I had the great honor of meeting Vic Gold last night. Vic worked for Republicans such as Barry Goldwater, Spiro Agnew, and George H.W. Bush. I just googled him, and found this terrific article from 1993, titled:
Too many campaigns invest in technology simply because it is considered innovative or cutting-edge. They should be investing time and energy to use these tools because their supporters are comfortable using them and expect their leaders to understand how to reach them effectively. Campaigns are not likely to change the behavior of their audience. But they do have an opportunity to integrate their messaging and organizing opportunities into whatever is already happening.
Tomorrow marks one year since the conservative movement mourned the loss of a truly great man, former Reagan communications director, Lyn Nofziger (he passed away on March 27, 2006).
In politics, you always want to under-promise and over-achieve. Politico's Jonathan Martin has a good story today on how the presidential campaigns are trying to spin their fundraising numbers, to do just that:
For all three campaigns, the expectations game is a delicate one. Each wants to assure that fundraising is going just fine and he’ll have the resources to win. But each also wants to set the bar low enough so that a good number will look great and a bad number can be explained away.
I'm heading up to New Hampshire to attend a few town hall events. I'm told I'll be able to ride on the Straight Talk Express.
I've been to many, many states, but have never made it to the Granite State. I'm hoping to make it back, right before the New Hampshire Primary. That's a political junkies dream!
I'll be posting some pictures and stuff on Sunday. Stay tuned ...
If you're a blogger who is looking for a blogging gig, this is for you:
StopHerNow.com is looking for a "chief blogger" to provide commentary on all things Hillary. According to Dick Collins, founder of StopHerNow.com:
"Our plan is to start with a chief blogger and then expand, adding another blogger from Iowa and New Hampshire. This blog will greatly aid in our mission to expose Hillary Clinton's ultra-liberal agenda. We plan to make it her worst nightmare."
Applicants should send resume and writing sample to StopHerNow@gmail.com.
Today's WaPost has a good story about the Prez candidates -- and how much they are raising. But this line -- about the PR aspects of it -- caught my eye:
Campaigns are also aggressively trying to manage expectations, providing low-ball estimates of what they will raise while exaggerating predictions for their opponents.
It's not just how much you raise -- it's whether or not you overwhelm (or underwhelm) us.
Morton Blackwell's rule to "under-promise and over-achieve" is alive and well in politics!
Last week, I spoke at the Leadership Institute on the topic of Volunteers. One of the things that always comes up is the idea that someone might attempt to infiltrate your campaign by posing as a volunteer. One of the students said he has his volunteers sign a confidentiality agreement. He was nice enough to email it to me. Not sure if it's legally binding, but it's better than nothing. I'm going to post it on our "dowloads" page, but in the meantime, here it is:
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
I ______________________________, as a vendor, contractor, representative, volunteer, employee, and/or agent of Xxxxxxxxxxx and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx for Senate, Inc. and the campaign for United States Senate ("the campaign") understand that in assisting, and performing services in connection with the campaign, I may have access to "Confidential Information" concerning the campaign, the candidate, and /or related matters. Accordingly, I make the following representations and warranties and agree to the following conditions:
1. I will treat all information about the campaign, candidate and related matters communicated to or from the campaign in connection with the work I do as "Confidential Information," unless I am expressly informed by an authorized member of the campaign that it is not "Confidential Information."
2. I will not divulge, disclose, copy, release, sell, loan, revise, alter, destroy or modify any "Confidential Information" to which I may have access while performing my duties in connection with or related to the campaign, except as properly authorized by the campaign.
3. I will take all reasonable steps to observe and maintain the confidentiality of such information and will not misuse or negligently care for or fail to safeguard confidential information.
4. I will not access or seek knowledge of "Confidential Information" that I have no legitimate reason to access or know.
5. I acknowledge and confirm that any failure to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of this Confidentiality Agreement will cause irreparable harm to Xxxxxxxxxxx and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx for Senate, Inc. and the campaign.
6. I acknowledge and agree that in the event that "Confidential Information" is improperly disclosed by me, I shall be responsible for all damages. I further acknowledge and agree that Xxxxxxxxxxx and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx for Senate, Inc. and/or the campaign shall have the right to pursue all available remedies in law or equity including injunctive relief to restrain any reproduction, disclosure or release, threatened or actual, of "Confidential Information."
This agreement is effective immediately upon the commencement of my involvement with Xxxxxxxxxxx and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx for Senate, Inc. and/or the campaign and is effective retroactively. The provisions of this Confidentiality Agreement shall survive the termination of my work for the campaign and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx and/or Xxxxxxxxxxx for Senate, Inc.
My signature below indicates my understanding and agreement to the provisions above.
Townhall's Chuck DeFeo and Patrick Ruffin are on stage right now with the NBC's Chuck Todd, MyDD's Jerome Armstrong, and former Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi (sitting to Chuck's right), at the Politics Online Conference:
Yesterday, as a guest blogger on TomDeLay.com, Chuck also had some good advice and tips.
So what should campaign bloggers really be doing? Here's what:
WH '08ers can't seem to agree on how to title their official blog advisers (eCampaign Adviser, Blog Outreach Dir., and Dir. of Online Communications are a few choices), and most campaigns also have trouble defining how exactly their blog experts fit into their campaign. Each candidate's strengths in other areas ought to inform how they handle blogs, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) aide (he doesn't even have an official title) Patrick Hynes' push-back efforts 3/13 are a textbook example of how the job should be done. After a flurry of posts hit McCain for skipping the Club for Growth's winter conf., Hynes went to work emailing bloggers to let them know CFG only offered McCain dates to speak that coincided with a previously planned trip to Iraq. The retractions and updates Hynes netted his candidate both tampered down implications that he was dissing conservatives and reinforced McCain's strength on just about the only issue conservative bloggers back McCain on. This one episode is not going to magically swing bloggers to McCain's column, but it is an example of the vigilant defense WH '08ers must be prepared to play online.
If you gave $20 to an organization, you would certainly hope your money is going to advance a cause you care about -- not line the pockets of political consultants -- right?
Granted, there are always "overhead" costs. Postage, offices, and staff -- all cost money. And consultants have a right to be paid well. But in the last two days, I have seen two stories that make me wonder about some of the consultants who are working in the conservative movement. Consider this:
Yesterday's Providence Journal featured a story about a former GOP congressional candidate, turned consultant. According to the story:
After losing to U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy in 2004, congressional candidate Dave Rogers and his campaign manager, Christian Winthrop, continued raising money from Republicans across the country, to build their conservative political action committee.
With written pleas for cash to help put "hard-charging, fearless, battle-tested Republican veterans in the U.S. Congress," they raised more than $415,000 in the 2005-06 election cycle.
Two percent of that money went to federal candidates: a total of $9,000 in two years.
In that same time period, Rogers and Winthrop paid themselves $144,000 from their fund, mostly in "political consulting" fees.
Winthrop, listed in documents as the fund's treasurer, collected more than $113,000 from the PAC -- named the Special Operations Fund. Winthrop had been working in the presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. John McCain, as deputy campaign manager of New Hampshire operations. His job with McCain ended Tuesday -- the day The Journal contacted the campaign about the PAC, according to a McCain campaign official.
Rogers, of Portsmouth, a Navy SEAL veteran and a former aide to Governor Carcieri, is a two-time Republican nominee for Congress in the 1st Rhode Island District. He got $31,000 in "consulting" fees.
How could so much money -- given by conservatives to elect like-minded people to Congress -- have ended up in the pockets of two political associates running a PAC from a P.O. box in Middletown?
Today's Washington Post features a similar story about how the Minutemen Project (an anti-illegal-immigrant organization) is in turmoil. According to the article:
"The dispute centers on $750,000 in donations raised for the Minuteman Project by HSP Direct, a now-defunct Herndon direct-mail firm hired by Gilchrist. After the company deducted expenses, the project received about $100,000."
If HSP is defunct; it is funny that just yesterday I received an email from them titled: "HSP Direct introduces new Vice President of Creative Services ...")
As a conservative, who has also worked as a consultant, I have no problem with consultants making an honest living.
But I do have a problem with consultants bilking organizations who are trying to advance the movement. These stories concern me greatly ...
If you are a candidate or part of an organization who is thinking of hiring a consultant, make sure to read this Campaigns & Elections Magazine article I authored, a while back. It's titled, "Political Consultants 101 (PDF)," Things you must know before making a hire.
Wow. This is Trippy, or, um, Trippi ... Okay, if you get past the weirdness of this whole thing, this is actually a very good interview: Joe Trippi discusses the highs and lows of his political career. This is quick and worth checking out ...
... And here's some free internet advice from Trippi:
Today's Washington Post features a good article about internet fundraising on political campaigns:
With tools offered free on Barack Obama's Internet site, Karthikeyan, 28, created his own "South Asians for Obama" Web portal to gather money from friends who were inspired to support his favorite candidate. Within days, he was able to forward to Obama's presidential campaign $1,600 -- more than he ever planned to give on his own -- in bundled contributions from those who saw the targeted site.
Shira Toeplitz of National Journal's "On The Download" asked "24 of the best Republican Internet strategists (including yours truly) what they thought of the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates' Web sites."
The controversy continues ... Today, Rob Bluey responds to my critique of his post about negative ads. I think his response is a good one. In the meantime, enjoy another classic ...
Over at NRO, K-LO argues that George W. should have played up his "Cowboy" imagery even more than he did. Here's why:
The liberal press will not like Bush no matter what he does. Reagan wasn't afraid of that cowboy image. He played it up. He spent a full year's worth of time at his ranch while he was president, where he wore cowboy boots, Wranglers, flannel shirts, a Stetson, rode horses, split wood and slept literally 10 feet from a gun rack filled with Winchesters, one of which he grabbed one day and fired at a crow, to the horror of the Secret Service.
I've got to take issue with my good friend, Rob Bluey, who writes about negative politics today at RedState. Rob writes:
"I've made it a personal mission to condemn negative ads, regardless of who runs them."
First, there needs to be a distinction drawn between "good" negative ads and "bad" ones. It's just too easy to say: "It's wrong to say anything bad about anyone..."
For example, was it wrong for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to point out that John Kerry was a phony?
And if you know something about someone which would disqualify them from serving in a position of leadership, is it not your civic duty to inform the public (and let them be the judge of it)? Was Reagan wrong for "going negative" on Ford and Jimmy Carter? Did voters have the right to know about Michael Dukakis' furlough program?
While many may admire Rob's sentiment, I see it as a disturbing -- but emerging -- trend among conservative bloggers, many of whom do not have a campaign background. It is also very easy to cast oneself as a good guy by merely saying you don't like negative ads. It's easy, and not terribly intellectually challenging.
Decrying "negative" ads is a luxury afforded to those who are blessed to be able to sit in their decorated offices, never having to engage in the "dirty" work of electoral politics.
While the conservative movement is certainly in need of more intellectuals, it is also in need of soldiers -- men and women who do the things that, though they are necessary to preserve Democracy, don't get talked about at cocktail parties (TR noted that politics was like making sausage. He was right).
What many call "negative" politics, I call engaging in the work of Democracy. We have an adversarial system that rests on the principle that beating each other up during a campaign results in a more informed public. As Susan KiLiddo Michels recently told National Journal's Hotline:
"Negative campaigning is... as old as time and human nature. The Romans campaigned negatively; Shakespeare dedicated an entire play to negative campaigning -- Richard III."
There is nothing healthier for Democracy than a vigorous debate. And, as many historians and writers have noted (including Eric Burns, author of Infamous Scribblers), if you look at history, today's politics is comparably tame.
Note: While Rob and I are very good friends, I believe that having this debate is healthy. Of course, this is entirely consistent with my argument in favor of what some call "negative" campaigning, and I call "comparison advertising."
DID YOU HEAR about Ann Coulter's comments about John Edwards? If you didn't, you're probably not paying attention ... In any event, I'm not going to write about how Ann Coulter "went too far," etc. That's not what this blog is about.
But I DO think this incident is educational. Here's why: This was the best thing that ever happened to John Edwards.
Before this happened, Edwards was being forgotten. Everyone was talking about Hillary and Obama. This event breathed new life into Edwards' campaign.
So what can your campaign learn from this incident? Here's what: Being attacked by your enemy is a good thing -- especially if they over-reach. It helps you rally volunteers -- and raise money.
In fact, here's an excerpt of the email John Edwards' campaign manager wisely sent this email out, right after the comments:
Dear Friend,
Did you hear about Anne Coulter's speech this afternoon attacking John? A friend just forwarded me the video and it's one of the worst moments in American politics I've seen.
... This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?
I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me? Just click here.
... If we can raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it. John is not the first progressive leader to face this kind of slime, but together, we can make sure he is one of the last.
Tonight, I've put in 100 bucks of "Coulter Cash" to get us started. Can you match me, or chip in whatever you can afford? Just click here ...
When my good friend Rob Bluey told me he was starting a blog, I knew it would be good ... but I didn't know it would be this good! Rob's blog has become a must-read for conservatives. Additionally, he brilliantly created a CPAC Bloggers page. If you missed CPAC -- or want to re-live it -- this is your site.
As you may know, I have a campaign email tip that I send out peridically (you can sign up here). Yesterday's tip included a "rule" for dressing, and to illustrate, I described what a male candidate ought to wear.
Of course, I received several emails from ladies, asking me how they should dress. First, the rule applies to both sexes. However, I am certainly not as well versed in recommending the specifics regarding how female candidates should dress. My only advice is to dress appropriately. Dress classy. And don't wear anything (such as big earrings, etc.), that detracts from your message. I also recommend picking up a book titled, "The Polished Politician." It was written by a lady named Lillian Brown, who was an image consultant for several candidates, including JFK. It's a quick read, and you can get it for about $10!
One of the things I always teach when I talk about developing a message is that you have to CONTRAST yourself with your opponent(s). My rule is: In politics, unless you're distinct, you'll become extinct. Well, today at CPAC, Ken Blackwell quoted a KellyAnne Conway line that might be even better: "You can't beat vanilla with French vanilla." While KellyAnne was refering to the Republican "brand" -- it applies to candidates, as well. You can't beat your opponent by being a little better than he is. You have to become Chocolate!
Sorry for the light blogging today; I'm at CPAC today, networking with conservatives -- and listening to some great speeches. I'll have more on that, in the days to follow. Tonight, I'm speaking at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA. If you have a chance, swing by CPAC -- or Li.
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
Subscribe