|
The media landscape is changing. While our philosophy doesn't waiver, our political technology must continuously be updated. As conservative leaders, you and I must continue to adapt and overcome. That's why I recommend reading this checklist from the liberal New Politics Institute.
|
Unions Admit Failed GOTV Effort in '04
After years of cleaning our clock on Election Day, the National Journal's On Call blog reports that Labor Unions have finally admitted their 2004 Get-out-the-Vote effort failed: "Without being asked, McEntee, who also chairs the AFL's political cmte, stated bluntly that the millions of dollars Dems and liberals put into the 527s for GOTV in '04 were ineffective in the face of the GOP's volunteer effort. Or, as McEntee put it, the Dems' 'stranger-to-stranger' ground game was 'trounced' by the GOP's "neighbor-to-neighbor strategy."
|
If you've ever wondered what a RINO is, here's the definition:
|
Where Bodie Went Bad
In our perverse media culture -- where Paris Hilton is considered a role model -- it is confounding that "bad boy" Bode Miller (who confessed to skiing drunk) has become so universally despised. Bodie could have avoided this fate had his mentor only been "Crash" Davis, the Kevin Costner character from the classic baseball movie Bull Durham. As you'll recall, Costner, the older and wiser mentor cautioned his hot-shot protege (played by Tim Robbins) that he couldn't get away with shenanigans until he made it to the big leagues. In one famous scene he critiqued his protege's grooming habits: "Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes. Think classy, you'll be classy. If you win 20 in the show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press'll think you're colorful. Until you win 20 in the show, however, it means you are a slob." Bodie should have seen the movie and acted classy. ...Or the American Olympic team should have paired him with a Crash Davis who would have straightened him out. Either way, he would have been better off today. So why is the normally-forgiving American public being so hard on Bodie? To quote General Patton, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Losing is the unpardonable sin, it seems. By losing every event he entered, Bodie has forfeited our admiration. Had Bodie won the gold, the press would have portrayed him as being "colorful." Until he wins the gold, it just means he's a drunk.
|
Gov. Romney Answers Wallace Questions
FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace featured a hardball interview with Mitt Romney that deserves some attention (read the transcript here). After repeatedly trying to pin Romney down on his stance on abortion, Wallace finally got this answer: WALLACE: But you did say, as I said in the quote, women should have the right to make their own choice. I guess the question I have is are you saying that you only came to the conclusion about when life begins -- this has been an issue for 30 years, 40 years -- in the last three years? ROMNEY: Chris, what I'm saying is that my position has evolved and it changed from where it was before. And I said -- and the time of the change came as we were involved in the discussion of stem cell research, and I said at that point I am pro-life. ...Let's be honest, it's is going to be hard to sell his commitment to social values when he says his position on abortion has "evolved" since 2002. But when it came to the issue of Romney's Mormon faith, he did much better: WALLACE: I want to ask you about another area of possible controversy and it involves something very personal, your religion. You are a Mormon. As you well know, a number of evangelicals say that could be a problem for you in Republican primaries because they say Mormonism is a cult. Your response. ROMNEY: Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. And I don't believe that that's been an issue for me in my race for governor. It wasn't an issue, I believe, serious, for John Kennedy when he ran for president. People said oh, gosh, Ronald Reagan, he's been an actor who's been divorced, you can't elect him. Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual, understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person... From a political perspective, Romney parried the religious question well (frankly, if he didn't have a good answer to this question, I would be very concerned.) I especially liked the JFK reference. And anyone who thinks FOX News throws softballs to Republicans should read the transcript. On the other hand, Romney is fortunate to have been asked these hot-button issues sooner rather than later. After all, if he can't answer these questions, he isn't going to win, anyway. I'd say he did as well as could be expected, considering the hurdles he will have to jump in order to win a Republican nomination. On another note, today's Boston Globe predicts Ann Romney will be a major asset to Mitt Romney's campaign for president. (We've already discussed how political spouses can be an asset or a liability.) "I've seen Laura Bush, I've seen a lot of people,' said Jim Runestad, president of the North Oakland Republican Club in Oakland County, Mich., where Mitt and Ann Romney both addressed a 750-person fund-raiser earlier this month. ''If I had to pick a politician's wife, of all I've seen, she'd be the one." ..."Candidates' wives have figured larger in presidential races as character and image have become increasingly important components of campaigns, said Julian Zelizer, professor of history at Boston University." They say behind every good man there is a good woman. It is plausible that if Ann Romney is as charming as they say, her very presence on the campaign trail might help answer the lingering questions Republicans still have about him. Stay tuned.
|
Leaving a Legacy
There's still more bad news for former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The mid-decade redistricting that he initiated in Texas set off legal proceedings that will now be heard by the Supreme Court. While the Republicans picked up six seats in Texas because of the district changes, they now face further disgrace. The Chicago Tribune reports that the court will determine whether the redistricting took place illegally, from purely political motivations or to wrongly break up districts where minorities make up the majority. This can't be what Rep. DeLay envisioned leaving Congress and Republicans. As an opposite example of a beneficial contribution to a discipline or organization, consider US speedskater Joey Cheek. He donated his medal bonuses, which total $40,000, to Right to Play, a humanitarian organization that reaches children in developing countries, founded by 1994 Olympic champion Johann Olav Koss, a Norwegian. The International Olympic Committee and private individuals and companies have responded to his generous acts, donating over $400,000. This is the Chicago Tribune's report. Between this and his good sportsmanship during the Games, he shows what it is to leave a positive legacy.
|
Speed Kills: Bush Needs an Improved Rapid Response Approach
In 1992, Bill Clinton's rapid-response team in Little Rock had two words emblazoned on the backs of their tee-shirts: Speed Kills. In the modern media age, they were right; getting your story out quickly often determines whether your story gets told at all. The '92 Clinton team became so adept at this that they once released a response to Bush's convention speech before he uttered his first word. Now that's quick! In fairness to George W. Bush, it's harder to respond quickly when you are the President of the United States of America and have the unfortunate disadvantage of actually having to run the country (Clinton pulled the convention speech stunt before being elected). As President, any hastily uttered word could have major international implications. So it's no surprise that in politics there is often an inverse relationship between the speed in which you can respond and the importance of the office you hold. It is also harder to worry about petty PR issues when you are responsible for the full-time demands of the nation. But the need to respond rapidly is just as important in governance as it is in a political campaign. And often, the stakes are even higher. The Bush team has long been thought of as masters of political gamesmanship. And the fact is, Bush didn't have this problem in his first four years as president. So what is the cause of this recent lapse in political acumen? Some have speculated that the problem is that Karl Rove has been distracted by other issues, including the Plame case. Others speculate that, with no re-election to worry about, some in the White House have simply gotten sloppy. In the late 1980s, when the Reagan Administration became embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal, many observers blamed the scandal on the fact that James Baker, Ed Meese, and Mike Deaver -- Reagan's long-time confidants -- were no longer at his side. But that can hardly be the case with Bush. In fact, could the opposite be true? Could his problem be that his long-time advisors are simply too tired to be on top of things? Sunday's Washington Post quotes former press secretary, Ari Fleisher, regarding this question (he is a rare example of a top Bush staffer who left after one term): "My sense is the people who are over there now are working with a very pronounced double-edged sword: they have been there from the beginning, they are experienced, knowledgeable and they know how things work and to get things done -- but they are tired." When you examine the history of modern Chiefs of Staff, Fleisher's analysis seems plausible. Of the modern two-term presidents, Dwight Eisenhower had two Chiefs of Staff, Richard Nixon had two, and both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton each had four. Even recent one-term presidents like Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush had more Chiefs of Staff in four years than the younger Bush has had in six (And Jimmy Carter didn't even have a Chief of Staff until 1979). In fairness, some past presidential aides didn't leave because they were tired. In some cases they were forced out by scandal or (as in the case of Don Regan) they were fired. It is a tribute to President Bush that he was able to hire people he could work with from day one. Bush believes in loyalty and in surrounding himself with close aides. Based on their longevity, it is clear that most of his picks were very good. But the question remains: Is it time to bring in some fresh faces? Working a job for six years is not necessarily going to burn you out -- until you factor in the stress and long-hours these particular jobs demand. A January 5, 2005 Washington Post article described Andy Card's schedule this way: "He wakes at 4:20 each morning, commonly stays at work until 10 p.m. and spends most weekends at his office or at Camp David with the POTUS." That is a pretty rigorous schedule for anybody, much less a man in his late fifties. The average term of service for a White House Chief of Staff is about two and a half years. Card is working on his sixth. I'm not implying that Andy Card is responsible for the mishandling of recent events. Rather, I am using him as one example of many Bush staffers who have been working a stressful job for six years. Whether or not it is time to bring in some fresh faces is a question I'm not qualified to answer. The President gets the final call on that one. But it's something he should at least consider. As an added bonus, replacing some of his long-serving staff would not only have the affect of bringing in some refreshed reinforcements, it would also serve to help change the tone, which the press might like. I sometimes suspect Bush is in some regards playing a game of chicken with the press, in which he sticks with his people merely to prove a point. Regardless of what the cause is, the Bush White House needs to do a better job of rapidly responding to issues before they become a crisis. Let's print some new tee-shirts for the White House staff to wear: Speed Kills!
|
In My View, a True Great!
 Today, we mourn the loss of Don Knotts. For my money, he was one of the great comedic actors of all time. His iconic character, Barney Fife, will live on. Thanks for touching our lives, and making us laugh. RIP, Don Knotts.
|
Unleash the "Great Communicator" in You!
 This is your invitation to attend a very special training I'm conducting on April 1! This is advanced training for serious conservatives who want to learn "insider" techniques and fine-tune their communication skills. ... Yes, you will be asked to give a speech. ... Yes, you will be asked to write a press release. ... Yes, you will receive one-on-one personal analysis with instructors. And because this training is so advanced and personal, I am limiting it to just eight (8) students. That's right: only eight students will be able to attend this advanced communications training (and we only have two spots left)! Will you be one of them? Topics covered will include the following: - Advanced Messaging: Learn how to develop a persuasive message -- and how to stay on message. Participate in role-playing scenarios where you develop a message -- and are critiqued. Then, in a mock interview, you'll get to practice "staying on message." - Public Speaking: Once you develop a persuasive message, the next step is to learn how to communicate it effectively. From hand gestures to avoiding fillers, you'll be schooled in the best techniques. Then, you'll get to draft a short speech -- and be critiqued on the content -- and the delivery. - Expert PR Tips: You'll learn all the tips regarding how to garner favorable press, including literature layout and design. Then, you'll practice "pitching" stories to reporters -- and writing mock press releases. - A Personal Analysis: Every attendee will get personal time with the instructors to ask questions and have your campaign literature critiqued. And after the seminar, you will receive a written critique to help you continue to learn. ... As you can see, this is more than the standard "lecture-based" training most seminars offer. Frankly, as someone who has conducted hundreds of training seminars, the only way you can get this kind of personal and advanced training is to limit the size -- and that's just what we've done! The training will take place in Washington, DC on April 1 -- the perfect time to visit DC and see the Cherry Blossoms. And, as an added bonus, the night before the training (Friday, March 31), you'll be my guest for a special dinner at the Capital Hill Club. Again, I'm cutting off registrations for this top-notch advanced training opportunity at eight. The price (including dinner Friday night -- and a full day of advanced communications training) is just $495. Again, this is limited to just eight attendee's -- and we only have 2 spots left! To register, or for more information, email me at MLewis@campaignleadership.com.
|
The National Journal is out with its annual ratings of Senate and House Members. In the Senate, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Wayne Allard (R-C0), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) tied as the most conservative Members. They were each more conservative than 90.8 percent of the Senate on key votes during 2005. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) easily took 1st place as the Senate's most liberal Member. Other big news is that John Kerry (D-MA) dropped to 8th place. He just can't come in first place at anything these days...
|
Technology Strikes Back!
As I've previously written political campaigns face a growing dilemma: Modern technology allows people to hide from intrusive ads. While this may be good for the consumer, it causes major problems for people who want to get their message out. That's why this new KFC ad is such a great idea. It is interactive and rewards viewers for taking the time to watch an ad. I wonder how long it will be before political ads start trying to replicate this idea...
|
Today's Washington Times has a good quote from Ken Mehlman: "Outreach is when I go and speak to people about the party; inclusion is when Michael Steele does it..."
|
It was only a matter of time...
This has been floating around the internet. 
|
Liberals Take on Dem Consultants
A few years ago, conservative leader Morton Blackwell issued a missive, urging Republicans to "out" consultants who opposed the RNC's emphasis on get-out-the-vote -- their 72 Hour Task Force. Now it seems the liberals are hoping to replicate his success in pushing consulants to change their ways. Morton, who had been pushing the RNC to embrace grassroots GOTV efforts for decades, knew Republicans needed to change their tactics if they were to continue winning elections. Polls in the late 90s consistently demonstrated that Democrats were "out-performing" Republicans on Election Day. The reason was obvious: Democrats (and labor unions) had done a better job of turning out their favorable voters on Election Day. In 2001, The New Yorker described the Morton's efforts to renew the Republican commitment to grassroots campaigns: "Ten days after the election, Morton Blackwell, a former national executive director of the College Republicans, who had been out of touch with Rove for years, picked up the phone and heard that familiar booming voice on the other end of the line: 'Morton, how does it feel to have advocated something for decades and have it come true?' What Blackwell had been advocating for decades, ever since he trained the teen-age Karl Rove to be a field organizer, was that people in politics should pay less attention to consultants, television advertising, polls, and 'message,' and more attention to the old-fashioned side of the business: registering voters, organizing volunteers, making face-to face contact during the last days of A campaign, and getting people to the polls on Election Day. Soon, Rove had launched a project called the 72-Hour Task Force, which conducted scientific experiments in grassroots political organizing during the three days before Election Day in five geographically scattered races in 2001." While Morton advocated for this change for decades, he keenly understood that correcting the problem would require more than just talking about the positive attributes of grassroots campaigns -- it would require a cultural paradigm shift encompassing the very nature of how Republican campaigns are run. The inherent problem was a conflict of interest: It was in the best interest of political consultants to ignore grassroots politics in favor of media-driven campaigns. Here's why: Consultants make their big money from media buys. They don't make money from encouraging their clients to run grassroots campaigns. So if you're a consultant, it is in your best interest to encourage your clients to ignore grassroots and focus on spending money on media. Morton's purpose in calling out Republican political consultants was to send a message that opposing the RNC's move toward embracing grassroots would have consequences. Of course, the RNC's 72 Hour Task Force was hugely successful, and part of the credit goes to Republicans, like Morton, who were able to hold their political consultants accountable. Today, Democrats are hoping to replicate Morton's approach toward political consultants. Liberals like Markos Moulitsas, who runs the DailyKos blog, have recently encouraged liberal bloggers to begin holding Democrat consultants accountable for their clients. This seems a bit strict, as consultants, by definition, are paid to give strategic and tactical advice (not ideological) which the client can either accept or reject. Most recently, the National Journal's Hotline On Call blog posted a letter from the United Steel Workers which lists the names and phone numbers of consultants working for conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar (D-28), and calls on labor unions and Democrat campaign committees to contact Cuellar's consultants and tell them to "Drop Henry Now." But while Morton pushed for decades to change Republican's political tactics, today's liberals are seeking to instill a strict ideological adherence to "progressive" orthodoxy. Whereas Morton's efforts have led to electing more Republicans, the liberals' heavy-handed attempts, should they succeed, will only lead to a monolithic Democrat Party which continues to be viewed as out-of-touch by most Americans.
|
Head's up. Labor gets into the act: The AFL-CIO has launched a blog.
|
The Fix today outlines the difference between a legitimate poll and a "push poll." "A poll is a small sample survey of anywhere from 300 to 1,000 people, the sole purpose of which is to measure opinion or test how opinion is affected by information...Advocacy calls are done by phone bank (and feature) a large number of calls in the thousands and even tens of thousands the purpose of which is persuasion."
|
Russert's Port Analysis
Tim Russert had an interesting analysis on Imus, this morning. In short, he believes it is in everybody's best interest for this port controversy to turn into an all-out fight. Democrats, says Russert, benefit greatly by outflanking Republicans on the issue of terror. The lesson learned from 2002 and 2004 is that the "weak" party loses. To win, Dems must shake their pre-9-11 image, and this is a golden opportunity to do so. As I stated yesterday, I am doubtful that Democrats will be able to continue to talk tough on terror. This is due to the lack of having a unified voice, not to mention the number of peaceniks and Leftists who control the purse strings of their party. But -- and this is a big but -- if Democrats can find a way to outflank Republicans on national defense and terror, we are in big, big trouble. Republicans in Congress, also benefit from this controversy. This allows them to do two things at once: show they are tough on terror -- and prove they are not merely a "rubber stamp" for the White House. According to Russert, even President Bush benefits from this controversy. Russert's theory is that Bush benefits from talking about the need to bring in allies and build coalitions with other countries. In short, this issue allows Bush to appear to be the one who is nuanced. To me, this one seems like the biggest stretch. I don't think the reward of being considered nuanced, justifies the political heat he is taking -- and it certainly doesn't justify endangering our country. If being nuanced were a political winner, John Kerry would have been elected president. Nope, I believe Bush firmly believes this is in the best interest of America. Perhaps Russert's most astute observation is that this port controversy would make his dad, "Big Russ," scratch his head and say, "this just doesn't seem right." You've got to admit that regardless of where you come down on this issue, on the surface, it just sounds like a very bad idea.
|
Hollywood Promotes Family Values?
Had enough Brokeback Mountain and Capote films to last a lifetime? Finally, there is someone in Hollywood who promotes family values ... The Ware Foundation, in partnership with MOVIEGUIDE is announcing a new $50,000 "Ware Libertas Prize" for the movie that presents the best of American values in an inspiring way. The awards ceremony will be held March 2, 2006 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. In 2004, The Incredibles, Miracle, Shrek 2, The Polar Express, and Ladder 49 were honored as the best films for families by Movieguide. The Passion of the Christ received the award for most inspiring movie.
|
Dems Get Aggressive on Immigration Issues
At a time when many are questioning the wisdom of President Bush's handling of our ports, Democrats appear to be earning points on the issue of border control: In New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson is tightening drivers' license laws. As a Hispanic Democrat, Richardson can feel safe to employ the "only Nixon can go to China" approach to border issues. In '04 Richardson declared a state of emergency on New Mexico's borders. In California, Senator Diane Feinstein is trying to criminalize the digging of tunnels under our borders. Her proposal to finally outlaw this practice seems like complete common sense. During a recent interview on Meet the Press, James Carville and Paul Begala both said they would not necessarily oppose a border fence. While they would not commit either way, the fact that they didn't outright reject this proposal signifies their understanding that this is a politically potent issue. Are the Dems posturing? Sure. That's not the point. Whether real or perceived, protecting our borders continues to be the weak spot for an administration that has otherwise been very tough on fighting terrorism. This is one area where the Dems have assessed them might be able to outflank us. And that, of course, would be big trouble for Republicans. The good news is that (if history is a predictor), Howard Dean or Harry Reid will soon say something stupid and foil their plans. On the other hand, should we have to count on that?
|
Post WBAL...
Well, I think the interview went well. I got to plug HumanEventsOnline and MattLewis.org, so that's good. We didn't spend as much time on Lt. Gov. Steele as I thought we would. And frankly, the whole thing went pretty quick (Gov. Ehrlich was on right after me, so maybe that had something to do with both the content and the speed). I'd like to thank Ron Smith and his producer for having me on. I grew up on Orioles games on WBAL (John Miller and Joe Angel), so it was a real pleasure to be on that station. I could also tell Ron is a good radio host, based on his voice and his questions. If you heard the interview, drop me an email. I'm curious what you thought...
|
New Interview Time
My interview on WBAL has been bumped up to 5:15 (Gov. Ehrlich is on at 5:30)...
|
As always, I am serching for tips to pass on to you. Here's a good technology tip for Republicans ...
|
It's very cool that CMT's " True Grit" series started off with Ronald Reagan!
|
I'll be on the Ron Smith Show on WBAL (AM 1090 in Baltimore) tomorrow afternoon at 5:30 to discuss my recent blog about Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. Click here and then click the "listen live" icon.
|
Happy Presidents Day! Here are 20 things you didn't know about the presidents...
|
As someone who has worked in politics, I know this: The number one predictor of how a person will vote is church attendance. The more times per week a person attends church, the greater the likelihood is that person will vote Republican. So it stands to reason that conservatives would want to identify folks who regularly attend church -- and make sure they are at least registered to vote. Right? Obviously. A maxim in politics is that you've got to "hunt where the ducks are" (or if you're Dick Cheney, you can also hunt where the quails are). In other words, we live in a world of limited resources. It's wise to spend your time and energy in the places where you are likely to see the greatest reward for your efforts. When asked why he robbed banks, the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton quipped: "Because that's where the money is." Well, this is sort of the same kind of thing. When Republicans encourage people of faith to be involved in politics, we know we will get 8 out of 10 votes. This is nothing more than marketing 101. I mean, if Republicans knew that people who worked at the Post Office -- or had blonde hair -- or wore Nike's -- were predisposed to vote Republican, you can bet we'd try to find a way to find identify them (and turn them out at the polls on Election Day.) You'd probably see political operatives hanging out at the local Foot Locker store registering voters. We'd buy web ads at Nike.com, etc. As far as I know, there is no correlation between wearing Nike shoes and voting Republican (talk about micro-targeting). But there is certainly a link between church attendance and propensity to vote Republican). So why is it such a surprise that the NC GOP is asking members to send in their church directory? I mean, it sounds like a smart move to me... But not only is at a smart political move -- it's your right as an American! I can't find anything in the constitution that would prohibit a private citizen from mailing in their church membership list to any political party they choose. That's freedom. This is one of those cases where the smart political move and "doing the right thing" converge. I truly believe that people of faith not only have the right to be involved in politics -- we have a responsibility to be involved! Of course, the liberals and secular humanists also know what we know: That church attendance is the number one predictor of how someone will vote. And the liberals fear that deep down, whether they know it or not, the folks sitting in the pews are, gulp, Republicans ... if they vote. So liberals benefit by finding ways to "discourage" any behavior that might motivate these "values voters" to show up at the polls on Election Day. And if these liberals can't use the law to stop people of faith from getting organized, they will try to scare churches into sitting on the cultural sidelines. (Even if lawsuits don't work, the fear of lawsuits is often enough to scare off many a timid religious leader.) Note: If you are a pastor who has been intimidated, or if you've had your church's tax status threatened, click here for help... The truth is there are a ton of things churches and pastors may legally do, including organization voter registration drives and distributing voters guides. Pastors may also (on their own time) exercise freedom of speech and participation in Democracy (including having a private blog that does advocate the election or defeat of partisan candidates). I realize there is a lot of fear and confusion out there, regarding this issue. As such, for more information about your freedom to express your faith and politics, check out these links: The Becket Fund - Protects the free expression of all religious traditions. American Center for Law and Justice - Great info regarding the protection of religious freedoms. The Liberty Counsel - Helps religious groups in legal battles. Wallbuilders - Experts on America's religious heritage. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or an IRS expert. If you have questions, the above resources will give you the answers you've been looking for...
|
PA Politics
I've been emailing back and forth with Jason High from FreePA.org, regarding my recent blog about Lynn Swann. Jason has excellent insight regarding Pennsylvania politics. There is some VERY exciting stuff happening in PA, right now, and his blog will keep you in the loop. (As you'll see, I've linked to his blog, FreePA.org.) For more info on the PA Political scene, check it out!
|
Politicians' Spouses: Assets or Liabilities?
 Marc Ambinder, over at National Journal's "Hotline On Call" blog, writes that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will be using his wife more and more as he prepares for a presidential run: "She humanizes her husband, who can be stiff and workmanlike on the campaign trail. She's quick with a quip in one-to-one conversations. She's a reminder that Frist, a heart surgeon, has a big heart -- is a family man, with three children."
This got me thinking of how political spouses have been utilized by past campaigns. President Bush has certainly utilized Laura Bush to soften his image. John F. Kennedy was benefited greatly by Jacky Kennedy's style and class. In fact, she sometimes overshadowed him, as was the case when he once jokingly introduced himself as "the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris." Sometimes the roles are reversed: Ronald Reagan, who was perhaps a bit too trusting, benefited from having Nancy by his side. Nancy Reagan was more skeptical and suspicious of people, and found ways to get rid of people she thought might hurt her husband. Close Reagan friends speculate we would never have had a President Reagan without Nancy Reagan. (In the case of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, they may have actually softened their wives' image). Sure, Nancy's concern for Reagan sometimes overstepped the boundaries, causing staffers like Lyn Nofziger and Mike Deaver some sleepless nights. And Nancy also created problems for President Reagan when her consultations of an astrologer were made public. Nevertheless, her presence was, by far, a net gain. This phenomenon of utilizing the candidate's spouse isn't just for national politics. Local candidates can also benefit from having a spouse serve as a surrogate when speaking events coincide. Additionally, a "spouse letter" from a male politicians' wife (targeted to female voters) has long been a staple of political campaigns. In a North Dakota congressional race I managed, we made use of our candidate's terrific spouse in order to soften his image. Our tack didn't go unnoticed by the press, either. When we featured her prominently in our TV ads, the Bismarck Tribune wrote: "In both of the ads, Sand's wife, Holly, is featured prominently and does almost all of the talking. When asked why she was the focus of the ads, Lewis deadpanned, 'She's better looking than he is.' Touche." But not every campaign manager is lucky enough to work with great political spouses (as I have). Anyone who has worked on several political campaigns can tell you stories about meddling spouses who don't know the first thing about politics, yet exert tremendous authority over the direction of the campaign. A meddling spouse has been the downfall of many campaigns. Often, spouses are underutilized by the campaign. This was the case when Howard Dean's wife, Judith, reluctantly joined the campaign trail. She had basically been invisible for two years, and then all of a sudden, she was holding hands with Howard Dean. It just didn't ring true to the average person, and smacked of desperation. But while an absent spouse can be a problem, the worst scenario (as was the case with John Kerry's wife), is a spouse who is both an internal and an external liability. I have no doubt that Teresa Heinz Kerry cost her husband at least a point or two. In short, political spouses can be a tremendous help to a politician. Aspiring candidates should choose their spouses carefully. Time will tell if Bill Frist's tactic will pay off. He certainly needs to tweak his image right now, and this is a good step in that direction.
|
Christian Movie Revolution
Building on the strength of a recent string of successful Christian movies, The Second Chance is set to debut. The Second Chance, the story of a rebellious son and a pastor who struggle to bridge the gap between their respective churches and cultures, is just the latest in a series of Christian movies to make it into the mainstream. In January, End of the Spear, a movie about five Christian missionaries martyred in the jungles of Ecuador, debuted. The movie drew controversy among Christians because of Chad Allen, who plays one of the martyred missionaries, is a homosexual who has lobbied for gay marriage. Despite the controversy, most Christians view these movies as a welcome alternative to what is currently coming out of Hollywood. The fact that we are talking about these two movies debuting, is news unto itself. Until fairly recently, Christian movies have been mostly relegated to home viewing. For example, the Left Behind series is wildly popular among Christians. While this provided edifying material for families, it did little to change the culture. In short, it was, preaching to the choir. But while these movies may have done little evangelize, they were certainly significant in laying the groundwork for today's successes. Ironically, this past dilemma has forced Christian movies to be creative in finding ways to market themselves. Today, we can count on Christian radio shows -- and even local churches to become creative and to engage in guerilla marketing. For example, the website for The Second Chance asks fans to help promote the movie: "If you're excited about The Second Chance and want to help promote the movie in your area, then you've come to the right place. This section provides you with free tools, exclusive contests, and other helpful information that will assist you in spreading the word about this film. Plus, fans who participate in promoting the film will receive FREE PRIZES as a way to say thanks for all your help." The Second Chance and End of the Spear are just the latest two offerings in a growing genre that includes mega-blockbusters, such as: The Passion and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. It would be hard to overstate the impact these two movies have had, in terms of proving Christian movies can be highly profitable. Of course, there is also a danger in comparing these blockbusters to other Christian movies. Like every genre, some movies are blockbusters, some fail, others become successful "small films," and some become cult classics. Not every movie will be a huge money-maker. To become truly successful, Christian films will have to occupy places in each rubric -- and they are well on their way. This phenomenon seems to be taking off like a rocket. Ten years ago, these movies would not have been made. (Heck, ten years ago, this blog would not have been able to talk about them, if they were made). Like conservative talk radio shows, cable news TV shows, and the phenomenon of blogging, technology has paved the way for this revolution. I predict we are still in the beginning stages of an industry that is filling a niche and meeting the needs of a desperately underserved audience who has long hungered for entertainment that fits our worldview.
|
Lynn Swann's campaign manager had a good response to revelations that Swann didn't vote in several past elections: "Like many Pennsylvanians, he did not vote in every election. It was a mistake, but unlike career politicians, Lynn has not been focused on his next campaign."Frankly, this is exactly what I would have said. Normal people don't vote in every election. So the best way to spin this is to basically say that Lynn Swann is just like you -- he doesn't vote every time. This strategy worked for Bill Clinton -- and his sins were much more egregious than simply not voting...
|
The Republican National Committee has announced two first-of-their-kind education and training programs for potential minority political candidates and operatives. More.
|
Cheney Situation Worsens ...
A few days ago I wrote that Dick Cheney's hunting accident could actually help him. While my premise was correct, the events that have transpired since then have conspired to change my assessment. In my blog I wrote: "See, there are gaffes and then there are lethal mistakes. A lethal mistake in politics is a mistake that reinforces a negative that people already believe. For example, Mike Dukakis in a tank reinforced what people already believed: Democrats are weak on defense... What does this gaffe underscore? That Cheney goes hunting..." I also wrote, "...And because nobody was seriously injured, this whole thing will blow over in a few days and be viewed as almost laughable." Since then, things have changed. The victim's situation has worsened, and Cheney has failed to even address the issue. My analysis that "lethal mistakes" are those that reinforce a negative that people already believe has proven, unfortunately, true. In this case, Cheney's behavior underscores a negative people already believe about this White House: That they are aloof, secretive, don't like to make mistakes, and resent the media. Additionally, it underscores the Katrina problem: failure to quickly respond to a crisis. Today's USA TODAY gives Cheney some advice: "Go to Corpus Christi. Comfort your friend. Hold a news conference in the hospital parking lot. Explain what happened. Express anguish. Take responsibility." Think of how Bill Clinton might have addressed this issue. He would have held a press conference in the parking lot with the victim's wife. He would have hugged her. He would have held up his family Bible and said, "This good book has pulled me through the last several days, and it's going to pull my friend through the next several trying days." Of course, Cheney lacks the empathetic and theatrical abilities possessed by Bill Clinton. But he could still issue a statement. That is the least he should do.
|
|
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
