On Thursday, when I interviewedNewt Gingrich, he made a comment about Governor Romney which immediately struck me as newsworthy. Turns out, it was; it's quoted by reporter Kit Seelye in today's New York Times print (and online) edition:
"As a middle-class person, I can't compete with Governor Romney, who can write a personal check for a hundred million dollars," Mr. Gingrich told Matt Lewis, a blogger with Townhall.com, referring to Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate and the former governor of Massachusetts. "But if there is a big enough citizen movement that wants to have somebody who could debate Senator Clinton next year and somebody who could outline and articulate our values, then I think we'd be compelled to run."
Reporters (and bloggers) love conflict, and that's why this quote made a splash. Speaker Gingrich knows this unwritten rule as well as anyone, and clearly wanted me to quote this line ... But why?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out ...
Political consultant Robert T. Shepardson, who is advising the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., injected a note of skepticism into the proceedings. While saying the Web is an excellent medium for organizing and fund-raising, it is "struggling with persuasiveness," and not a useful way to convince undecided voters. Huffington expressed some frustration that the medium is not being used in more innovative ways. Shepardson noted, "It is hard to be funky from a messaging point of view when you're talking about the war in Iraq and health care."
I'll be on Captain Ed's show today to discuss Newt Gingrich's American Solutions Conference. (We will both be in Atlanta tomorrow for the kick-off) ...
The International Association of Fire Fighters accused Republican Rudy Giuliani of exploiting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because a supporter is holding a $9.11-per-person fundraiser for the presidential candidate.
The union -- already a vocal critic of Giuliani's -- said Tuesday that the fundraiser's "$9.11 for Rudy" theme is an abuse of the image and symbols of the 2001 attacks.
Here's the statement Giuliani spokesperson Maria Comella about it:
"These are two volunteers who acted independently of and without the knowledge of the campaign. Their decision to ask individuals for that amount was an unfortunate choice."
First, it's entirely possible this was planted by another campaign. How easy would it be for campaign A to have volunteers sign-up for a house party for campaign B, and then do something like this?
... Of course, this underscores the danger of using the internet and of being innovative.
Rudy's admirable goal was to empower his supporters to take a leadership role in the campaign, by planning their own events. Yet he got burned.
When we criticize stodgy political consultants to advise their candidates not to fully-engage the internet, this is the reason. When we criticize top-down campaigns that want to micro-manage every last detail of the campaign, this is the reason.
Ultimately, the benefits of running an innovative campaign often outweigh the loss of control. But it's only fair to point out that there is a downside to giving others control of your campaign ...
If I were advising Kucinich I would put him in dark suits and white shirts and dark narrow ties. Actually, I would dress him exactly like Ralph Nader. His haircut is fairly important, because his ears give him a distinctively elfin appearance. This is not all bad, as elves are empowered to grant wishes, but if his ears look too pointy he tends to look extraterrestrial—possibly Vulcan, like Mr. Spock, with whom he shares a fondness for logic.
While Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point" explores how a trend emerges from obscurity to the mainstream, a new book says even small trends can have big effects.
College-educated nannies, home-schooled children, spouses who are together only at weekends and home-buyers with bad credit all have the potential to change society, according to "Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow's Big Changes" (Twelve, $29.99).
This quote about illegal immigration from today's Washington Post will show you what I mean:
"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime."
Giuliani's comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.
"I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding." Ok -- Maybe Rudy is right...technically. But what does being right get him?
Elections aren't about showing how smart you are. And in this instance, it seems like Rudy is actually using a technicality to advocate a politically unpopular position (like the "fact" that illegal immigration isn't a felony).
What is more, Giuliani is arguing logic and facts, but illegal immigration is actually a deeply emotional issue. And in politics, emotion always beats facts. He should be talking about how this issue affects Americans on an emotional level -- not arguing over technical facts (that's the lawyer in him, by the way).
So while Rudy may be technically right, in arguing semantics; he is really winning the battle but losing the war. Republican Primary voters know that illegal immigration is, well, ILLEGAL.
By the way, I see this happen to candidates all the time. They become so obsessed with winning the argument, that they lose track of winning the election.
A wise man once said, "don't get mad, don't get even, get ahead." That's a lesson every candidate ought to learn.
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
Subscribe