that’s worse than Reverend Wright will surface, and surface soon enough to persuade the super delegates that Obama can’t win.

The “sitting and waiting” strategy is out of character for the politically-savvy Clintons – though they may be so shell-shocked from the primary campaign’s insane roller coaster ride. However, once they have caught their breath, they may decide that the prize is worth exercising Hillary’s “nuclear option” – in effect, using surrogates to nuke Senator Obama so thoroughly that they will create that Obama Can’t Win scandal out of what is already out there.

In this option, Clinton surrogates – those who are obviously in the tank for the Clintons, such as Lanny Davis and Paul Begala, as well as those who are not so obviously affiliated with the Clinton campaign – will carry out the “nuke Obama” strategy on Senator Clinton’s behalf, leaving her hands clean and her reputation unsullied.

What constitutes the Nuclear Option?

Senator Obama has gotten such a near-universal “pass” on his background that there remain potentially troubling elements to his background and life-story. Bringing these forward now – and painting them in the worst possible light – will have a “death by a thousand cuts” impact on the largely untried Senator from Illinois, who has already shown that he’s not at his best in responding to harsh and unexpected criticism. Keeping Senator Obama dodging and ducking and bobbling defenses creates two opportunities:

Senator Obama’s background will deliver that one “deal-killer” issue that will turn the super delegates away from their popular favorite, or

The weight of unanswered criticism will collectively convince the super delegates that Senator Obama can’t win – and that the Party needs a win more than it needs Obama

Both options are long shots, to be sure, but there may be enough out there with which to criticize Senator Obama to make the nuclear option at least apparently plausible. Some might even say that the nuclear option campaign has already begun with Paul Begala’s public pronouncement that the Party Can’t Win by relying on white eggheads and African-Americans, a bombshell he dropped on CNN in a “debate” with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

What are the issues that could be included in the Nuclear Option? Here is a sampling:

Comb the archives of Trinity Church for a DVD that shows both Reverend Wright making yet one more of his offensively over-the-top statements … and showing Senator Obama in the congregation, listening to his preacher. Senator Obama skirted responsibility for Wright, in part, by claiming that “I never heard him say that.” Prove this defense wrong and it will not only tie Obama to Wright, but will paint him as a lying politician – and one not particularly adept at lying.

Comb the Internet and other sources for home video of a speech that Senator Obama gave in conjunction with unrepentant Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayres – in this way, tie Senator Obama tightly to this radical who’s helped to kill Americans on American soil. Senator Obama has persuaded the media that he and Ayres are just neighbors – but video that would show them sharing a platform as allies could shake that excuse – and Obama’s credibility. With such a thin track record, “credibility” is about all that Senator Obama has to offer the Party and the American voters.

Assuming that Tony Rezko is found guilty in his fraud trial, find some way for prosecutors to offer Tony Rezko a sentencing deal in exchange for offering incriminating testimony that will tie Senator Obama far more closely to this shady political fund-raiser who’s currently in the midst of a bribery trial. The Rezko story has been largely overlooked by the media – few voters understand the nature of the Rezko/Obama connection – but this Chicago “politics as usual” story of sordid minor-league corruption will further shake the Senator’s image of electability.

Push forward another story that has been largely ignored by the media – Senator Obama’s radically permissive position favoring “birth control abortions,” on-demand, for minors – and his related view that babies, including his own future grandchildren, are “punishments.” As explained in American Thinker – one of the very few political media who’ve even noted this statement (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/obamas_stealth_proabortion_sta.html) – in late March, Senator Obama said: "Look, I got two daughters - nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." This is a position that would prove widely unpopular among moderate “values” Democrats and most Independents – in a general election with a pro-life candidate, this issue could be a political deal-breaker.

Comb Senator Obama’s voting record in the Senate and in the Illinois legislature and find every issue he’s voted for (or against) that – if the vote was known – would make moderate Democrats and Independents uncomfortable with the Senator. Where possible, find video showing Senator Obama advocating these politically extreme or unpopular positions, making it hard for the Senator to deny that he was “in the pew” when those issues came up for consideration.

These five issues – along other issues that cast a bad light on Senator Obama – constitute Senator Clinton’s “nuclear option.” These issues have been largely ignored, minimized or “put to bed” by the national mainstream political media, including media opinion leaders ranging from the New York Times to CNN, MSNBC and the broadcast news networks . However, these same issues can be advanced by Clinton surrogates in a way that will force the media to take another look … and force the super delegates to re-think their ultimate choice.

That is Senator Clinton’s last chance. She has the opportunity, she has the strategy, and – within her camp – she has the savvy to see how to raise these (and other) issues without leaving finger prints. Independently, these individual issues are unlikely to be “deal-killers” – but taken together, they might give Democratic Party super delegates reason to reconsider Senator Obama, and move Senator Clinton back into the status of “inevitability.”

Obama's Stealth Pro-Abortion Stance

2008-05-03T16:06:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett
This article was originally published in American Thinker on May 3, 2008

"The dog that didn't bark" is the central clue in the Sherlock Holmes story, "Silver Blaze." This oddly quiet watchdog's silence told Holmes that the horse-theft was an inside job - pulled off by the horse's trainer. The canine guardian who was supposed to sound an alarm - but who instead didn't make a noise - was the final clue that fingered the guilty culprit.

Today's "dog that didn't bark" is none other than the political media. For more than a month now, the media has effectively covered up a potentially damning statement made by Senator Barack Obama. No trivial matter, his single sentence, if widely known, could be the "deal killer" that destroys Obama's quest for the American Presidency. It was March 28^th when he answered a Pennsylvania voter's question at a campaign whistle-stop, yet four weeks later, this potentially explosive "stealth position" remains less widely known than Senator Obama's taste for waffles.

The issue is abortion which - along with Social Security - has long been a deadly "third rail" in American politics. In spite of 35 years under Roe v. Wade, Americans remain deeply conflicted over the abortion issue - their opinions are nuanced and variable, often depending on case-by-case circumstances. Politically, any position favoring on-demand abortion has been potentially deadly. Then, in the early 1990s, President Clinton popularized a low-risk pro-abortion position - abortions should be "safe, legal ... and rare." This artful sophistry, with the emphasis on "rare," seemed acceptable to the majority of Americans.

However, going beyond "rare" to justify "convenience" abortions remains politically unacceptable. For example, the "Roe at 30" ABC/Washington Post study found "57 percent (of Americans) oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy - ‘if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby."

Other recent studies find more than 65 percent of Americans oppose convenience abortions.

Americans clearly do not favor abortion on demand. Since Clinton first articulated "safe, legal ... and rare," no prominent pro-abortion politician has dared go further, and none has risked advocating on demand "convenience abortions." That is, none dared until Senator Obama demolished "safe, legal ... and rare" during a Pennsylvania whistle-stop more than four weeks ago - an action that, to date, the media has chosen to ignore, along with Obama's several rather shocking conclusions.

In response to a Pennsylvania voter's question about elementary school sex education, Obama said:

"Look, I got two daughters - nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

This makes two things clear. First, Senator Obama supports abortion on demand -- even "convenience" abortions -- for minors, including his own daughters; and second, Obama considers babies a "punishment" he'd rather spare his daughters, even if those daughters have to abort Obama's own unborn grandchildren to avoid that particular "punishment."

That unguardedly candid public statement is political dynamite -- or it would be, if the media had reported on it. Instead, four weeks later, America remains widely unaware of Senator Obama's explosive position favoring on-demand convenience abortions for minors, or his equally explosive view of babies as a "punishment."

Senator Clinton can be forgiven for not raising the subject -- while she's dutifully stuck to her husband's "safe, legal ... and rare" formulation, she knows her feminist base agrees with Senator Obama. Her late primary hurdles have been high enough without challenging her base.

Senator McCain -- who continues to steer clear of anything that might smack of a personal attack -- has also refrained from commenting; and from his position, that too makes a kind of sense. Unless he prefers to face Hillary in November, raising the "on-demand convenience abortions for minors" issue will have more power in reaching Independents during the general election, four months from now.

However, the media has no such excuse. Their job is to dig out the controversies and challenge the candidates -- in short, to report the news. Instead, perhaps recognizing the divisive nature of Obama's abortion stance, the media has become the dog that didn't bark. In his controversially-direct questioning of Senator Obama during the recent debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous avoided the abortion-on-demand question entirely. Just this past Sunday, in an often hard-hitting 36-minute interview, Fox News' Chris Wallace -- though he asked Obama about partial birth abortion - completely avoided the more controversial "on-demand convenience abortion."

Earlier in the campaign, Saturday Night Live accurately and effectively lampooned the media for being "in the tank" for Senator Obama. Now, on the abortion issue, political reporters are not only in the tank, they are AWOL.

Even the talk radio community -- as well as conservative columnists and online bloggers -- have been remarkably silent. Obama's position - advocating on-demand convenience abortions, even for minors -- is explosive, especially for conservative talkers' and bloggers' largely pro-family, anti-abortion audiences. The idea of children being a "punishment" pours gasoline on an open flame. By personalizing this, by speaking about his own daughters - and by speaking approvingly of them possibly aborting his own future grandchildren - Senator Obama's position becomes even less defensible ... and far more explosive.

Yet the media's silence echoes like the dog that didn't bark.

Ned Barnett owns Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas. He's advised candidates and issues campaigns for 35 years, and blogs at: http://barnettonpolitics.blogspot.com/

Media Op - Why Fox Business, Fred Imus, Newsweek, Gannett and Others Come to Me for Answers

2008-04-29T13:42:00.000-07:00

I have been giving a number of interviews to the media on campaign strategy and tactics - from Neil Cavuto and Fred Imus to Gannett and Newsweek - for media looking for answers, here are a few things you might want to know:

· I have been in politics professionally since the early 70s when I was speechwriter for two governors (one Democrat, one Republican) in South Carolina, writing about economic development issues, my area (at the time) of specialization

· I worked with the late Lee Atwater on the Ford campaign in ’76 (Ford/SC) – I handled strategy and media for Lee, who was at that time the youngest state party chairman of either party – he was 23, and even then he was brilliant

· In spite of my work with Ford, I was recruited to serve on the Press Secretary’s staff in Washington (Carter) – I’d gone to school with several of his people – but was starting a family and didn’t want to uproot that family for what might be a short-term position

· From ’74-’80, I worked on behalf of specific candidates – a Democratic Lt. Governor, during his bid for the Governor’s chair, a Republican Congressman, etc. – working media, strategy and speechwriting (usually focusing on economic development and healthcare – and more generally on business issues rather than social issues)

· In the mid-80s, I took a special post-graduate independent study program in market research; this refined both my research abilities and – more important – my ability to both analyze what research results really mean and to pinpoint Americans’ attitudes (as indicated by – but not always boldly spelled out by – public opinion research)

· After taking time off for a career detour that included (but was not primarily about) lobbying on behalf of hospitals and healthcare organizations, I worked with Perot until he melted down, then became head of strategy and media for Clinton/Gore-Nevada ’92 (Democrats took Nevada for the first time since Truman in ’48)

· After a falling out with the Clinton administration (even before they took office), I focused on working on behalf of more conservative/pro-business associations and advocacy groups (Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for Health, etc.), as well as candidates for state and national office (i.e., Senator)

· Beginning in 2004, I have been – for radio talk shows, print reporters, and now Fox – analyzing candidates statements and actions (their PR) then reverse-engineering those actions to identify the underlying strategies … then critiquing those strategies as being either sound or flawed … and when I do this for the media, I strive to remain solidly non-partisan – I’m not flacking for any one candidate, party or cause, but am able to look at each campaigns’ actions. In 2004, I did 56 interviews (including five appearances on the Fred Imus show in Tucson), and have done more than a dozen so far this season. Write-ups of some of these “reverse-engineered” strategy critiques can be found at: http://barnettonpolitics.blogtownhall.com/

Tactics Without Strategy - Obama Throws Gasoline on His Own Funeral Pyre

2008-04-29T12:48:00.000-07:00

As I write this, Barack Obama has just responded to his pastor, Reverend Wright, over Wright's incendiary comments made Monday at the National Press Club. Previously, I've have suggested that Senator Obama (and his wife, Michelle) are so in-control that everything they say reflects an underlying strategy. For example:

When Michelle said that she'd never before been proud of America, and when she told a major magazine reporter that America was a mean country, she was fulfilling a carefully-wrought strategy - one that worked! (see this blog's archive - February 2008)
When Senator Obama - speaking of his two daughters and their potential future out-of-wedlock pregnancies - advocated on-demand "convenience" abortions, even for minors; and when in the same statement he identified babies as a "punishment," he was fulfilling another carefully-wrought strategy, another one that worked! (See this blog for "No Foolin ...")

However, in this case, I think the still-leading Democratic candidate is reacting without a strategy, and this "tactics-without-strategy" approach is a disaster waiting to happen.

If nothing else, his response suggests that Senator Obama is far better in a controlled situation than in a spontaneous crisis - it is as if he is validating Senator Clinton's often-mocked "3 a.m. phone call" strategy by demonstrating that Senator Obama is not quick on his feet.

A quick review is in order.

On Saturday night, Reverend Wright gave a masterfully egotistical performance before the Detroit NAACP - in some ways, Wright's NAACP presentation was even more incendiary than his Monday National Press Club performance. Yet Senator Obama's reaction to this talk - which seemed to validate the views of racial segregationists (among many other time-bombs) was notable - was missing in action.

On Monday morning, Reverend Wright launched his widely-viewed press conference; seven hours later, Senator Obama gave a "tarmac talk" about Wright's talk that was brief, tepid and lacking in emotion. He merely said that he didn't agree with Wright, and that Wright's views didn't match Obama's own views.

However, when overnight poll numbers showed that Wright's "magical mystery tour" - as Bill O'Reilly derisively called it - Senator Obama staged an angry-response press conference that intended to distance himself from Reverend Wright. This press conference came more than 24 hours after Wright's press conference, and more than 18 hours after Obama's initial, tepid and dismissive response - one that didn't "play" with the public.

This doesn't speak well for the Senator's ability to respond and react quickly to a breaking crisis, something that Presidents are expected to do.

It goes further - not only did Senator Obama wait more than a day longer than needed before he responded, he left the door wide open to his opponents, those who want to keep the pot boiling. Senator Obama said, in essence, "this isn't the man I knew 20 years ago." However, Wright's own record shows that he'd been preaching "black liberation Christianity" for more than 30 years. By the time Obama first met Wright, the pastor's views had been established and his reputation as a bold conspiracy-theory critic of the American status quo had already grown well beyond Trinity Church.

You can be sure that reporters, bloggers and "opposition research" teams for his two opponents are already combing the archives, looking for proof that Reverend Wright today is EXACTLY the same man Senator Obama met 20 years ago. Once they find this proof, the whole question of Senator Obama's judgment will come back into play - a judgment that's been challenged by a number of decisions and associations with others.

Twenty years ago, he couldn't "read" the views of a well-know black liberation theologian - and it took 20 years and a series of public humiliations before Obama did see through to the core of Wright's own core.
Thirteen years ago, he couldn't understand that Bill Ayers was an unrepentant home-grown terrorist who was proud of his bombings when he held his first political fund-raiser in Ayers' home.
Six years ago, in the aftermath of Ayers' ill-timed September 11, 2001 interview in which he said he said: "I just wished we could have done more" Senator Obama didn't see a problem in continuing to give "tag-team" public lectures and serving on foundation boards with Ayers.
Three years ago, Obama bought a house at well under market value through the good offices of indicted political fund-raiser and real estate developer Tony Resnick, long after Resnick's shady background and tactics had become widely known in Chicago - including among Chicago's media.
Earlier this year, Senator Obama still didn't understand the implications of his friendship with Ayers when he let stand a spokesman's claim that Ayers and Obama remained friendly.

The bottom line - Senator Obama spoke today without a strategy - he waited too long to say too little, but in his spontaneity, he left the door open for his critics to continue criticizing Obama's judgment about his friends and associates. When this particular 3 a.m. crisis call came in, Senator Obama hit the snooze button and rolled over for another 40 winks.

Don't Fall for the Liberals' Second Amendment "Definition Trap" - A Respectful Open Letter to National Review's Rich Lowry

2008-04-16T02:22:00.001-07:00

Introduction

This column generally focuses on candidates' strategies as determined by their public statements - and in this case, the column does look at statements by both Senators Obama and Clinton - and assessed the strategies behind their Pennsylvania gun-ownership statements, issued in the wake of Senator Obama's "unfortunate" statement to a closed-door fund-raiser in San Francisco a week ago. But this column takes a different format than most, as it not only identifies (and critiques) the candidates' strategies, but also addresses a significant oversight made by the National Review's Rich Lowry (a common oversight among Conservative commentators) in addressing the candidates' strategies.

Today (Tuesday, April 15th) I read a Townhall column by the National Review's Rich Lowry about Senator Obama's latest dust-up with voters in Pennsylvania – and while Mr. Lowry was generally on-target in his overall analysis, he fell into a long-standing and diabolically-clever Liberal Democrat-sponsored Second Amendment “definition trap" - one that far too many conservatives fall prey to. Mr. Lowry allowed Senators Obama and Clinton - and, more generally, the anti-gun Democrats and Liberals to define the rules of the debate on the Second Amendment. This trap is simple: equate gun ownership to the "right" to hunt or participate in shooting sports (as in Senator Clinton bragging about going duck hunting as a child… a convenient story about as likely to be true as her Bosnian Sniper fairy tale). The gun-banning Liberals never talk about the real reasons that the Founding Fathers used in their insistence that the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution contain the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment exists to affirm the inalienable right of all free men (and women) to self-protection from the tyranny of government, as well as self-defense from criminals.

So, when we let Liberals and Democrats get away with characterizing the Second Amendment as a right for hunters and sportsmen, we’re all falling into their trap. As Mr. Lowry did. This is the Liberals' cagy strategem: Americans are far more likely to fight for the right to self-defense than the right to hunt; conversely, they are far more likely to sit idly by while their right to keep and bear arms is redefined - then eroded. These Liberals and Democrats know that many Americans who carry guns for personal protection don't hunt - and many Americans who hunt don't carry guns for personal protection. Classic divide and conquer - and in any debate, that begins by getting the opposition to agree to YOUR definition - as Mr. Lowry agreed with his anti-gun opponent's "take" on the real meaning of the Second Amendment.

Which is why I wrote the following respectful open letter to Rich Lowry - and by extension, to all Conservatives who value their inalienable Second Amendment right to self defense - as enshrined in the "right to keep and bear arms."

**************************

A Respectful Open Letter To Rich Lowry of the National Review

Rich

I read your latest Townhall column (Tuesday, April 15) about Senator Obama’s elitism – and from a strategic perspective, I think it’s dead-on.

However, in reading your column, I’m afraid that you’re falling into the trap that Liberals love to set for those of us who value the Second Amendment – the “hunting trap.” Liberals and Democrats love to characterize gun owners as “hunters” and “sportsmen” … instead of as people who have taken on the solemn responsibility to own (and in many cases, to carry) legal firearms in order to protect and defend themselves and others from criminal intrusions in their lives. This consistent Democrat-and-Liberal "hunting" characterization is a trap because – ultimately – nobody in America today depends on hunting for survival (suggesting that the Second Amendment is somehow outmoded), and nobody today is so dependent on access to shooting “sports” that their rights to those sports couldn’t be abridged for a “higher purpose” ... a purpose such as disarming law-abiding Americans.

What I’m about to say doesn’t tell you anything you don’t already know, but the Second Amendment was not instituted as a means of guaranteeing Americans’ right to hunt (on the American Frontier in the 1780s, the right to feed one's family was a “given”) – instead, the Second Amendment was designed to give private citizens the right to carry arms - muskets and pistols and rifles essentially indistinguishable from military firearms then in use, in order to defend themselves against the depredations of tyrannical government. The memory of Lexington and King George was fresh in the minds of the framers of our constitution. A secondary – but not insignificant – Second Amendment consideration was and is personal defense against crime (as exemplified in the 1780s by Indian marauders on the frontier, as well as by more conventional breaking-and-entering type criminals who existed in unwelcome numbers in America's early metropolises).

This right to keep and bear arms is one that Americans take seriously – but it is one that Liberals and Democrats would just as soon we forget about. That is why these Liberals and Democrats always equate gun ownership with hunting, instead of self-defense.

Even if Conservatives don't understand the Liberals' strategy, the Democrats understand the uphill battle they fight. As of February of this year, 48 states had some kind of concealed carry permit laws, and tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have exercised that right to obain CCW permits and to legally carry concealed firearms for legitimate self-defense. There's an old saying that applies to self defense and the Second Amendment today as well as it did 150 years ago: "God made man. Sam Colt made man equal." When confronted with criminal violence, many Americans know they have two choices - they can be victims, or they can defend themselves. That is at the heart of the Second Amendment, and that is at the heart of the grass-roots movement to extend "shall issue" CCW laws to all Americans.

And - because they want Americans dependent, rather than independent - that is why Liberals and Democrats want to redefine the Second Amendment's right to gun ownership as something having to do with "hunting" or "sport."

Some states, of course, are more permissive than others (in my opinion, however, only 39 states have real “shall issue” on demand CCW permit laws, while nine states have less permissive “may issue” laws in which the citizen must first demonstrate a “need” to carry before being issued a license - that "need" often being tied to political contributions to the local Sheriff). However, in virtually all "shall issue" cases, these laws were driven by the grass roots. At the local level, state legislators - even doctrinaire Liberal Democrat legislators - recognize that their constituents care enough about this Constitutionally-sanctioned and inalienable right to take actions in their own self-defense. In fact, only two states – Senator Obama’s Illinois and neighboring Wisconsin (and, of course, the District of Columbia), have no CCW laws. Since these laws were first enacted - some 20 years ago, some as recently as 2007 - millions of Americans have gone through the permit process. Florida, for instance, has issued more than 1.2 million CCW permits since passing the law 20 years ago, and more than 400,000 Floridians currently have valid CCW permits.

This right to keep and bear arms in your own self defense is a right that Liberals and Democrats want to take away – which is why these same Liberals and Democrats want to link that right to gun ownership with hunting. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, has recently followed Senator Kerry’s bumbled lead - claiming, as he did in 2004, to be a duck hunter - in order to affirm her support for the Second Amendment. She's an attorney who studied Constitutional Law (her husband briefly taught the subject before entering politics) - she knows full well that the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting - but it says everything about an armed citizen’s role in maintaining the security of a free state, and by extension, personal security and civil peace.

So please, Rich, when you're talking about the Second Amendment, don’t fall into the Liberals' and Democrats' trap of equating hunting and "sport shooting" with our inalienable right of self-protection that is at the heart of America's gun owners' right to “keep and bear arms.”

Ned Barnett
Nevada

No Foolin’ – Finally, an Honest Politician … Obama Comes Clean on Abortion

2008-04-01T17:04:00.000-07:00

I think President Bill Clinton said it first – “America needs to keep abortion safe, legal and rare.” Hillary has parroted this position many times – when debating Rick Lazio in her first run for the Senate, and many times since then. Other Democrats who support “choice” echo this Clintonian sophistry, a “safe” way for pro-abortion Democrats to appear reasonable to the significant majority of Americans who oppose abortion except – in some cases – when there is a legitimate threat to the life of the mother.

However, Barack Obama has – if nothing else – made a name for himself for stepping away from the “conventional wisdom” and “status quo” of American Presidential politics. He’s taken controversial stances – for example, eschewing an American flag lapel pin and refusing to acknowledge the Star Spangled Banner would herald a death-knell for other politicians, but seem to leave Barack Obama unmoved and undamaged. Even in the case of his histrionic and hate-filled pastor, Senator Obama seems to have weathered the storm. Perhaps that is why he felt free to make a bold statement about abortion – one far outside the mainstream of American political thought – and in doing so, reveal a much more subtle strategy.

Here’s what Senator Obama said last Saturday in response to a question about elementary school sex education – another position he supports at risk of stepping outside the mainstream:

“Look, I got two daughters,” he said, “nine years old and six years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”

He also said:

“I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

This is a clear and bold statement – Barack Obama supports abortion on demand, even for minors, for no more compelling reason than convenience. This is a far cry from the standard-issue formulation of “safe, legal and rare.” He wants no restrictions on abortion for women of any age, and – while it could be argued that other Democratic candidates share this view – he’s the only serious candidate for President to ever cross the line from reluctantly making abortions accessible to making them as common as soft drinks or breath mints – and with no more moral concern than flushing a toilet.

Why would a serious candidate for President make such a bald-faced and controversial statement – especially a candidate who has, so far, remained focused and on-message throughout a long and hard-fought campaign. Senator Obama is many things, but he’s not a loose cannon. While Senator McCain is always on the record and seems to revel in unscripted discussions with reporters who’ve hitched a ride on his straight-talk express, Candidate Obama seems as carefully scripted as he is carefully groomed. He’s always ready for the cameras, and he always knows what he wants to say.

So this comment must be intentional – and as such, it must be part of a larger strategy.

Here it is: Senator Obama has succeeded in stripping away more than a few feminists from their reflexive knee-jerk support of America’s first serious female presidential candidate – Hillary Clinton. However, as the campaign has tightened on the road to Pennsylvania, Senator Clinton’s troops have been arm-twisting feminists – especially women who are also “super-delegates.” Feminist leader/supporters such as Emily’s List have been publicly calling to task women who have abandoned Hillary Clinton for Barack Obama. As the campaign has tightened up, and based on this bold defense of abortion-on-demand, Senator Obama has clearly made the strategic decision to try to peel off some of Senator Clinton’s feminist support by becoming the first “national” candidate to advocate abortion-on-demand for women, even under-aged women, who want an abortion for no purpose more noble than “convenience.”

For feminists – who’ve long been frustrated by supporters who publicly downplay their support (what they say in private is far more supportive, of course, but their reluctance to go public tends to marginalize the more permissive feminists) – are being courted by Senator Obama and his key super-delegate recruiters. By adopting a strategy of publicly defending the most radically-permissive position on abortions, Senator Obama has given his recruiters potent ammunition: “if the Senator is willing to take this bold public position during a contested campaign, think of the bills he’ll sign and the Supreme Court justices he’ll nominate.”

This was not a tactical error – though it won’t happen, Senator Obama could decisively lose all the primaries between now and the convention and still go to that convention with a majority of elected delegates … and once he has the nomination, and with the feminists firmly in his corner, he’ll have three months to pendulum back toward the mainstream American view on abortion.

Senator Obama’s abortion/feminist strategy parallels other key niche-market strategies Candidate Obama has already used with effect – for instance, the Senator has carefully made this public comment for essentially the same reason that Michelle Obama took such a harsh public view of America in January. Ms. Obama’s comments – “the first time I’ve been proud of America” and “America is a mean country” cemented the link between the Ivy League-educated Obamas with poor working-class blacks and other minorities … and anyone else who feels disenfranchised. She made these comments at a time when Senator Obama needed to peel away some of Senator Clinton’s core strength among blue-collar Democrats, and to pick up some of those who’d supported populist-message millionaire Senator John Edwards. This strategy is explored in more detail here: http://barnettonpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/02/campaign-strategy-watch-ms-obamas-real.html

Bottom line: The Obamas know that, with the nomination in hand, they’ll have months to move back to the center and away from Ms. Obama’s hard-nosed statements on “mean America” and Senator Obama’s statements advocating convenience abortions – on-demand – for even under-aged women. So far, this is a winning strategy – and one that Senator Clinton cannot fight, since in private she’s long held the same position on abortion that Senator Obama has now articulated in public.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Free Speech the "First Freedom" of the PR PRactitioner (in reluctant defense of SPAM)

2008-04-01T11:44:00.000-07:00

This is a bit of a diversion from the run-of-the-mill post here, but it does tie PR and Politics together.

Since you asked, here, in a nutshell, are my views on Free Speech (commercial, personal and political) – please recall that these are linked to the US Constitution’s First Amendment, and may not apply directly to Canada and other democracies who handle Free Speech in different (but essentially similarly effective) manners.

The First Amendment was written with an eye toward free political speech – it was written in reaction to the excesses of Good King George, who’d punished colonists for speaking out against their king (I think that’s called “Lese Majesty”). The former colonists wanted the freedom to express controversial and even confrontational political ideas without prior suppression. Which is why in one of its first actions, the Supreme Court struck down the Alien and Sedition act in about 1790 – and well they should have. This is also why the Supremes were right to side with the ACLU and the American Nazi Party in the mid-Sixties when the Nazis wanted to march in predominantly-Jewish Skokie (I lived near Skokie at that time in another predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago – my father’s office was there – and I saw the chaos it created … nonetheless, that march was classic controversial political speech). This is also why the Supremes were WRONG (IMO) in upholding the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which limits privately-financed political speech (ads) close to election times – while permitting 527 groups, wealthy candidates and the media (on their editorial pages) to engage in financed political speech (ads and ad-like op-eds) close to an election.

The First Amendment, because of the way it was written, has been applied to commercial free speech (which I don’t think the Founding Fathers meant, but which works) and offensive/pornographic free speech (which I am CERTAIN the Founding Fathers did not mean and would not have agreed with – they wrote and spoke on limits to free speech, and pornography is certainly “speech” they would have objected to). But to the area of commercial free speech, in 220 or so years, the Supremes have extended the First Amendment to commercial speech, with a few caveats (such as “truth in advertising”). And as PR people, we depend on that freedom.

Let me repeat that: As PR people, we depend on that freedom.

We exist to practice commercial speech on behalf of our clients (unless, of course, our clients are political candidates or issues-advocacy group, in which case our efforts are protected by the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers). Which means that bans or harsh limitations on annoying spam-faxes or annoying spam-emails are in fact bans or harsh limitations on our ability to function in a free society on behalf of our clients. For there is no practical way that I can think of to ban “enlarge your penis” types of spam without also banning legitimate email pitches to reporters and editors. Both are unsolicited. Both are essentially commercial. And, for editors, both are inbox-cloggers (I spoke to the editor of one of the Las Vegas business weekly newspapers in February – he told me he gets 300 or so unsolicited email pitches each day – he said that to emphasize the importance of picking up the phone and calling him, especially when the story was breaking near his deadline).

Communications technology – if we’re to do our jobs for our clients – must remain free and essentially unregulated, unless the regulations are very tightly drawn (such as bans on emails soliciting sexual encounters – though this might also ban legitimate dating services, such as eHarmony – as I said, these regs must be very carefully drawn.

I am always amazed at those PR people who are eager to ban spam emails – yes, they’re annoying, but they’re also easy enough to get rid of (I get about 500 spam emails per day, and spend about 5-10 minutes purging them daily – and that’s because I try to make sure that no “legit” emails get into my junk box). By banning (or advocating the banning of) any channel of communications, we are advocating outside prior restraint on our own efforts to reach out to the media. That is counter-productive (in Darwinian terms, it’s a counter-survival trait).

Bottom line: we in Public Relations have a duty to our clients and to ourselves to fight to maintain a broad interpretation of that First Amendment freedom to speak (via emails, faxes, Bizwire, phone calls, mass mailings, etc.) – without that, we’re out of business.

Bait-and-Switch

2008-03-18T13:45:00.000-07:00

After his stellar performance this morning, as he tried to explain away his pastor, the Reverend Doctor Jeremiah Wright, it is clear to me, as a former campaign speechwriter myself, that Barack Obama is perhaps the most effective speech-reader in American politics today. His speech was a masterwork of misdirection – a tour de force of the triumph of emotion over logic. It was nothing short of a remarkable “bait-and-switch” – an advertising gambit that “promises one thing and delivers something very much different, without the customer noticing” – that may have saved Obama’s campaign. If so, it succeeded by avoiding the real issue – the candidate’s judgment – that had mushroomed in the past week.

Senator Obama’s campaign is built on two elements – his “post-racial” refusal to let race be an issue, and the Senator’s sound judgment, which more than compensates for his lack of real experience in national government.

Senator Obama’s challenge was daunting. Americans have been inundated by video clips featuring the Senator’s pastor spewing race-based hatred of America, demonstrating this willingness to believe every wack-job conspiracy theory this side of black helicopters. To counter this, the Senator had to explain away his own lack of judgment in putting up with such vile blather for twenty years. That’s what this speech promised – the bait. What he delivered was something very different – the switch.

Senator Obama carefully – and effectively – addressed some (but by no means all of) the specific hate-filled and conspiratorial positions that his pastor has consistently advocated from the pulpit, drawing each narrowly to minimize their impact. However, while giving America a fascinating lecture on the history of the “black experience” in America, Senator Obama very effectively changed the subject. He promised answers and delivered fascinating distraction – executing a classic “bait-and-switch,” one which would have made any Madison Avenue Ad-Man green with envy.

Much of the media is focusing on this remarkable and seemingly candid exploration of race – one of the thorniest issues America has faced since the first African chattel slaves were brought to America. However, this same media – and, presumably, at least some of the Senator’s large national audience – missed the larger point. Instead of addressing the issue – his judgment – as promised, Barack Obama gracefully and effectively changed the subject. Bait-and-Switch.

No longer is the media focusing on “why did Obama stay in the congregation of a man who clearly hates America and despises whites?”

No longer are pundits asking “what does this relationship say about Senator Obama’s judgment?”

Instead, Americans – and the American media – are again marveling at the man’s podium dexterity, a real skill that the Senator cultivated at Harvard and Columbia, then refined in the rough-and-tumble politics of inner-city Chicago.

As a former speechwriter and ranked intercollegiate debater, I have nothing but raw admiration for Senator Obama’s dual abilities to write and deliver truly remarkable speeches. He does so with a power and style not seen since President Reagan reminded America of the power of the spoken word. Senator Obama’s skills bring to mind another remarkable orator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose words and presentation did much to hold together a shaky coalition through both the Great Depression and the world’s greatest war.

Senator Obama has that gift.

However, he’s used this gift to “bait-and-switch” us away from questioning his judgment and core beliefs, away from thinking about what it means that he sat through 20 years of hate-filled Sunday sermons without hearing anything offensive. With this bait-and-switch speech, Senator Obama has moved us away from the real issue and toward the open sore of race that has troubled America for centuries – an issue he’d carefully avoided until this speech.

The irony is clear. Senator Obama has portrayed himself as the man who transcended race, effectively appealing to Americans regardless of their race. This “post-racial” positioning played nicely into the Senator’s “hope and change” pitch, since nearly all Americans hope to change our historic racial intolerance and move toward a color-blind “all men are created equal” standard.

But now, thanks to this speech, race is front-and-center in the campaign. In order to save his campaign from his own remarkably poor judgment – remaining affiliated to a church whose minister damns America and blames our country for 9-11, AIDs and crack cocaine – Senator Obama has injected this “post-racial” campaign with a massive dose of race.

The ultimate irony is clear – though Reverend Wright is black, the reason he’d become a liability to Senator Obama isn’t his race, but his blatant hatred for America. Senator Obama has excused that hate by reason of race and “generation,” and undone in one day a year’s worth of “post-racial” positioning.

That’s a great debating strategy – don’t let your opponents focus on your weaknesses – but when it comes to healing America, or even to running a Presidential campaign, Senator Obama has done himself, and his country, a profound disservice. Instead of addressing his pastor’s hatred for America – and what that means about the Senator’s own judgment – he instead tried to shame white America into letting go of the issues created by Reverend Wright. Instead of understanding Senator Obama’s choice of affiliating with such a notorious hater, we now know where he stands on the issue of race – an issue that, until today, Senator Obama himself had said was off-limits and out-of-bounds.

Politically, this may be the ultimate “bait-and-switch.”

Yo Mama! What Now, Obama?

2008-03-14T22:26:00.001-07:00

Would you sit still for and break bread with a man who insulted your mother? Would you support that man – let alone congregate with that man for more than 20 years – if he repeatedly insulted your mother and her people in front of your wife and your children? Would you expose your children to a man who repeatedly – and in the strongest language – told them that their grandmother was evil, and that her people were the root of all evil?

I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t. But apparently, Senator Barack Obama sees things differently. And that choice – to attend for 20 years the church of a virulent racist, a man who seems to believe in, and preach about, every race-tinged conspiracy theory of the 20^th century – has landed Senator Obama in the communications crisis of his life.

I realize that I’m on shaky ground here. We learned this week that even a lifetime of leadership in racial healing isn’t enough of a shield for what I have to say. Former Congresswoman – and the first woman to run as a major party candidate for the Vice Presidency – Geraldine Ferraro found that out this week. According to the “new rules of public discourse,” when it comes to criticizing – or even to commenting on – Senator Barack Obama, even life-long and very public opposition to racism is no defense against vicious charges of racism. From day-one, Senator Obama has been the ultimate Teflon candidate, with surrogates eager to dash forward and brand as racist anybody who dares to criticize the Senator or even mention his race.

So it is with more than a little trepidation that I venture forth into the danger zone – I know that my efforts to integrate the Methodist Church in Georgia (and to assure that black ministers in Georgia earned a living wage, with benefits) will not shield me from criticism, nor will an award from the Urban League that I won for my (then) South Carolina employer protect me.

Yet an issue of racism has erupted around Senator Barack Obama, and as of this writing, he’s yet to explain how a man – widely known for being “post-racial,” a candidate widely known for bringing the races together and defusing the entire issue of race in politics – could have stayed in the congregation of a virulent racist for 20 years, let alone contributing more than $22,000 in 2006 alone to that man and his ministry.

While the Senator has not only distanced himself from Reverend Wright’s words, he’s said that he was never in the room when Reverend Wright spoke the incendiary phrases – “God Damn America” – or accused America of creating HIV AIDS as a tool of genocide or, on the Sunday after the 9/11 attacks, Reverend Wright’s accusation that America had brought on the attack because of everything from Hiroshima to Palestine to AIDS. Perhaps he didn’t hear those particular comments. Perhaps. However, there is no way that Senator Obama could have been ignorant of Reverend Wright’s beliefs about race and racism in America. The Senator had to know that Reverend Wright blamed “rich white people” for all the ills of the earth, if only because he’s been dodging and half-answering questions about this since at least last October – two months before Reverend Wright gave virulent racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award last December.

Which brings me to a question I’ve not seen asked before today. In the cultural melting-pot immigrant-filled neighborhood in which I grew up, there was no quicker way to start a fight than to diss somebody’s mother. That act is a deadly sin that seems to cross all cultural lines, and – as a way of insulting others, it seems to be alive and well in the black community. That is just one more reason why I am amazed that Barack Obama stayed with his Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years. That congregation’s pastor, Reverend Wright, seems never to pass up a chance to stick it to whitey … which means that Senator Obama’s own minister was dissing Obama’s mother, and doing so “in front of God and everybody,” including the Senators two impressionable daughters.

Clearly, when starting a political career in inner-city Chicago, it was useful for a young Barack Obama to attend such a church. If nothing else, having a membership in Reverend Wright’s church served to validated Senator Obama’s credentials as a real black man – in spite of his white mother – in a community where your degree of “blackness” apparently mattered. However, once he decided to extend his reach beyond Urban Chicago for state-wide and national politics, what had once been a validater had become a liability – a liability that the media’s unwillingness to raise the race card with a man whose career was built on “post-racial” unity – had held in abeyance until now.

Now, Senator Obama has started to fight back, but his comments to date have created more PR problems than they solved. First, he equated Reverend Wright to the “crazy uncle” that every family has, and tolerates, while not accepting his rants as reality. Then he said he hadn’t been present when those hate-tinged words (and many more – as the torrent of video clips seems to show) – as if not being present protected him from culpability in financially and personally supporting a man with so many race-filled, hate-filled things to say about whites and America. Then he said he didn’t support “any of those” statements – without quite saying which statements he was disavowing. Most recently, he’s said that since Reverend Wright was about to retire, he saw no reason to leave the church – something that might be true today, but something that doesn’t explain the last 20 years.

However, actions speak louder than words. Senator Obama and his wife chose Reverend Wright’s church after carefully “shopping around,” looking for a “spiritual home” for their family. Then they stayed in that congregation for 20 years – providing significant financial support (nearly $2,000 per month - $500 per week – in 2006 alone) – and raising their daughters in the bosom of this church’s family. They sat through 20 years of sermons – some of which even mentioned the Senator himself – while their “crazy uncle” ranted about white American conspiracies from Pearl Harbor to Nagasaki to AIDS and crack cocaine and 9/11/2001. Not only that, but Senator Obama dedicated his political biography – The Audacity of Hope – to the man whose sermon inspired the title. Last straw, when he decided to run for President, the Senator appointed his spiritual leader, minister and friend to his campaign’s religion steering committee – a position that, at this writing, Reverend Wright still holds.

Senator Clinton has, almost from day-one, dropped supporters and campaign officials for even hinting at some of Senator Obama’s potential personal vulnerabilities, ranging from youthful drug abuse to his potentially narrow appeal to the black community. Yet Reverend Wright, who’s made a career of blaming white America – including, apparently, the Senator’s mother and grandparents – for all our social ills, remains a respected campaign official.

Which means that Senator Obama has a lot of explaining to do to America and America’s voters. He needs to explain – as a candidate who bases his credibility on his sound judgment – why he has shown such remarkable “judgment” about this man. He needs to explain why the Senator has, over more than 20 years, supported personally and financially, a man who damns America and blames whites for all the world’s ills, and does that in the name of God. He needs to explain why – as a “post-racial” candidate intent on healing – he chooses to associate himself with a virulent racist intent on re-segregating America. It will take more than a denial, a denunciation or a repudiation of Reverend Wright right now to explain away 20 years of questionable decisions and politically-dangerous associations.

I’m glad I’m not Senator Obama’s spokesman today – it will take more spinning than an Illinois twister to make this set of decisions and choices and lame excuses go away. What can explain any man associating with someone who regularly disses his mama? Would you do that?

In the Eliot Spitzer Melt-Down, Who Was the Real Loser?

2008-03-11T02:20:00.000-07:00

Note: I've been invited to discuss this blog - about Eliot Spitzer's meltdown - on Fox Business at 6 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, March 12th ...

Conventional wisdom has already identified either New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s career ambitions – or, if the commentator is more of a humanist than a political commentator, Mrs. Spitzer and their three girls – as the real loser in Spitzer’s melt-down.

However, politically at least, they’re wrong. Politically, the real loser isn’t Eliot, his political career – or his family. The real loser is … Senator Hillary Clinton.

That loss is not because Governor Spitzer is one of Senator Clinton’s increasingly desperately-needed super-delegates. And it’s not because someone in the media (if not in Senator Obama’s campaign) will almost certainly call on her to repudiate Governor Spitzer as a supporter, just as she recently demanded that Senator Obama repudiate the endorsement made by “Minister” Louis Farrakhan, but that’s not why she’s the real loser here, either.

The real reason why Senator Hillary Clinton is the real loser is simple: here, in tenth anniversary year of the Monica Lewinsky melt-down, the last thing Senator Clinton needs is for America to be reminded of the facts and details surrounding her husband Bill’s exploitative tryst with intern Monica Lewinsky. Yet today’s fallen political unfaithful husband, Eliot Spitzer, will do nothing so much as he will remind America of that other unfaithful political husband … Bill Clinton.

Senator Clinton will be seen by some as a precursor “victim” to today’s spouse-victim, Eliot’s wife – Silda Wall Spitzer. However, the real memory-jog will be more along the lines of then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s misguided belief in a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” as the architect of her downfall, rather than a philandering husband who couldn’t keep it zipped. That one blame-comment, made on the Today Show on January 27, 1998 showed her political blindness in the face of a fact she’d known for decades – that Bill Clinton was a serial philanderer. She knew about Gennifer Flowers. She knew about Paula Jones. No matter how much she would have liked to believe otherwise, her attempt to blame the Lewinsky story on political opponents instead of her husband of more than 20 years shows a serious gap in judgment – the kind of judgment she is offering as her justification for being named the Democratic Party’s candidate.

As an aside, I was frankly amazed that Clinton-for-President campaign spokesman Mark Penn made reference to Ken Starr, even in an effort to put down Senator Obama – it brought up what may be the most shameful and painful part of Senator Clinton’s life – and the last thing she needs is for people to start remembering what her tenure in the White House was really like.

For more than a year now, Senator Clinton has painted herself as “co-President,” using cleverly-crafted PR-driven strategies to credit herself with all the stellar accomplishments of the Bill Clinton Presidency. These range from those that President Clinton really had a hand in, such as NAFTA, Welfare Reform and a Balanced Budget – to those the President and his First Lady had little to do with, such as the peace in Northern Ireland. Strategically, the last thing Senator Clinton wants, however, is a careful refresher course in the Clinton Presidency – not the one marked by major political accomplishments, but the one marked by scandal: Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Casa Grande, Ron Brown, Susan McDougall … and, Monica Lewinsky.

Yet that is exactly what Governor Eliot Spitzer’s now-public assignation with a high-priced prostitute will do. Spitzer’s downfall will remind Americans of that last high-level Democrat who misused his executive position to further his own “unconventional” sexual needs and desires. And, if Spitzer tries to make this out as a “personal problem” – which is what he called it in his initial press conference – the way that President Clinton tried to make Lewinsky and lying before a Grand Jury a “personal problem,” one that was “just about sex,” this will only sharpen the comparison and further damage Senator Clinton’s push to the presidency.

If nothing else, it will cause the press to raise questions that, by their very nature, will diminish ex-President Bill Clinton’s utility as Senator Clinton’s campaigner-in-Chief; instead of lauding his wife’s accomplishments and potential, he’ll be peppered with “ten-years-after” questions about his own scandal, and how that relates to Governor Spitzer’s scandal.

So, at least politically, the big loser from the Eliot Spitzer sex-tryst melt-down is … Senator Hillary Clinton and her presidential aspirations. She may yet survive this, as she’s survived so many other things in her tumultuous 30-plus year marriage-cum-political career – those who count her out have lost more bets than they’ve won – but clearly the last thing she needed in the run-up to the final, and critical, primaries in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and a dozen or so other states, was a reminder of the problems she faced as First Lady, and what that might portend for her own Presidency.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Candidates, Media Confuse “Telling the Truth” with “Going Negative”

2008-03-11T01:49:00.000-07:00

In the 1948 Presidential campaign, President Harry Truman famously said:

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell.”

Republicans can be excused, perhaps, for forgetting this subtle-but-important difference between telling the truth and going negative, but Democrats who cite Truman as their strongest post-war President and something of a cultural icon ought to know better – or remember better.

This failure to discern the difference between “telling the truth” and “going negative” is coming into sharp focus in this campaign, since both Senator Obama and Senator McCain have publicly and repeatedly eschewed “negative” campaigning – an approach which is high-minded, but often impractical. This is especially a problem right now for Senator Obama, who is up against – in Senator Clinton – a real Chicago street-fighter. The Clintons have always been reputed to “take no prisoners,” and so far in this campaign is concerned, she has lived up (or lived down) to that reputation, as has her husband and chief surrogate, former President Bill Clinton.

It used to be that “truth” was a defense in political campaigns – “negative” campaigning (also called “dirty” campaigning) was limited to spreading lies and unfounded innuendo about your opponents. This dichotomy changed in 1988, when Vice President George H.W. Bush’s campaign picked up on “an attack” made against former Governor Michael Dukakis by Tennessee Senator (and fellow Presidential Candidate) Al Gore during the primary season. This “attack,” of course, while mishandled by Senator Gore, led to the Republicans’ perhaps decisively effective “Willie Horton” ads. Willie Horton was a convicted Massachusetts murder who – after being let out on a “weekend furlough” by then-Governor Dukakis – went on a murder-and-rape rampage in Maryland.

The ad was indisputably true; however, because Horton was black and his victims were white, the politically correct media jumped all over the Bush campaign for “negative attack ads” that “played the race card,” totally ignoring the fact that the charge was first made in a debate by Senator Al Gore. Facts didn’t matter – this ad “proved” that Republicans were closet racists, and this view – not the facts of Dukakis’s perhaps faulty judgment in furloughing dangerous murderers – became a major media issue. Bush was damned for his racism, and his campaign advisor, Lee Atwater was particularly tarred as a virulent racist of the first order.

As a sidebar (and in the spirit of full disclosure), I knew Lee Atwater and worked with him – while he was South Carolina state Republican Party chairman – on the 1976 Ford campaign. While he was not afraid to play hardball, I am absolutely certain that he was no racist. I know false these charges hurt him personally and deeply.

However, since “Willie Horton,” truth has no longer been a defense. An ad or speech or statement that calls an opponent to account is called an “attack ad” or characterized as “going negative” – when in fact, it’s often just reporting the truth. For instance, comparison ads (we’ve seen many of these in this election cycle) are deemed attack ads, even if they honestly compare two candidates’ relative positions. Romney was justly famous for his comparison ads, and he was seen as going negative EVEN when the ads were objectively true. Candidates have been pressured by an underlying “political correctness” movement – primarily based around scrutiny from a media that’s constantly looking for yet one more controversy – and it’s gotten to the point that some candidates recoil from any comparative ads or even comparative statements by their supporters.

For instance, John McCain has spent a great deal of time distancing himself from his own supporters. Some of this, such as his repudiation of a warm-up-act talk show host who introduced him in Cincinnati by railing against Senator Obama (and daring to use his middle name, which has in this election cycle become “off-limits”), may be justified. However, when Senator McCain publicly scolded a supporter who cracked a joke at Hillary Clinton’s expense at a recent pro-McCain town hall meeting (“if the phone rang at 3 a.m. and Cindy McCain answered it, at least she’d know where her husband was”) is probably taking this “kid-gloves” treatment too far. Senator McCain – the only real warrior in the campaign – is actually coming across as too civilized to fight, which may hurt him as he tries to project himself as the best-qualified candidate to fight a war against terrorists.

All the candidates ought to remember what Harry Truman said, and what American politicians used to believe – “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell.” Truly negative campaigning is beneath the office of the President, and unworthy of real candidates for that office – but telling the truth about opponents and letting the voters make up their mind has always been as American as apple pie. If it was good enough for “Honest Abe” and “Give ‘em Hell Harry,” it ought to be good enough for today’s Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates.

Remember, you heard it here first!

The Strategy Less Traveled (Updated) - What Senator McCain MUST DO To Engage "Teflon" Senator Obama

2008-03-04T23:58:00.000-08:00

Ned Barnett (c) 2008
Updated 3/4/2008

Introduction

The primary purpose of this blog is to analyze candidates' public tactics (their PR efforts) and derive from them their behind-the-scenes strategies ... then, when appropriate, to critique those strategies based on more than three decades of PR and political campaign experience.

However, this post is a bit different, and with a reason. It appears that, in spite of her "big win" on Super Tuesday II, Senator Hillary Clinton has still not evolved an effective strategy for taking on (or taking down) Senator Barack Obama - when Obama's team pulled a fast one in Cleveland, Hillary's hands were tied - as Brit Hume said, "if she objects, she's likely to raise objections in the black community" - shorthand for "she'll look racist" ... or "Senator Obama is "Teflon" - if it touches on race, you can't touch him.

Beyond that, based on Senator McCain's recent disavowal of a conservative talk show host's introduction in Cincinnati (and his rather lackluster campaign performance since he first became the presumptive nominee), it seems that Senator McCain hasn't evolved a decent (i.e., a "winning") strategy for dealing with Senator Obama, either. He's so intent on being "above" politics-as-usual that it seems he may be giving Senator Obama - or even Senator Clinton - a free pass.

While Senator Clinton had a re-creation of her campaign tonight - after her three-out-of-four wins on Super Tuesday she's "alive," probably all the way to the convention - Senator Obama is still in the lead, and at this moment he's the odds-on favorite to go head-to-head with Senator McCain in November. And, as we've seen in the last two weeks (as I write this on March 4th), Senator McCain has already begun challenging Senator Obama ... but with kid gloves.

If nothing else, as Cincinnati demonstrated, Senator McCain is once again apparently turning members of his Conservative base back off by seeming to coddle Senator Obama's delicate sensibilities about his name and heritage, as well as his political voting record. Senator Obama, the most liberal Senator in Congress, doesn't like being called a "Liberal" any more than Senator Barack Hussain Obama likes to be reminded that he's the son of a Muslim. So, instead of taking Obama on by addressing the real issues, he skates around the edge citing credentials and issues that have not - to date - ignited the interest of the American electorate.

However, Senator McCain has got eight months to change that.

So - instead of outlining Hillary's current strategy (even though she won on Super Tuesday II, she still doesn't know how to engage Senator Obama, and frankly, panic isn't much of a strategy), I'm going to suggest what she should have done (and could still conceivably do,, though I doubt she'll dare to be even this bold) - and more important, what Senator McCain SHOULD do if he wants to win while still running a civil campaign against his Teflon-coated opponent-to-be, Senator Obama.

Full Disclosure - I first presented this strategy option in an interview earlier this week - before the debate - with a political reporter from Gannett News Service.

The Problem

Senator Obama is black, and that makes criticizing him particularly dangerous, especially among likely voters in the "politically correct" Democratic Party primary. Democrats and their liberal media allies are, by nature and choice, more concerned with political correctness than are Republicans and their conservative media allies - yet all but a few of the most self-confident conservatives still recoil in stark terror from any charge of racism. To an extent, this makes Obama "untouchable" to both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

To date, Hillary hasn't been able to evolve a strategy that:

a. Matters to voters - and is also strong enough to move the Democratic Party majority away from Senator Obama; and,

b. Is politically correct enough to pass the rigid Democrat/Media PC-Sniff Test without inviting a charge of racism

Bill Clinton tried - in a remarkably clumsy fashion, considering his own adroitly-Teflon-coated reputation - to raise the race issue without raising the race issue - comparing Obama's success in South Carolina, for instance, with that of Jesse Jackson in '84. That approach blew up in his face, and Hillary's, and some say it might cost her the nomination. However, it's not his inept effort, but Hillary's lack of an acceptable and effective "take down" strategy that is really stalling her campaign.

The Strategy:

Instead of taking Senator Obama on, head-t0-head, with criticisms that might be taken as racist, petty or mean-spirited, Hillary should have (are you listening, Senator McCain?) been painting word pictures - then raising troubling issue-oriented questions - questions that either Senator Obama can try to answer, or questions that voters will answer for themselves.

By "painting a picture," I'm talking about laying out a series of seemingly disconnected facts and conjectures on an issue. For instance, Hillary might have said:

"The Democratic Party has always been seen as a friend of Israel - from the time when Harry Truman boldly recognized the fledgling state of Israel in 1948 all the way to Bill Clinton's bold attempts to broker a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. As a lifelong Democrat, I am proud of my own lifelong support for Israel - and while I recognize that Israel must co-exist with - and cooperate with - the Palestinians, this cooperation cannot come at the cost of Israel's security or long-term future as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

"With that in mind, I want you to consider the following mosaic - put together these pieces of seemingly disconnected facts, then decide for yourself what this picture says. Senator Obama is the member of a church led by a black-separatist minister who has published a twelve-point program of separatism - the "Black Values System" - that many commentators suggest includes a strong anti-Israeli bias. Senator Obama, though he didn't ask for it and has publicly repudiated it, has been strongly endorsed by notorious anti-Semite black separatist and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Senator Obama has a Muslim father and for a time attended a Muslim school - and while not all Muslims oppose Israel, some do, and some of that doctrinal anti-Semitism may have rubbed off on the young Barack Obama, long before he was old enough to form his own conclusions.

"Looking further, reports have also recently surfaced in the press that, while an Illinois State Senator, Senator Obama took a strong pro-Palestinian position. Beyond that, Senator Obama has repeatedly pledged to meet - without precondition - with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite who is building nuclear weapons technology and who has pledged to destroy Israel.

"Each of these items, taken by themselves, appear to be trivial - but put together, this paints a potentially troubling picture that, especially if you support Israel as I do, suggests that a President Obama might well be no friend of Israel. But don't take my word for it - consider these facts carefully and dispassionately, then draw your own conclusions."

This same approach can be taken on many of Senator Obama's less voter-friendly positions, especially those that seem at odds with his public statements. For instance, taxes. In a debate - or in a speech, Senator Clinton could have said:

"Senator Obama, some call me a "tax-and-spend liberal," and while that's a right-wing knee-jerk reaction to progressive change, it is true that I intend to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to fund essential new social programs. However, it appears - if you look at the programs you advocate and the tax increases you've publicly supported - that you have taken this virtue and stood it on its ear. For instance, you have called for (list half-a-dozen expensive new social programs Senator Obama has advocated). To pay for this you - and other, independent experts - suggest that America will have to shell out $4 Trillion Dollars in new spending. From where I sit, Senator Obama, the only way to raise that kind of new revenue is to tax not only the wealthiest Americans - as I propose - but to also heavily tax the middle class.

"Toward that end, you have suggested removing the cap on Social Security taxes, and you have proposed (list three or four other new tax initiatives that Senator Obama has endorsed). Now I ask you: while each of these tax initiatives, taken by themselves, appears trivial, especially to the hard-working middle class whom you claim to represent. However, put together, the image of these across-the-board tax increases paint a picture - especially if you support tax relief for the middle class as I do - that suggests that Senator Obama intends to implement a major tax increase for America's hard-working middle class to fund his grab-bag of social programs. But don't take my word for it - instead, I invite you to paint for yourself, and draw your own conclusions."

This "Socratic"-like approach, especially if handled in a low-key, friendly manner - instead of in a confrontational and argumentative manner - does not come across as harsh, disrespectful or inherently racist. Who can argue against a friendly invitation to consider all the facts on issues that will really matter to broad segments of the electorate?

This approach does not directly attack Senator Obama. What it does do is pull together, jigsaw-puzzle-like, facts about Senator Obama's positions and his public statements - then invites either the audience to draw their own conclusions or Senator Obama to explain away these troubling facts and inconsistencies between his public face and his private actions.

Senator Clinton failed to do this - she's instead sniped at petty issues of little importance to Ohio voters - and to date, she has failed to dent the rising tide of Obama-mania. Shortly, Senator McCain will face this same challenge. He's made it clear that he won't "go negative" - but if he wants to win, he's got to convince independent voters to look at Senator Obama in a more inclusive light than is visible by the light of the halo the media's surrounded him with - and in doing so, to help independents make their own decisions, based on facts carefully linked together to show the man and his positions.

Remember, you heard it here first.

A Cautionary Tale for Senator McCain - Super Tuesday II's Results in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island

2008-03-04T23:06:00.001-08:00

Earlier this evening, Senator McCain comfortably locked up the Republican nomination with decisive wins in four state primaries on "Super Tuesday II." Governor Huckabee was remarkably generous and gracious in his concession speech - he's been a class act from beginning to end, and a refreshing change from the low-ball game played by some other candidates - and it should be said that Senator McCain has also opted for the "high road" in most of his efforts.

However, even as he is busy accepting his well-earned congratulations from friends and former competitors, Senator McCain should see tonight's vote as a cautionary tale - one that he needs to address before the Republican Convention ... one he should address right away.

There was no question before Super Tuesday II that Senator McCain was going to be the Republican nominee. He was shy a few delegates, but with only the zero-funded Governor Huckabee continuing to offer a challenge, no rational observer expected anything other than Candidate McCain. Certainly, Governor Huckabee knew this. More important, Governor Huckabee's supporters knew this, too.

However, with most of the votes counted (as I write this), it's clear that more than one million Republican voters took the time - and, in Ohio and the Northeast, braved the elements - to come out and vote AGAINST McCain. This wasn't the Rush Limbaugh-inspired cross-over vote for Hillary (to keep the blood-soaked internecine civil war alive in the Democratic Party), but rather a spontaneous, grass-roots uprising against Senator McCain's positions on tax cuts, border security, illegal immigration and a double-handful of other issues in which Senator McCain differs from the Conservative base of the Republican Party.

While McCain has won handily, he initially rose to the top because the Conservative vote was split in several ways, while McCain's resurrection of the "Rockefeller Wing" of the Republican Party went unchallenged for the moderate Republican votes - and in addition, Senator McCain did best, early on (when it really mattered) when Democrats and Independents could vote in the Republican Party - and exit polling showed that many did. In effect, between those cross-over votes and their own split between four (then three, then two) Conservative candidates, the Republican Party base's own fragmentation allowed Senator McCain to become the Party candidate, without ever earning a majority in those critical early primaries.

In effect, he won by attracting the largest plurality in elections where no candidate attracted a majority - but he did so in elections where all the Conservative candidates, when taken together, DID win a majority of the votes. Like President Clinton in 1992, he became the "plurality" winner, rather than the "majority" winner. Still, he won. That's history.

But in the face of that ultimately decisive victory, Senator McCain saw - tonight - well over a million Republicans come out and vote against him, casting ballots based on principle rather than on any hope that their votes would carry the day. That remarkable outpouring of Conservative discontent MUST be a warning signal to Senator McCain ... and if he's as smart a candidate as his track record seems to demonstrate, he'd better listen long and hard to that warning signal.

Senator McCain - "the natives are restless" - the base that you MUST have in order to win in November has just given you a bold and committed vote of no-confidence. That's the bad news. The good news - you've got eight full months to change your tune and decisively prove to your base that you're worthy of their support, their passionate support - as well as their votes. You need their money. You need their volunteer door-to-door commitment. You need their passion - you need them to believe in you every bit as much as you believe in yourself.

You've got eight months to close that deal - but you'll be struggling to overcome 25 years of aisle-crossing baggage. You may find that you'll need every minute of those eight months, and if you're smarter than your campaign advisors, you'll start today.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Israel or Palestine - Where do Senator Obama's Loyalties Lie (updated 3/4/08)

2008-03-04T23:05:00.001-08:00

Israel or Palestine – Where do Obama’s Loyalties Lie?

Updated 3/4/2008

Introduction: This is not (quite) a typical blog in the ongoing series, Barnett on PR and Politics – however, I was asked to write this by a friend who shares my political views and passions regarding Israel. Following Senator Obama’s triple-defeat earlier tonight, and following publication of the item covered in #7 below, issues of his support for issues dear to the hearts of Democratic voters will move to center stage, and none is more potentially volatile than that of his position on Israel. Here is what I come up with:

***

Ralph Nader – notoriously no friend of Israel – made some intriguing comments while talking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press on February 24^th. His comments have raised the question of Obama’s stand on Israel, a stand he’s been careful to obscure since he began his run for the Presidency.

Nader said: “… on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates – so don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He (Obama) was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran – during the state Senate.”

Going beyond Nader’s comments, there are some questions that every Democrat who supports Israel should be asking themselves about Senator Obama. Once they’ve satisfied themselves on the truth behind the facts of his life story, they should ask the Senator, in light of his life-experience and his public stances, where he stands on Israel. In doing so, they should expect detailed answers instead of being brushed off – accused of being racist or Islamophobic – and therefore not worthy of real answers. This fear-of-racism-charges shielded protected Senator Obama from his opponents during the primaries, but that same fear shouldn’t protect him from answering the questions of very real potential supporters, friends of Israel who have a legitimate “need-to-know” before they vote on the next President of the United States.

A fact that often gets obscured in the push-and-pull of American politics is this: The Democratic Party has always been seen as a friend of Israel, dating from the time when Harry Truman boldly recognized the fledgling state of Israel in 1948 all the way to Bill Clinton's nearly as bold attempts to broker a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. In addition, Democrats – as individuals – generally support Israel. Most recognize that Israel must co-exist with – and cooperate with – the Palestinians, but they know that this cooperation cannot come at the cost of Israel's security or long-term future as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

With that in mind, consider for yourself the following mosaic – put together these pieces of seemingly disconnected facts, then decide for yourself what this picture says about Senator Obama.

1. Senator Obama is the member of a church led by a black-separatist minister who has published a twelve-point program of separatism – the "Black Values System" – one that many commentators suggest includes a strong anti-Israeli bias. Does that – at least potentially – color Senator Obama’s personal and political views on Israel?

2. Senator Obama, though he didn't ask for it and has publicly repudiated it, has been strongly endorsed by notorious anti-Semite black separatist and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Something must have attracted Farrakhan to Obama, even if the attraction isn’t mutual. Does that “something” – at least potentially – color Senator Obama’s personal and political views on Israel?

3. Senator Obama has a Muslim father and, though he was registered as a Christian, for a time attended a Muslim madrassa school in Indonesia. And while it is true that not all Muslims oppose Israel and not all madrassas train anti-Israel extremists, at least some do, and it is possible that some of that doctrinal anti-Semitism may have rubbed off on the young Barack Obama, long before he was old enough to form his own conclusions. Does that early experience – at least potentially – color Senator Obama’s personal and political views on Israel?

4. Reports have also recently surfaced in the press – some based on Ralph Nader’s comments, but others based on original research – that, earlier in his career and while he was serving as an Illinois State Senator, Senator Obama took a strong pro-Palestinian position. How do these reports “square with” his more recent pro-forma statements made in support of Israel – and which of these views more accurately reflect the Senator’s personal and political views on Israel?

5. Senator Obama has repeatedly pledged to meet – without precondition – with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite who is building nuclear weapons technology and who has pledged to destroy Israel. How does this “square with” Senator Obama’s more recent statements – made after he’d decided to run for President – in support of Israel? Is there an essential conflict here, or are the two views compatible?

6. Senator Obama has repeatedly pledged to very quickly pull all American troops out of Iraq, and reduce our “footprint” and “commitment” to peace in the middle east. How does this position “square with” Senator Obama’s stated support for Israel? In a region turned upside-down – in part because of American intervention in Iraq, along with its ongoing war against al Qaeda – how can America support Israel from 6,000 miles away? Perhaps there is a way – and if so, can Senator Obama articulate how that will work?

7. Senator Obama has received campaign contributions from a Chicago area college professor, who also served as the leader of the pro-PLO organization AAAN; he also served as head of the media wing of the PLO in Lebanon, at a time when the US government still designated the PLO a terrorist organization. The professor also had Senator Obama speak at several events. Related to this, the World Net Daily online news organization reported: “The board of a nonprofit organization on which Senator Barack Obama served as a paid director serving alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, this organization granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and the group also supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.”

Each of these items, taken by themselves, may appear to be trivial – although the final news report, if validated, could prove to be a bombshell in the general election – but taken as individual items, perhaps they are trivial. However, when put together, these items seem to paint a potentially troubling picture that – especially if you support Israel – suggests that a President Obama might well be no friend of Israel. But consider these facts carefully and dispassionately, and look at his more recent positions taken after he knew he’d be running for President, then draw your own conclusions.

Remember, you heard it here first!

Same Strategy – Different Results?

2008-03-02T19:51:00.000-08:00

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over …

And expecting different results."

– Benjamin Franklin

By Benjamin Franklin’s provocative definition, at the eleventh hour, Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy has gone from merely not working to one that fits his definition of insane. This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is insane – focused, to be sure, but not insane. However, her strategy of doing the same thing and expecting different results is – if not actually insane – at least counterproductive.

She’s got a new ad on TV this weekend, a new ad with a very old message. I’m referring to her “3 a.m. phone-ringing” ad. If you think about the strategy behind that ad, then clearly, Hillary is once again claiming that she has the greater foreign policy experience and, therefore – if something, somewhere in the world, goes all to hell at 3 in the morning – she is clearly the most qualified person to lead the country. Specifically, this ad says:

To the sound of a ringing phone, the Clinton ad shows children sleeping at night and a mother checking on a child as an announcer says a phone is ringing in the White House and something has happened in the world.

"Your vote will decide who answers that call," the voice says. "Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military – someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."

It ends with an image of Clinton on the telephone as the announcer reprises the line, "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep," and adds: “Who do you want answering the phone?"

Beyond the fact that Senator Obama was easily able to counter this ad, by focusing on judgment rather than experience, there are (at least) two things wrong with this ad.

First, and most obvious, under the criteria Senator Clinton has laid out, Republican Senator John McCain is far and away the most experienced candidate. After all, McCain has served in Congress uninterrupted since the Reagan administration, easily trumping Clinton’s 1.3 term tenure in the Senate. More important, perhaps, prior to his Congressional service, McCain had put in a long and successful (and character-validating) stint in the U.S. Navy. If foreign policy experience is indeed the primary criteria for Presidential leadership, then John McCain is clearly the most experienced, and therefore the most qualified, person to lead the country. Is that really what Hillary wanted to imply? Probably not – but this gaffe isn’t the worst strategic error to be found in this ad.

More directly important, ever since the primary campaign in Iowa, Hillary has been pounding the platform proclaiming her superior experience – and, therefore, her superior qualifications – to be the Democratic candidate for President. And ever since that primary campaign in Iowa, Democratic Party voters have repeatedly stated that they prefer a fresh face over an experienced candidate. And that choice hasn’t even been close. Overall, the relatively inexperienced Senator Barack Obama has attracted more than 1,000,000 MORE Democratic Party voters than has Senator Hillary Clinton – and, while she has effectively hammered him on experience, he’s nonetheless gone on to win (as I write this) 11 straight state primary elections.

Republicans clearly value foreign-policy experience. John McCain, who has arguably the most foreign policy experience of any Republican candidate this year, easily blew away Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, knocking them both of them out of contention early in the election cycle. However, the Democrats have chosen a different path. While Hillary has several more years in the Senate than Barack Obama, and while she lays claim to “experience” because of her ceremonial foreign policy role as First Lady, the Democrats have nonetheless gone for the fresh face and the appealing dual promises of hope and change. Foreign policy experience just doesn’t seem to matter – or, perhaps, it doesn’t seem to matter enough to change Obama supporters’ minds.

Sticking with that failed strategy when she’s right down to the make-or-break wire smacks of the kind of strategic insanity Ben Franklin was talking about. Instead of putting questions to Senator Obama that might give primary voters pause – instead of demonstrating his lack of experience, or his extremely Liberal stance on issues facing America … or even his no-show record of non-voting in the Senate, she has gone back to hammering him on experience.

Remember, you heard it here first!

War … Good God, Y'all … What is it Good For?

2008-03-01T14:32:00.000-08:00

Introduction

This column - rather than looking at a particular political PR tactic and examining the strategy behind it - looks at the so-called "war" in Iraq, and examine what may be the real strategy behind America's continued presence in the Middle East.

Is it a "War" We're In, In Iraq?

First, before we answer that perennial rock-and-roll question, we have to ask, are we at war? We call it a war on terrorism, but we also refer to efforts to stop the massive import of illicit drugs into the US “the war on drugs” – and that’s clearly not a war (and not particularly effective, either).

Frankly, as a life-long military historian, I don't consider what we've got in Iraq or Afghanistan a "war" - or even much of a skirmish. More Americans in the same age cohorts as our uniformed and deployed soldiers die in domestic auto accidents each year than die in the Middle East. This suggests (oddly, but factually) that it's safer to be in uniform in the so-called “war zone” than it is to be out of uniform here in the US (and since I lost a military-aged son to a traffic accident you can be assured that I've checked those stats carefully).

What we have is an occupation, not a war – a damned expensive occupation, to be sure, but an occupation. It has more in common with our presence in Korea since 1953 than it does with any active combat America has seen since the period from 1781 (when we defeated the British at Yorktown) and 1783 (when the peace treaty was finally signed, sealed and delivered). Our Middle East presence today has a fair amount in common with the low-level of military activity that characterized the Pax Brittanica during the latter half of Queen Victoria’s reign - except we don’t have an empire and aren’t trying to create one. It’s an armed peace, rather than a real war.

Why Are We Still There?

However, we generally perceive it as a war, if only because such a high percentage of our uniformed military is on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. But there's one glaring fact that most Americans – and apparently most of the American media – don't seem to realize. Clearly, if they do appreciate it, they fail to embrace the implications of this glaring fact. In recent discussion with uniformed reserve unit commanders, I have confirmed that a numerical majority of our deployed forces are serving in this “war zone” in non-combat roles. They are fulfilling, primarily, "hearts-and-minds" kinds of activities, rather than tackling the combat roles most Americans assume they’re involved with.

As a personal note, I think this kind of civil affairs activities – rebuilding schools and bridges, digging wells, providing medical services, even training local police and militia forces – could all be accomplished more easily by hired civilians than by our uniformed soldiers. However, I don’t think this will happen. To be sure, such a transition would free our soldiers for military activities and dramatically reduce our military “footprint” in this part of the world. However, these civil affairs activities are carried out – and will continued to be carried out – by the military, in part because these civil affairs “hearts-and-minds” kinds of activities get budgeted out as "war" expenses. Which is nonsense, but it is nonetheless politically-expedient nonsense, embraced by both sides, so the charade will continue.

War opponents want to keeps soldiers performing civil affairs activities because the larger military presence this requires creates a larger target – they can cite the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and other uniformed personnel “in-country,” as well as the hundreds of billions of dollars required to keep them there, as reasons for opposing our continued presence. A small, economical military force made up solely of war-fighters would be a much smaller, much less significant target.

Why are We Really There?

On the other side, the pro-war leadership wants to keep the largest American footprint possible in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if the uniformed troopers are performing non-combat and even non-military functions. Why? Because their presence there provides for regional stability by keeping Syria’s President Bashar Al-Asad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from exercising their stated desire to destroy Israel. In the process, our armed forces in the Middle East prevent a nuclear exchange the world can ill-afford.

Sound far-fetched? Well, listen more closely. With Ahmadinejad busily crafting nukes – or at least developing the capability for quickly creating and deploying nukes – and with his frequent and public threats against Israel, our forces in the Middle East are the best single means of defense against a nuclear exchange. Ahmadinejad knows that if he uses nuclear weapons in an area where the US has deployed forces, he’s inviting a massive nuclear retaliation. That has always been the US policy when facing WMDs, and it’s not likely to change, regardless of who’s President.

If America dismantles our “buffer” presence and leaves the Middle East, and if Ahmadinejad gets strong enough, Israel – if it wants to continue to exist – will feel compelled to pull a 1967-like preemptive war or a 1981-style preemptive strike. Remember, it was on June 7, 1981 that Israeli warplanes struck at Saddam Hussain’s Osirak nuclear facility – preventing that dictator from creating nuclear weapons and sparing the world from a regional nuclear war in the 20^th century.

At that time, Iraq had but a single nuclear facility and Israel had attack aircraft and conventional weapons with enough range and striking power to take that facility out. Today, Iran has more than 50 nuclear program-related sites, some buried below the level that any non-nuclear weapon can reach. If America abandons this region, all that Israel will have with which to take out Ahmadinejad’s nuclear capability are their own unacknowledged – but nonetheless real - nuclear weapons.

President Bush knows this, though of course – after his failure to turn up WMDs in Iraq – he’s not going to trumpet it publicly. Hillary Clinton knows this – when Bill was President they faced the same issue, though with Saddam Hussain instead of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and reacted by instituting periodic air attacks that kept Saddam destabilized and relatively impotent. Retired warrior John McCain has surely figured this out – it’s a latter-day example of nuclear brinksmanship that constituted our military strategy when he was in the service.

Barack Obama could be forgiven for not having made the connection – as a very junior Senator, he wouldn’t have access to the inside strategy, and as someone primarily focused on domestic politics, he may not have looked behind the curtain to see what the Wizard was really up to. However, as America gears up for its next election – with Iraq as a potentially decisive issue – all the candidates need to consider the regional and strategic “real reason” why are troops are there, nation-building in the Middle East and maintaining a “force in being” deterrent to a devastating regional nuclear war.

These candidates – as well as the media and the voting public – should keep in mind that, as expensive as is our current presence is in the Middle East, whatever the stated PR reasons for our presence, we are really there (or at least also there) to prevent the world’s first nuclear exchange since 1945. Considering Middle Eastern oil and its role in the world economy, this is one nuclear exchange that the world really can't afford – but (absent our presence) it is also one nuclear exchange that the world can't stop. We, alone, have the strength of arms and – at least for the present – the strength of will to remain in a buffer position in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we have served for 55 years along the DMZ in Korea.

Here’s the bottom line: Whatever our stated intent, we prevent a real nuclear war between Iran and Israel just by being there.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Hoist By Their Own Petard ... Feminists Skewered in Their Own Words

2008-02-27T11:24:00.000-08:00

Note: This is not - technically - an analysis of a candidate's PR efforts and an exploration of the strategy behind those actions. Instead, it's a book review of a book by Dr. Mike Adams (UNC-Wilmington) - Feminists Say the Darndest Things - that looks at feminists' actions and documents their underlying strategy. This is a remarkably good book.

Dr. Mike Adams is a skilled author and a true satirist, and his latest book is written in the spirit of Jonathan Swift. Adams uses words like rapiers (warning to feminists: rapier is to rape as niggardly is to ... well, to the "n" word - i.e., they don't mean anything like the same thing). This bad pun (mine) is something akin to the real skewering Dr. Adams gives to feminist individuals - and the feminist movement - that are making our college campuses today less fun - and far less instructive - than they've been in the past. Would that there be more honest "insider" assessments of the world of the Ivory Tower today - and, perhaps, fewer "true believers" intent on imposing their views on the world, whether the world wants them or not.

You've heard the expression, "I couldn't put this book down." I feel that way - since it arrived from Amazon on Monday, the book has been my constant companion - I've read it at red lights, waiting in line at the drive-through, in my doctor's office (waiting for my annual physical) and over several meals. It is episodic enough to be read in brief snatches, yet compelling enough to stay by your side - like a bag of potato chips you can't put down - until it's finished. If, like me, it left you wanting more, I suggest Dr. Adams' first book, "Ivory Tower of Babel," or his regular column at Townhall.com: http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams. However, as much as I liked his first book (hint: a lot) and his regular columns (ditto), I like this latest book even more. It is hard-hitting, to the point ... and relentless in it's successful quest to skewer feminists with their own words.

Other reviewers have itemized the features - but let me highlight a few features, such as:

The lesbian feminist academic who wrote a scholarly paper (published, if you can believe that) on how "queer studies" should be expanded to include love-of-pets (yes, "that kind" of love).

The feminist student who was so outraged at Dr. Adams that she had her daddy write him a nasty note.

The feminist professor who stayed with another professor not her husband (he was also married) at a conference, then bragged about it to her class in vivid detail, then said "what?" when asked if this was academically, professionally or morally appropriate.

The married feminist professor who was hitting on a (male) candidate for a teaching position, and who got outraged at another married feminist professor who was doing the same thing, on the same campus visit.

There are so many more, but half the joy of this book is unearthing the next absurdity.

Beyond that, as a two-times adjunct professor at two state universities, as an administrator at two state colleges, and as the father of a full-time academic professor now in his second major university post, I know from first-hand that Mike Adams' observations ring true. Chapter and verse. Been there and done that.

His wit is sharp, his logic unassailable, his facts clearly substantiated and his targets fairly skewered (usually by their own words and deeds), Mike Adams is in top form. If you have a child heading for college - or if you pay taxes that support a state college - this book ought to be required reading. And, if you have a real concern about today's cultural moral relativity - and want some facts to support that concern, Read This Book!

Here is the Amazon listing: http://www.amazon.com/Feminists-Say-Darndest-Things-Politically/dp/1595230424/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204140512&sr=8-1

Campaign Strategy Watch: The Old White Guy in a Suit Strategy (Why - unless he loosens up and ditches his suit for denims - McCain REALLY Can't Win)

2008-02-22T13:21:00.001-08:00

It's long been said that Republicans tend to nominate the candidates who are next in line - who can lay claim to "it's my turn." That was offered to explain Bush 41 and Dole in '96 ... and it may come into play in 2008 as well.

But I'd like to offer an alternative answer. I call it the "old white guy in a suit" strategy. For as long as I can remember, Republicans seem enamored of the "old white guy in a suit ..." Sometimes, this works - hence Reagan - but mostly, it doesn't - especially when the Democratic Party offers someone other than an old white guy in a suit themselves.

Reagan - an old white guy in a suit - beat Jimmy Carter, another old white guy in a suit (and if you remember, Carter looked about 150 years old in 1980 - the Presidency had taken a real toll). So he had a chance, and won. Then in '84, Mondale was the quintessential old-looking white guy in the suit - he made Reagan, who was our oldest living President and a man who'd been gut-shot, too boot - as if he was young, fresh and vibrant.

Based on this theory, Bush 41 might have been an anomaly in '88 - but Dukakis was America's first Kamikaze Kandidate, and did himself in by riding in tanks and talking about empaneling committees if his wife was raped. A chimpanzee in dirty diapers could have beat the Duke, and even an old white guy in a suit like Bush 41 won with ease.

But four years later, Bush 41 was a successful war leader (and those guys almost always win) and - if you looked closely - the mild '91/'92 recession was already over by election day, and incumbent Presidents who preside over rising economies usually win, too. Incumbents Carter and Ford both lost in downturn economies, but Nixon - even in the shadow of Watergate and the "never-ending war" in Vietnam, won handily, in part because the economy still seemed strong (that quickly changed, but he'd already won re-election), and in part because first Humphrey and then McGovern looked like older white guys in suits.

However, with all that put together, Bush '41 was an old white guy in a suit, and he lost to a young, vibrant and with-it (boxers or briefs/saxophone on Arsenio) guy who seemed to prefer shirt-sleeves to suits. So Clinton won in '92, a young hip guy beating an old white man in a suit.

Four years later, against that still-young, still-hip, still-with-it President in shirt-sleeves, the Republicans - having lost with an old white guy who looked good in a suit - decided to run an older white guy who looked worse in a suit. The issue was never in doubt.

Bush '43 seemed comfortable in shirt-sleeves, and like Reagan, he seemed to really like his working ranch. This time the Democrats screwed up, running two old white guys in suits - first Gore (who looked older than Bush 43) and Kerry, (who looked a lot older than Bush). Gore looked uncomfortable in his suits (he looks uncomfortable in his skin) and - while Kerry looked just fine in his tailored Savile Row suits, he looked remarkably uncomfortable in duck-hunting waders or anything other than a suit. So in those two elections, the Democrats adopted the "old white guy in a suit" strategy, and lost.

Which brings us to 2008. The Democrats are - at this writing - fighting it out between the first WOMAN Presidential candidate and the first BLACK Presidential candidate - neither of whom is an old white guy in a suit.

Hillary, in her "uniform" pants-suits, is 20 years older than Obama, and she's white, too - and in part, I think that's why Obama is (the day after his 10th straight win in Wisconsin) is doing so well.

Obama isn't old - he's about the youngest viable Presidential candidate in US history - and he isn't white - but even without those traditional attributes, Obama looks remarkably good in a suit ... but he also looks comfortable in shirt-sleeves. When was the last time you saw Hillary in anything but an ugly pants-suit (she looks like Dole in drag). But even with Hillary's pants-suit fetish, she's not an old white guy in a suit.

But McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate in 2008, is the oldest candidate (who's not an incumbent) who's running for the Presidency, and like Dole, he doesn't look good in a suit - though he wears one on most occasions. So, in the face of something really new, the Republicans seem hell-bent on nominating the quintessential "old white guy in a suit" - and one who, like the Republican's most recent failure in the "old white guy in a suit" sweepstakes, doesn't look good in a suit.

Based on this often-ignored by historically decisive factor alone, McCain doesn't stand a chance ... and Hillary is not far behind in the "no-chance" sweepstakes (though I've learned to never count out a Clinton until he - or she - is dead-and-buried, and even then I wouldn't be entirely sure until after I'd personally driven a wooden stake through their hearts).

The "old white guy in a suit" strategy isn't going to work - again - and unless McCain rolls up his sleeves and starts wearing blue jeans and denim work shirts (as Bush '43 has done), he's doomed before he starts.

Remember, you heard it here first.

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

2008-02-22T13:00:00.000-08:00

By Ned Barnett

This is an update of a blog-article I wrote in 2004, talking about the remarkable fact that honorable war service has - for the past 50 years - had no measurable and positive impact on who's elected President. Because it now looks like Republican war veteran John McCain will be going up against one of two non-veterans - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - and lots of Republicans are pinning their hopes on McCain because we're at war and because McCain has combat experience.

Unless there's a major terror incident shortly before the election - an al Qaeda "October Surprise," my analysis of the last 12 Presidential elections suggests that McCain's military service will not give him a decisive advantage. If he wants to win, he'll have to find a compelling reason other than his military service to justify his candidacy.

With a few edits, here's the analysis from 2004, updated as appropriate:

***

I 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 military service in time of war and Presidential 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 although Kennedy's was far more dramatic, 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, who was an Annapolis Midshipman during the war. Combat service clearly wasn't significant as a benefit for Ford.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan (he was an actor-in-uniform, and even he 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: Decorated Navy Combat Pilot George H.W. Bush defeated veteran Mike 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: Admitted Vietnam-era draft dodger Bill Clinton handily 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 Kerrey (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 in 2000 - losing out, ultimately, to another Vietnam vet who had a far more questionable service record, and who later made his mark by lying before Congress about American atrocities in that war.

Item: George W. Bush's relatively anemic National Guard record as a fighter pilot, vs. the almost equally anemic service record of nominal Vietnam non-combat veteran Al Gore (he was a reporter for Stars & Stripes, and was released early to go to Divinity School that he quickly flunked out of) 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 - and although his wounds were accidentally self-inflicted, his other service was clearly heroic. 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 service - or opposition to Vietnam - has proved to be an attraction position that didn't work. This was seductive as an issue, especially to candidates who think they can exploit it, but ultimately Vietnam has always proved to be a fatal attraction for those who thought they could 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 – even 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, when he lied to Congress about non-existent atrocities supposedly committed by American combat troopers.

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

***

2008 Postscript:

John McCain is the only military veteran in the 2008 Presidential election. Many think that - during a war against terrorism - this will help him win. History suggests that they are wrong. For McCain to defeat his Democratic opponent, he will have to find a rationale for his Presidency that doesn't include his honorable service or his very real sacrifices as a POW. Historically, these just don't matter.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Campaign Strategy Watch - "Disappointed?" The Dukakis Strategy ...

2008-02-22T10:03:00.000-08:00

Full Disclosure: I start from the assumption that John McCain is truly innocent of the unsourced and unsubstantiated charges levied against him by the New York Times.

Here's the situation: if McCain's guilty (which I don't believe for a second) his "Dukakis" denial strategy seems perfectly appropriate.

But if he's truly innocent, his full-frontal Dukakis-like "I'm disappointed in the Times" response was damningly tepid.

As an American, as a husband and as a man, McCain should have been outraged - after all, this story could not only disrupt his campaign, it has the potential to destroy his marriage as well. But instead honest outrage, he adopted the "Dukakis Strategy," making it clear that he is politely "disappointed."

Strategically, McCain clearly didn't want to attack the essentially liberal "pundit-ocracy," and in that goal, he succeeded admirably. While denying the Times' story, he said nothing that would offend the self-appointed talking head experts at CNN, MSNBC or the Washington Post. But in taking this "safe" Dukakis Strategy approach, McCain has cut himself off from main street Americans who expect passion and commitment from their leaders.

Though it's too late now, there was a better way - see below. But first, the "Dukakis Strategy" explained:

The "Dukakis Strategy" reflects Michael Dukakis' campaign-killing reply to Bernie Shaw's question in the second 1988 Presidential Debate: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

This softball question was intended - CNN admits on their website - "to give Dukakis an opportunity to show - and the voters an opportunity to see - the emotional side of a candidate dubbed by many as the 'Ice Man.'"

However, the Duke's famously bland and passionless response: "No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state," helped to torpedo the Duke's campaign.

Americans want flesh-and-blood Presidents, not automatons, and instead of showing his inner feelings, Dukakis proved his passionless personality.

Which brings us back to McCain's bloodless "I'm disappointed" response. No "normal" man, faced with bogus charges that threaten his career - and his marriage - would respond so tepidly. For a man who tries to project the image of a sleeves-rolled-up fighter ready to "take it to al Qaeda from Day-One," this bland response will hurt. Perhaps not fatally, but his adoption of the Dukakis Strategy certainly damages his image.

What should he have done?

McCain should have demanded satisfaction in a court of law, using his own life-story as precedent. McCain is a Naval Academy graduate, and he knows that - when a Naval Officer is accused of something that damages his reputation - he has the right to demand a court martial to clear his good name.

McCain knows, of course, that no court would find against the New York Times - McCain's the ultimate "public figure" and it's hard to "legally" libel a public figure - but in a court of law, McCain could have gotten the truth out, forcing the Times to reveal their sources or admit that they were wrong.

Instead of "disappointed," McCain should have said something like this:

"This libelous story is an outrage - completely false from beginning to end, and profoundly hurtful to my wife and my reputation. I not only believe this, I intend to prove it. My attorneys will be filing a lawsuit later today, charging the Times with malicious libel. This is the only way that I can officially and publicly clear my good name.

"I fully realize that as a "public figure," I can't win a financial settlement - but that's not my intention anyway. Therefore, to prove my innocence and to regain my reputation for honesty and integrity, I will be suing the Times ... for one dollar. In the US Navy, when an officer's reputation is tarnished by a false charge, he has the right to demand a court martial to clear his name - and I am doing exactly that.

"The Times is wrong, and in a court of law, I will prove exactly that."

This bold strategy would have put the Times on the defensive - they have no valid sources, and can't prove their bogus story. Yet to defend themselves, they'd have to try to prove the story is correct ... or admit that they were wrong.

Beyond that, this strategy would have shows McCain to be a bold leader who will defend what is right - and a man who will go to any lengths to protect his family, as well as his country.

I know this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its best - it is far too late for McCain to change his response - but maybe he'll consider this and do better the next time. Because, having provided such a lame response, he's only emboldened others who will come up with even more rancorous charges.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Campaign Strategy Watch - Ms. Obama's Real Purpose in Her "Pride" Comment

2008-02-21T13:38:00.000-08:00

Michelle Obama made what the media quickly began characterizing as a "minor gaffe" - but instead of a gaffe (minor or major), her "first time I've been proud of my country" was a shrewd and calculating PR exercise in Realpolitik - the fine art of winning by taking whatever pragmatic actions need to be taken to win. She knew exactly what she was doing, and what she did was nothing short of brilliant.

Michelle Obama is indeed a brilliant woman. Princeton undergrad, with honors, and Harvard Law. Prestigious Chicago Law firm. Beyond that, whe's got quite a career: Associate Dean at the University of Chicago; Boards of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools and Tree House Foods; and Vice President, Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

Independent-minded, she goes her own way. When Barack Obama was elected to the Senate, she chose to stay in Chicago ("for the children" - but also to keep her lucrative job) - instead of Michelle uprooting, Barack commutes. In short, she's comfortable with a political marriage - and having been through the mire more than once (Chicago politics is nothing if not rough-and-tumble), so she knows how to campaign.

So ... when Michelle said - twice - that for the first time in her life, she was proud of America (for embracing her husband's candidacy with a minimum of racism), she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. She was sending a very deliberate message to the Left that she and Barack are "one of them," and in doing so, she effectively and persuasively reached that half of the Democratic Left who tell pollsters that they're not proud of America.

Michelle knew there would be flak - and she gambled that the short-term benefits of reminding liberal Democratic primary voters that Barack Obama is farther left than Hillary would outweigh the long-term risk in a general election.

Realpolitik time - to get to the general election, you've got to first win the primaries.

If Barack Obama can nail down the nomination by sweeping the next Super Tuesday (March 4th), he will have eight full months to "fix" the impression this "gaffe" - which was a calculated PR move and no gaffe at all - with the general public.

But Barack is facing a formidable opponent - Hillary - who all the pundits believe will do anything to win the nomination. In the face of that implacable opportunism, bold actions are necessary.

Yet because Barack Obama has concluded - probably correctly - that he needs to retain the public high road to be seen as a real "change" from traditional Washington. So he turned to his wife. Thanks to rampant political correctness among the mainstream news media, Michelle - because she's both black and a woman - is more than a bit "invulnerable" from really strong media criticism. This means she is able to take stands he dare not take.

So she sent a strong, controversial PR-driven message to the far Left electorate - "like you, we're not proud of America - but Barack's candidacy, and Presidency, will change that for you, as it's changed that for me."

Michelle Obama knew exactly what she was doing - and strategically, her PR stunt was nothing short of brilliant.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Campaign Strategy Watch: Romney Bows Out ... Forever

2008-02-20T13:17:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney saw his dreams crumble during the early primaries. He had a reasonable strategy - use his vast wealth and abundant free time to make sure he won Iowa and New Hampshire (which, because it's next to Massachusetts, should have been a "gimme" for the former Mass Governor). With two impressive early wins, he'd be able to survive a poor showing in South Carolina and sweep into Super Tuesday as the presumptive candidate. Based on his charm, aplomb, wealth and "bio," this should have worked. It was a straightforward, conventional, hard-to-stop strategy.

Except for one thing - like the pet food ad that didn't work, "the dogs didn't like the food."

Iowans, having seen and heard and met him face-to-face for more than a year, didn't sufficiently like him - his loss to the resource-challenged Huckabee proved this. Then New Hampshire threw him under the bus to go with McCain (the assassination in Pakistan obviously helped the only former warrior in the election).

So, after hanging on for a few more disappointing failures in primaries he'd hoped his "Big Mo" would carry him through, he decided to stop pouring good money after bad and dropped out.

But he's a young-looking 62, which meant he'd have another chance to become the Republican's favorite "next-time" conservative. Except for one thing. He endorsed McCain, the bane of the hard-core right wing of the Republican Party.

In the future, he might be forgiven for his Massachusetts flip on social issues such as abortion; but endorsing the Left-loving non-conservative McCain (left-loving? Look at the bills he's co-sponsored: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman - then look at the way that grass roots conservatives (as opposed to those professional media and political conservatives angling for influence or a cabinet post in the McCain administration) have failed to warm up to McCain.

Bottom line: When Romney threw in with McCain, he severed his ties to real grass-roots conservatives and signaled his decision: "I will not run in 2012."

Remember, you heard it here first ... as a Presidential candidate, Romney's through, and he knows it.

Sad News for a Friend in Israel

2006-09-08T12:27:00.000-07:00

Ned Barnett
(c) 2006

On the day that Israel accepted the UN-brokerd "cease-fire," I sent this (below) to a friend and professional colleague, "David," who owns a PR firm in Israel. Like me, he's a strong advocate of a strong Israel. I think this assessment of what this so-called cease fire really means, to Israel, to America, to the Middle East (and, though they don't give a damn, the world) is on-target, and worth sharing more broadly.

David -

You need to know how this so-called "cease fire" is playing in the US. I mean this as no attack on you - it was your country's elected government that struck this shameful surrender to terror, not you - but a "shameful surrender" and "defeat" is just how the US (and the world) now sees Israel's retreat from confronting terror.

This does not bode well for Israel.

For instance, it will be much harder for America to support Israel in the future, especially if we have to take the heat for that support. After all, if your government won't take the heat, the reasoning will go, why should we? As bad - or perhaps even worse - this does not bode well for US activities targeting terrorists throughout the middle east. We will now be seen as the ally of a paper tiger, one on the losing side. It's tragic - and I've got to wonder what in hell your government leaders were thinking in "making peace" with terrorists who think nothing of strapping bombs on children to blow up Israelis, let alone pumping hundreds of high-explosive war rockets into civilian neighborhhoods. To my mind, the only peace you make with terrorists like that is the peace of the grave - their grave. Israel used to know this.

As I said, this is not going to play well in the US - at least not from the perspective of those who support Israel and who believe that there can be no quarter asked or given when fighting terrorists. Here's how I see the "take" on the cease fire, here in the US.

1. Expert "pundits" are already all over the Sunday TV talk shows and on cable news (not to mention in the New York Times), proclaiming that Hezbollah won their war with Israel. This now-legitimized terrorist organization has defeated the once-feared IDF, and in doing so, they have forced the Israeli government into a shameful negotiated armistice. This, they say, is a virtual surrender, and they're right. This cease fire leaves Hezbollah strong and in place, while it has shattered what's left of Israel's "moral high ground" (that which came because Hezbollah started the war). Israel is no longer seen as formidable, nor is it seen as standing on the high ground, nor even seen as willing to defend itself. That's today's news, the media's spin, on this cease fire.

2. If they haven't already done so, American friends of Israel are now on the verge of giving up. They are wondering - perhaps rightly - why they should speak out, or take the heat, when Israel's own elected government clearly doesn't have the spinal fortitude (i.e., the backbone) to stand up to terror. When Israel would rather cut-and-run, taking the first easy out and leaving their friends hanging, twisting slowly in the wind, why should their friends in America stand strong for them?

3. This defeat of Israel (for that is how it is perceived by enemies of Israel - and, sadly, by her friends as well) undermines the entire US position in the Middle East - and in the process, it makes those on the American Left who demand a quick withdrawal of US forces from the region feel far more powerful. How can we, they reason, stand up to terror when our strongest (perhaps our only real) ally in the Middle East would rather give in to terror than to fight it? More important, they ask, WHY - why should we bother to fight terrorists, and take casualties, when Israel would rather surrender to Hezbollah as soon as the blood-price started to hurt, just a bit?

4. Terrorists everywhere now know that democracies cannot stand the heat - we cannot stay the course and stand up to terror. Worse, they now know that all they have to do to win is to survive, to wait out the freedom-loving democracies, who cannot stand against terror (or the casualties inflicted by terrorists). Israel has shown that their long-suffering democracy - one that was once ready to pay any price for freedom - cannot now stand even moderate casualties inflicted in a short-term, "sanitized" war, no matter how many rockets hit the homeland, no matter how many innocent civilians back home pay the ultimate blood-price for your government's unwillingness to fight evil. That is a terrible message to send to terrorists, yet what else should they deduce from this surrender to Hezbollah?

Bottom line: Israel's friends feel that they were sold down the river by your elected government - and they will wonder why they should ever again stand up for Israel, when clearly Israel won't stand up for herself - while Israel's enemies have been emboldened as never before.

This has got to be a bitter pill for you, David, but if I'm right (I hope I'm not, but I fear I am) things will only get worse for you and your country. Terrorists - Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other crazies - they'll all now see you as a toothless old tiger. Eager for blood and victory, they will pounce on your still-breathing carcass, slavering for their own piece of still-warm flesh. These terrorists will be emboldened, and the blood-price your country has paid so far will prove to be a small down-payment on the ultimate price.

The worst thing you can do is surrender to terrorists, and that is exactly what it seems your government has done.

I wish it were otherwise, and I hope I am wrong. You, and your brave country, are in our prayers, but as an old American saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves ..."

All the best

Ned

CNN Broadcasts Primer for Terrorists

2006-09-08T12:25:00.000-07:00

Ned Barnett
(c) 2006

Christiane Amanpour, CNN's chief International correspondent, hosted a program on August 14 that, in it's own way, was more subversive and dangerous than the recent actions by the New York Times to expose perfectly legal anti-terrorist surveillance operations. Oddly, there has been no strong public outcry - perhaps that's because so few people watch CNN - but because CNN reaches an international audience, the subversion is no less dangerous for having gone unremarked-upon.

This special program focused on American sites that were particularly vulnerable to terror attacks. These were major sites - a port that brings in 20% of US oil and 35% of US natural gas - which had (as CNN showed) vastly insufficient security. That these sites are vulnerable is probably without question; the problem, as I see it, is that CNN not only cited the areas that were not secured, but offered terrorists a primer on how to find the vulnerabilities, and where (at a given site) they could strike to do maximum damage.

I was stunned at the detail involved - anybody watching the program could easily go out and wreak havoc on any one of those sites, using information provided to avoid security sweeps and reach the most vulnerable targets - and appalled that this program was broadcast not only domestically but internationally. They made that point several times during the program.

Some who are perhaps more skeptical than I could point out that Ms. Amanpour is, by her own description, half-Persian - Persia being the ancient name for Iran - or that she had named her son Darius, after the Persian emperor who so nearly succeeded in conquering the western world. That might be a bit of a stretch, but it is no stretch to be concerned that her most recent international broadcast focused on how terrorists could do the most material harm while attacking America with relative impunity. Clearly, Ms. Amanpour has a greater interest in winning yet one more prestigious journalism award than she is in considering the potentially deadly implications of her actions. In that, she should feel right at home at CNN - the same network that admitted flakking for Saddam in order to ensure that they continued to have access to that blood-soaked dictator.

This is the price America pays for free speech and free press, but if CNN has it's way, that price could be very high indeed.

How Israel COULD HAVE Won the PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006

2006-09-08T12:07:00.000-07:00

How Israel Could Have Won The PR War Against Hezbollah in Summer 2006
Ned Barnett (c) 2006
Updated from Article Published 7/26/06 in "American Thinker"

Author’s note: The war is now over – for the time being – but few optimists expect the cease-fire to hold. The most logical assumption is that the now-emboldened terrorists will strike again, and when they do, it will be vital to Israel to secure world support – and especially US support. The following, originally published on July 26, 2006 (and updated with a few more recent stats) charts one PR path Israel could take to secure that US support.

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this recent battle in the Middle East was all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 3,500 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of August 13th, Hezbollah has fired more than 3,500 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 3,500 deadly high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel will have at least a fighting chance of winning the next PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may have technically won the war against Hezbollah, but from a PR perspective they lost the war for American support – and unless they change their approach, they’ll lose the next PR war as well. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.

Photo Fakery at the New York Times? (originally published 1/16/06)

2006-09-08T12:04:00.000-07:00

Photo Fakery at the New York Times?
Originally Published January 16, 2006
Excerpted and Published by "American Thinker"
Ned Barnett (c) 2006

Is a fake staged photo fit to print? What if it staged in a way that makes the US forces fighting the War on Terror look cruel and ineffective? The evidence argues yes, at least in the case of the New York Times website.

It appears that Times, once upon a time regarded as the last word in reliability when it comes to checking items before publishing (which makes them so much better than blogs, of course) has run a fake photo on the home page of its website. The photo has since been removed from the home page, but still can be seen here. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/01/14/international/worldspecial/14cnd-afghan.ready.html

The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man in the background, amid the ruins of a house, and is captioned

"Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border."

The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al Zawahiri with an attack from a Predator drone.

“How sad!” readers are encouraged to think. These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail.

The only problem is that the long cylindrical item with a conical end pictured with the boy and the man is not a missile at all. It is an old artillery shell. Not something that would have been fired from a Predator. Indeed, something that would have been found elsewhere and posed with the ruins and the little boy as a means at pulling of the heartstrings of the gullible blue state readers of the New York Times.

Ned Barnett is an expert on military technology, and frequently serves as a contributor to The History Channel on mil-tech issues. He has plenty of experience researching military ordnance, and writes:

“Based on my extensive experience in researching military technology, I can verify that this is a 152mm or 155mm artillery shell - unfired - and by the looks of it, fairly old. It also looks like it has a fuse in it, suggesting that the guys in the photo are either ditch-water dumb or have a death-wish.

“At a glance, it's hard to tell the exact caliber - 152mm or 155mm (they're so close) but the Soviets tended to favor 152 (going back to WW-II) while we and the Brits, the French and most of the rest of the non-Soviet world (including, oddly, the PRC) preferred the 155. For all intents and purposes, they were functionally identical (but were not interchangeable). In caliber, this is also virtually identical to Naval 6" rounds (routinely used by the Brits, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the USN), but of course, it's unlikely that the Pakistanis would unearth a Naval round not widely used since Vietnam (much more common in WW-I and WW-II) hundreds of miles from the nearest salt water.

“These shells could fire high explosive (HP), chemical white smoke (white phosphorous - aka "Willie Pete" - a smoke-producing shell that's also hideous if you get the WP on you, as it burns on contact with air and nothing much will put it out), armor-piercing and semi-armor piercing - even poison gas (there's much evidence that Saddam used French 155 shells for poison gas purposes against the Kurds, and possibly the Iranians). They are very common, and have been so since WW-I. They remain common throughout the world as one of the "standard" artillery sizes. To me, this looks like a HP shell, but the proof would come in interpreting the markings (that yellow band, plus stenciling).

“Small-caliber artillery comes in a casing with the propellant and shell in the same package - like a very large rifle bullet - but larger artillery has the shell (seen in the photo) packed separately from the propellant charge (which is generally in silk bags or other combustible containers). Rockets of all calibers also have integral propellant. The pictured shell does not have integral propellant, so it couldn't possibly be a rocket (by the wayy, the standard ex-Soviet rocket caliber was 122mm - noticeably smaller than this puppy).

“A decent basic primer on artillery shells can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)

“Just as this one does, all artillery shells have markings (usually colored bands) which show the cannon-cockers at a glance what kind of shell they're loading (blue for practice, other colors for different types of "live" shells). Somewhere I have an old standard reference on Soviet markings (and another on standard US markings), but they're buried in my library, so I can't immediately ID who made this shell.

“The make, however, is immaterial. The 152/155mm artillery shell has been in common, world-wide distribution since at least 1918. While it doesn't look old enough to be of even WW-II vintage, that's no guarantee. When it comes to artillery shells, most countries are pack-rats. At the time of their fall, the Soviets still had stockpiles of WW-II era shells, and they worked. (In Vietnam, most of the bombs we dropped from airplanes had been manufactured in '41-'45.) They don't wear out, and as long as the fuses are live, most of the shells will be, too.

“Bottom line: the "provenance" of this shell, given it's location in the world, could be Soviet (or ex-Soviet), PRC Chinese, British, French, American, NATO, Yugoslavian, Warsaw Pact (Czech, most likely, if WarPac), or as a long shot, potentially (though unlikely) even Imperial Japanese. In short, absent a manual on color-bands and a close look at stenciling, there's no way to tell who made the damned thing. Nor is it important.

“The New York Times claim that it was the remains of a rocket is nonsense. Rockets are frail, light-weight, flimsy things (for obvious reasons). Artillery shells are robust, mostly cast steel (the explosive weight is really rather small considering the overall weight of the shell), again for obvious reasons. Take a look yourself. In addition, artillery shells have bands that grab onto the rifling of the cannon barrel - this is obvious (the lower segmented brass-over-white-paint band) on the shell in this photo. Rockets do NOT have this, as they use fins or directional exhaust nozzles to spin-stabilize themselves.”

So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

There is an old saying in journalism, “Too good to check” about stories which editors really want to run. It is plainly clear that the New York Times thought this story was too good to check. It speaks volumes about their biases.

DNC Changes the Rules Again - Reprinted from "American Thinker"

2006-09-08T12:02:00.000-07:00

DNC Changes the Rules Again
August 23rd, 2006
Ned Barnett - (c) 2006

Over the past week, the Democratic National Committee drastically changed the rules for nominating a Presidential candidate. In doing so, they junked the long-standing tradition of having the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary launch the vote-gathering primary season.

In the name of empowering blacks and Hispanics, they have inserted two new states into the Primary Season launch cycle: Nevada, which has a large Hispanic population, and South Carolina, which has a strong black population. The largely unspoken motive in moving Nevada up in prominence is to empower labor unions, which have organized large numbers of culinary and hotel workers in Las Vegas, and which are organizationaly able to mobilize turnout for caucuses.

Their stated goal is laudable in terms of values embraced by Democrats. They say they want to be inclusive, and that they want to ensure that America’s two largest ethnic minorities have a strong voice in nominating their party’s ultimate candidate. However, their way of going about this is almost certain to backfire in ways that they – blindered by an acute attack of Political Correctness – may not be able to see

The implicit message to New Hampshire and Iowa is one of rebuke for being “too white.” Both states have greatly enjoyed their decades in the national media and political spotlight. Local media figures appreciate the national exposure their opinions garner, and ordinary folks enjoy being catered to by national political figures, who scour diners, VFW halls, pancake breakfasts, and other venues in search of hands to shake. There may well be a backlash for the Democrats in these two small states.

But worse damage is likely from the proposed serious penalties for candidates who buck the system – penalties such as denying them delegates they’ve earned in primaries or caucuses. If nothing else, this is an interesting way of treating men and women they hope might become President. As a long-time political consultant who began his career in South Carolina, and who’s lived and worked in Nevada for 15 years now, I hope that my perspective on what they’re doing – and what they may be doing wrong – will prove informative and enlightening. Based on that, I offer the following:

1. Some have questioned the legality of the penalties the DNC is proposing for candidates who buck the system. Based on my understanding of the way political parties work, the move is legal. Parties have wide latitude in seating delegates at conventions, and it would be well within the law for the party national convention credentialing committee to refuse to seat New Hampshire delegates pledged to candidates who broke the party rules. However, that same credentialing committee could, at the 2008 national convention, over-rule this new ruling … as I said, they have wide latitude, and their decisions are governed by politics.

2. However, no matter how legal this move might be, it’s my view that this move is extraordinarily bad for the Democratic Party, for a variety of reasons, including:

a. The McGovern Factor: You’d think the party would have learned from their disastrous 1972 election cycle. Under the direction of George McGovern and his supporters, they re-wrote their rules to set quotas for delegates (so many blacks, so many women, etc.) and wound up nominating an unelectable candidate (McGovern). It took them years to overcome the problems those rule-changes made. However, setting aside this painful lesson, they acted to ignore it. This new ruling was made to give a much greater voice (presumably) to Hispanics (Nevada) and blacks (South Carolina). The result may be, as happened in 1972, the nomination of a candidate who appeals to (or panders effectively to) a couple of minorities, but who is unelectable to the wider national electorate. Stacking the deck in the name of political correctness is not a sound strategy for winning a national election, and the Democrats are repeating their 1972 mistake.

b. Reality vs. Perception: Candidates may be tempted to buck the system – after all, the benefits might well outweigh the cost. The reality of a win in New Hampshire will be far more powerful than will the perception of harm that will come from having the party saying “you can’t have the delegates you won.” The first two events are both caucuses – in Iowa and Nevada – and neither the media nor the national electorate really understand (nor give as much credence to) caucuses. Popular vote elections have more impact, and if New Hampshire decides to jump to the head of the queue as its law currently requires – and if a smart candidate decides to push hard to win in New Hampshire (for the media awareness and credibility) and not sweat the very few delegates New Hampshire actually delivers, that candidate could not only win in New Hampshire but make a shambles of this “reform” the Democrats have instituted. The reality of a big win in New Hampshire could have far more impact than the perception of having “cheated” the system.

c. Distraction Factor: Once again, the Democratic Party has shifted the news story focus away from nominating a candidate who might be able to beat the Republicans and take back the White House. Instead, they have created a new news story, one about party control vs. the needs and plans of the candidates (who want to win in New Hampshire, no matter what the rules are). So the new nominating process will be their story, not their candidate’s story. Even more important, if the Party pushes hard for candidates to follow the rules, the Democrats might actually damage the chances of their own candidate – at least the one with the best chance of winning in November. For example, if Hillary runs, and if she decides (based on Bill’s 1992 experience) that she needs to win in New Hampshire, she might be ostracized or condemned by the Party for violating the rules and campaigning in New Hampshire. However, if she wins the nomination in spite of that, she’ll be seen (at least by Republicans and Independents) as a “cheater” who’ll “do anything to win” – in other words, she might need to buck the Party to win the nomination, but in doing so, she might make herself unelectable. This could apply to anybody – I just used Hillary as an example because she’s on the cover of Time this week. Again. For the 10th time.

Bottom line: this could well prove to be a really counter-productive decision on the part of the Democratic Party – a Party that frequently so fervently embraces political correctness that it loses sight of the real mission: to win the election and re-direct the country. As a conservative, I can be thankful that they remain “the gang who couldn’t shoot straight,” but as a political observer and consultant, I’ve got to wonder what they were thinking of … or if they were thinking at all.

Ned Barnett has been a political consultant since 1976, and has worked on campaigns for governors, senators congressmen and local officials – and, at the state level, on three Presidential campaigns. He operates a PR and Marketing Communications consulting business with offices in Las Vegas, Atlanta and Arizona.

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel - Reprint from "American Thinker"

2006-09-08T12:00:00.000-07:00

Winning the Public Relations War for Israel
July 26th, 2006
Ned Barnett - (c) 2006

If Israel wants to sustain US support for its efforts to defend its homeland from terrorists (which is what this current battle in the Middle East is all about), it needs to paint a word-picture that will cut through left/right politics and reach individual Americans. As a public relations professional and military historian, I have a few simple suggestions.

Find a spokesman (as Israel did more than a decade ago, with the cultured, American English-inflected Benjamin Netanyahu) who looks as if he could easily be American. In PR, you want your target audience to identify with you – and if you want Americans to identify with you, you must put an “American-looking” face on the story.

In framing the debate, use words that do not beat around the bush. For example, these are “vicious terrorists” firing “high-explosive war rockets” into “peaceful, innocent neighborhoods.” Calling them anything but vicious terrorists gives them a measure of credibility they don’t deserve. However, refrain from calling them “Muslim” terrorists, as this reframes the issue – and the issue isn’t that they’re Muslims, but that they’re vicious terrorists who are murdering civilians by raining thousands of deadly war rockets on peaceful neighborhoods.

Another example: calling the high-explosive war rockets fired by Hezbollah “Katyusha” rockets hides their real meaning and awful destructive use. Ask yourself: how many Americans really know what Katyusha rockets are? The answer: not many. However, anybody can visualize “high-explosive war rockets,” and only a dullard could fail to grasp the horrific impact of 2,000 such war rockets on a peaceful neighborhood.

Put the debate in terms Americans can viscerally understand. Ask them, “How would America react if cross-border terrorists had fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into Atlanta, or Kansas City?” Make it personal – make it American (we are, if nothing else, a fairly self-centered nation – even while showering the world with unprecedented charity, we still see things through our own perspective, and expect others to do the same).

Tell the story as it happened (from Israel’s perspective) – cutting through the media clutter that has so far succeeded in painting Hezbollah as victimized freedom fighters instead of vicious terrorists attacking civilian targets in Israel. Define the terms of the debate, rather than letting others (the New York Times, Time Magazine and MSNBC, among others) define the debate for them. President Reagan was successful in large part because he “went over the heads” of the media and talked directly to the American people. Israel needs to do this as well.

Begin reshaping the debate with a statement something like this:

“As of July 23rd, Hezbollah has fired more than 2,000 high-explosive war rockets at peaceful, innocent civilian neighborhoods in Israel. How would America feel – how would America respond – if cross-border terrorists (hiding among civilians in a neighboring country) had fired 2,000 high-explosive war rockets into San Diego, or El Paso? How would America react if Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver came under such a sustained, murderous attack? In the face of such horrific provocation – a cycle that was started when Hezbollah terrorists crossed the border and kidnapped two soldiers – would America be exercising near-miraculous self-restraint? Or would America seek out these terrorists – giving them no safe haven – if only to make sure that no more high-explosive war rockets were fired into the neighborhoods of peaceful American cities? The answer is clear – Americans would fight to defend their homeland and destroy the terrorists, the terrorists’ bases of operations, and those who support or shelter those terrorists.”

Following this approach, Israel would have at least a fighting chance of winning the PR war. As it stands now, by playing word-games with the anti-Israeli, left-leaning mainstream media, and by putting what seems to be a very foreign face on the news by using heavily-accented spokesmen who just don’t “look” American, Israel may be winning the war against Hezbollah, but they are increasingly losing the war for American support. The major US media are no friends of Israel. If that plucky country is to overcome this built-in deficit, they’ve got to fight back using tools and techniques that work, even in the face of opposition by the American media.

Ned Barnett has been a public relations specialist for 35 years, and has published nine books on the subject. He has also appeared on the History Channel seven times as a military historian.

Assault Weapon - The True Story of a Mythical Weapon

2004-09-15T10:39:00.000-07:00

Since some time in the 1980s, “assault weapons” have been the camel’s nose of the gun-banning crowd, and the love-to-hate-em darlings of the mainstream, left-leaning media.

But there’s a problem with that. Except for these anti-gun advocates, “assault weapons” have no independent existence. The term itself was made up by the media and anti-gun crowd as a simple way of mis-identifying a variety of different kinds of legal weapons.

The term “assault weapon” sounds dangerous. Military. Hostile. Surely, nothing that peaceful hunters or sportsmen might need or want (here’s another code of the anti-gun left: Only “hunters” and “sportsmen” might actually want to own guns of any kind, and the guns they want to own ought to have some utility in either hunting or target shooting in order to be “legitimate.”).

In fact, the Second Amendment makes no mention at all about hunting or sports shooting – it refers to self defense and communal self defense (a noble and important goal), and not a hobby activity akin to bass fishing or stamp collecting.

But I digress. To explain, a bit of history is needed.

In military terms, there are “battle rifles” and “assault rifles” – but no “assault weapons.” Traditionally, “battle rifles” are military-caliber bolt-action or semi-automatic (i.e., self-loading) rifles, heavily-stocked, equipped to mount a bayonet and a sling, and used by infantry as their primary weapon. Shorter, lighter weapons (carbines, mostly) were carried by Infantry officers or by soldiers who were not infantrymen, but who might in a pinch need to shoot back
(tank crewmen, cooks, truck drivers, etc.). From the end of the Civil War to mid-1943, all military rifles were essentially either “battle rifles” or carbines.

The rifle-looking BAR and similar selective-fire weapons were classed as squad-level machine guns. The other common infantry weapon, the sub-machine guns – light, hand-held full auto/selective fire weapons shooting pistol ammo - were also considered in a separate class, more like a super-pistol than a mini-rifle (in fact, the Germans called sub-machine guns “machine pistols”). They were used primarily by infantry officers and senior NCOs, often instead of carbines.

But in 1943, the ever-adaptive Germans developed a new weapon – a selective fire rifle that could fire in full-automatic mode (i.e., like a machine gun or a sub-machine gun), using rifle-caliber ammunition – intended primarily for the inner-city urban combat that would become ever more common as German soldiers fell back on der Vaterland (the Fatherland) in defense of the Reich. This new weapon was most closely akin to a “battle rifle” in intent, being seen as the primary weapon of infantry. It fired a new rifle-style bullet (smaller than the standard rifle bullet, but still far more potent than pistol or carbine ammo). And it could fire in either semi-auto or full-auto mode. It was built robustly, like a battle rifle, but it was stockier (shorter), to make it handier in urban settings.

And because the Germans hated the idea of retreat, they named this new weapon an “assault rifle.” Not an “assault weapon,” mind you, but an “assault rifle.”

As designed, the primary difference between a “battle rifle” and an “assault rifle” was primarily the full-auto selective fire capability. Nobody would call a weapon that shot only on semi-auto an “assault rifle” no matter how it looked - it was only functionality that defined the new weapon.

This last point is important - remember it, because you’ll see it again.

This new German weapon of 1943, adapted for urban combat (with generally shorter ranges) could fire more bullets, faster, than a battle rifle – but it had less range, and, because of it’s shorter barrel, it had (especially at longer ranges) less accuracy. But it made up for these limitations with handiness and firepower volume.

After the war (even before the war ended, in the case of the Russians), this weapon began to be modeled and adapted by the Allies. First out of the block was the Russian Kalashnikov AK-47 semi/full-auto assault rifle – a rugged weapon that shot a cut-down rifle round, and which became the “standard” for communist block and third-world countries (and terrorists) for the next 50 years.

The US took a series of steps – first the M1 Garand battle rifle became the selective-fire M14 battle rifle – still full-frame, shooting a full-bore rifle bullet, but with the firepower potential of the BAR squad light machine gun.

Next, Colt developed what led to the M16 assault rifle (a lightweight, short and handy rifle shooting a hefty, beefed-up mega-.22 caliber round that mikes out at .223). For 40 years now, the M16 has been the standard for the US and many of its allies - a powerful, flexible and handy assault rifle.

Going back to a law passed in the US in 1934 (and affirmed and revised in 1964), full-automatic rifles (including sub-machine guns and machine guns) have been very tightly regulated. Except for collectors and museums (and with a few other very tightly controlled exceptions), nobody could own an operational full-automatic weapon.

What this means is that EVERY legitimate “assault rifle” ever made is illegal for casual ownership in the US, and has been since a full ten years before the first “assault rifle” was ever developed.

The M16 and the AK-47 are both - in their military configurations – illegal, and always have been. And in spite of the hype, almost no fully-automatic “assault rifles” have ever been in private hands here in the US. Those that were in private hands (of criminals, for instance), were already illegal before they were first designed (for purely military and police use).

So, in any rational sense, there was not only never an “assault weapon” in the US, but there was never a time when the similarly-named “assault rifle” was not already illegal for private ownership.

Enter the gun-banners and their media fellow-travelers.

They desperately wanted to get their noses inside the tent – to ban SOME KIND of firearm that wasn’t already illegal. But they were stuck.

Too many Americans (there are roughly 80 million gun owners in the US) already owned semi-automatic (a.k.a. “self-loading) rifles, shotguns and pistols, most used for hunting, collecting or home self-defense. Further, the manufacture of these guns was concentrated in New England, where a ban would cause a serious economic hardship that would be easy for the media and the public to identify.

What to do? What to do?

So they came up with a diabolically-brilliant idea. Take a small category of weapons – semi-automatic rifles that cosmetically LOOKED like military assault rifles – and make them “bad.” So they gave these perfectly legal rifles – mechanically no different from Ruger .22 target rifles or Winchester hunting rifles – and (because they looked somehow “military”) make them the whipping boys for the industry.

Make them so hated that laws could be passed – nose-in-the-tent laws – that even most average gun owners wouldn’t object to.

So the media created this fictional category – “assault weapons” – that defined not design, not use, but cosmetic appearance. Then the anti-gunners and the media were able to punish this “bad” kid of weapon by banning their importation.

That’s right – they didn’t ban the manufacture, sale or ownership of these “evil” things, these “assault weapons.” Nope – that might hurt American jobs.

All the law did was ban the importation (and subsequent sale) of otherwise legal semi-automatic rifles that merely LOOKED like they were military-issue assault rifles.

That’s all.

No sales were banned.

No ownership was banned.

No manufacture was banned.

Only importation was banned.

That’s right, the “assault weapon ban” was a fraud.

It didn’t take one “assault weapon” (which doesn’t really exist) off the street. All it did was ensure that all the new, fully legal semi-automatic rifles sold in the US were also manufactured in the US – in a way, it was a jobs protection act for US gun-makers. And it made sure that America was protected from semi-automatic rifles that somehow LOOK as if they are military rifles (but aren’t) – at least those that were manufactured overseas, rather than in the USA.

Don’t you feel safer?

It’s a joke, sure – but in spite of it being a joke, the gun-banners won. Sure, it’s a hollow victory for now. But their victory opens the door for banning other classes of legal guns.

Recently, Senator Kerry and other anti-gun legislators co-sponsored a failed piece of legislation that – if passed – would have dramatically expanded this ban, to include US-made firearms of kinds that, until now, have been perfectly legal. These banned firearms (rifles and shotguns) don’t even “LOOK” military – but they are semi-automatic/self-loading firearms, and that encompasses a huge number of legally-owned private weapons, as well as tens of thousands of US manufacturing jobs.

But that’s not about “assault weapons,” which don’t really exist – except in the vivid imaginations of anti-gunners and their media and legislative supporters.

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

False Documents, True Pain - And A Campaign That's Once Again Dead-In-The-Water

2004-09-12T03:40:00.000-07:00

Almost lost in the public and media debate over the veracity of the apparently bogus memos about President Bush's career in the National Guard – about events that may or may not have taken place 30-plus years ago – is any thought as to how much this is hurting Senator Kerry.

In my opinion as both a campaign media manager and as communications professional, this is ongoing story – not questions about President Bush’s record, but the vigorous debate about some apparently forged memos – is hurting Kerry a lot. More important, this debate will continue to hurt Senator Kerry for as long as the story stays out there. Surprisingly, this damage to the Kerry campaign does NOT depend on the validity of the memos (if any) or on who really leaked them to CBS.

The funny thing (not “funny ha-ha,” but “funny ironic”) is that even if this memo had been legitimate, it would be no big deal at all. Candidate Bush has six years as Governor and four years as President on which to run on. Just as important, he has never made his National Guard service an issue – not the way Candidate Kerry did with his own Vietnam service.

Nationally, there must be at least 14 independent undecided voters who'd think that this issue (if real) outweighed Senator Kerry's 1971 anti-war Senate testimony.

So it's a pointless self-inflicted wound on Kerry's part. The memo, if true, can't help him, but it could prove to be near-fatal if the memo is a forgery – or perhaps, even if it’s validity is never proven. This brouhaha is one more example of the self-inflicted campaign wounds that have dogged Senator Kerry’s campaign from Day-one to Day-now. However, just the fact that there is a debate over forged documents – that alone – hurts Kerry, almost to the point where that snake-bit campaign has ground once more to a near-halt.

Here's why:

1. In a competitive political environment, any time dirt is leaked to the press, the initial assumption is that the opposition leaked that dirt. In this case, the hair-trigger response of Senator Tom Harkin, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe (and others), all saying pretty much the same thing, makes it look as if the leak was not only a Democratic party sting operation, but that it was also a carefully coordinated sting. Of course, this coordinated response could have been spontaneous, or the Democrats could have merely had a remarkably efficient war-room operation. But this all-hands response LOOKS coordinated, and in an environment where voter perception is voter reality, how that response LOOKS is pretty much how that response IS.

So regardless of the ultimate validity of the memos, Senator Kerry will be presumed to have been the proximate source of the memos, the architect of this particular mud-slinging brouhaha.

2. Regardless of who slung this particular mud, there is a finite limit to the size of what the media calls the “news hole” – the amount of air time or column inches the media will devote to any subject, no matter how important. Like all other news stories, Presidential election news is divided into "Kerry news" and "Bush news."

At the start of this latest charge about Bush’s National Guard service, these now-discredited memos ate a serious hole into the "Bush news" news-hole taking press attention away from the messages the President was trying to put out to the public. The media assigned the memo story to the Bush news hole because those memos seemed to reflect on Bush and his fitness for the Presidency.

However, as soon as the story switched from the content of the memos to their potentially fraudulent nature, the news-judgment switched as well. Right or wrong, this story is now coming out of the "Kerry" news-hole. So, for as long as these apparently fraudulent memos (and their source, as well as their veracity) continues to be discussed in the media, those stories are displacing other Kerry stories – including, presumably, the positive Kerry-news stories that the campaign is trying to get out.

3. This story has taken on a life of it’s own. Because the major news media are intensely competitive, and because CBS is so vociferously defending the memos as legitimate – even in the face of rapidly-mounting evidence to the contrary, CBS’s competitors will keep the story alive, knowing that – by doing so – they are hurting their ratings and image rivals. To date, ABC and NBC have both forwarded major evidence of the fraudulent nature of these memos, as has CNN and a growing number of major newspapers, such as the Dallas Morning News.

For instance, ABC found a CBS source who said he was lied to (by CBS producers), and his comments were made based on this lie – he now has come forward claiming that the documents were indeed forged. Fox News found life-long Democratic pollster Pat Caddell to come forward with the view that these memos were indeed bogus, and that if this was so proved, then Kerry’s campaign would be over. Even CNN (known in the trade by some as the “Clinton News Network” for it’s steadfast support of Democratic candidates) piled on, with a damning think-piece about Dan Rather, written by CNN’s political guru Wolf Blitzer.

While most of this coverage is aimed at CBS, rather than at Kerry, the coverage keeps the story alive, keeps it eating at Kerry’s news hole, and keeps reminding Americans that Kerry’s people very likely perpetrated this fraud on CBS.

4. A major problem for Senator Kerry stemming from this story is a background issue of media credibility. Most of the media – along with most of the public at large – are sure to assume that Kerry’s people are behind this apparently forged memo. Once burnt, twice cautious, the media are going to be very, very careful about accepting any future leaked charges about Bush – especially leaked charges coming from known Democratic Party or Kerry Campaign sources.

Since, as Kerry’s campaign has lost momentum, more and more of his advisors have been telling the Senator to “go negative,” this new burnt-fingers caution on the part of the media will only serve to make the Senator’s job that much harder. At a time when he very much needed the media on his side (or at least complicitly neutral), he’s now got them anxious about charges and eager to double-check and triple-check sources before taking anti-Bush material being provided them by the Kerry campaign.

5. The more that evidence of the apparently fraudulent nature of those memos comes to light, the more that news – about the fraud – will tend make the forgers look inept, under-handed, dirty and perhaps even criminal. And because conventional wisdom will assign the creation and leaking of those forgeries to the Kerry campaign – or at least to Kerry supporters – their blatantly fraudulent nature will tend to make Kerry look inept, under-handed, dirty and perhaps even criminal. That image can NOT be helpful in a presidential campaign.

And why will all this hurt? Take a look at some of the problems now facing CBS and the Senator as they try to make the charges against President Bush stick:

a. At that time these memos were supposedly written, official USAF memos were all typed on official letterhead – even carbon sets were on watermarked "official" sheets. Yet there is no evidence that this memo was typed on official letterhead (and CBS refuses to release or allow to be examined the "original" documents in their possession).

b. The whole typography question is troubling for those who would prove the documents valid. While it's at least remotely possible that an isolated Air National Guard unit had the very latest in what was then high-tech office equipment, it's very unlikely that they did. I expect that very soon some enterprising reporter to unearth other memos typed up for Colonel Killian on or about the same date, and those memos will prove the matter – one way or the other.

c. It now seems that CBS intentionally avoided talking to some legitimate sources who could have debunked the memos before air-time. This is according to Gary Killian (the son of Colonel Killian, and also an officer in President Bush’s Air Guard Unit), who – along with his step-mother (Colonel Killian’s wife) – provided two names to CBS that they declined to interview. A producer told Gary Killian that these two sources were "too Bush,” suggesting that this was not news reporting, but an advocacy piece.

d. It now seems that CBS lied to a retired Major General, Bobby W. Hodges – who served as Colonel Killian's commander, and who was presented as CBS’s “ace in the hole” in originally validating the memos. However, General Hodges now claims that, to get him to make an on-air statement, CBS told him that Colonel Killian had hand-written the note, which of course is not true. Once he learned that the memos were typed, General Hodges publicly repudiated his CBS-aired comments, and now says that he believes the memos are forgeries.

e. It now appears that Colonel Killian’s immediate superior officer, the man who supposedly forced Colonel Killian to write the memo that started all this controversy, had in fact retired 18 months before the memo was written. So, unless he had a time machine, he was not in any position to have forced Killian to write the CBS memo. This easily checked mistake is one more reason to believe that the memo used by CBS was nothing more than a clumsy forgery.

There are a number of other pieces of fairly technical and specific evidence of forgery (and just plain bad journalism) tied up in this story – but the above five examples are sufficient to prove the point that it is (apparently) a fairly clumsy forgery.

What's really important are three specific facts:

1. In the minds of the public, Senator Kerry will be blamed for – or at least tied to – this clumsy forgery.

2. The media’s news hole for Kerry will continued to be tied up with news that is not going to help Senator Kerry get elected President – and this story will drag on for as long as CBS’s competitors can continue to “count coup” at Dan Rather’s expense.

3. The media will be extremely reluctant to take any charges against President Bush from Senator Kerry or his supporters – not without a lot of double-checking of sources and information. Every charge Kerry makes against Bush will be presumed to be a forgery until proven valid, making it even harder for Senator Kerry to make a legitimate case against the President in the 50 days remaining of this campaign.

Bottom line? At a time when Senator Kerry is the clear underdog (Time Magazine, for instance, shows that the Bush convention bounce is still there, undimmed) and needs to focus all of his efforts at pulling ahead of the President, he's being distracted by a side-issue of no particular importance. His news-hole is being eaten up by discussion (between and among the media, who won't let this story die) about the forgery. He's being tarred – fairly or unfairly – with complicity in the forgery. The Senator’s Presidential campaign remains stalled, dead in the water, at a time when he's still locked firmly in second place – when he really needs to be moving forward to recapture lost ground.

And that's got to hurt.

The time for a PR make-over and messaging turn-around is fast running out for the Senator from Massachusetts. He's reputed to be at his best when he's running behind, and the race gets down to the wire. Well, he's behind, and time is running out. Let's see how he pulls this one out.

Win or lose, it will be fascinating. One for the books.

About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, long-time political campaign consultant and 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 - The Hidden Story of Kerry's Unofficial Medals

2004-08-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

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"

2004-08-29T17:23:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-29T17:04:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-29T16:41:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-22T22:24:00.000-07:00

By Ned Barnett

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

2004-08-03T21:36:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-02T22:55:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-02T22:01:00.000-07:00

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

2004-08-02T21:58:00.000-07:00

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)

2004-08-02T21:51:00.000-07:00

Ned Barnett

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

2004-08-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

Ned Barnett

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.