Resurrecting the Media

As the decade draws to a merciful close, one market that has been beaten down further than the Republicans and our retirement portfolios combined has been the media. I’ve opined over and over and over about the media’s continuing insignificance in the 21st century, but I may also see a way out for the Fourth Estate.

First, downsize staff and cut pages if you must, but by all means please stop cutting back on writers and foreign bureaus. Writers and foreign bureaus are the oil that keeps dailies and newsweeklies running. Many colleges are in financial trouble, but the last place they cut staff is in academia because then the quality of education suffers, followed by the quality of the institution. Same for professional sports teams; if they cut their best players the team will suffer and fans will desert. It’s no different when the media cuts back on writers and stories. Laying off journalists is killing professional journalism.

Twenty years ago when journalists and foreign bureaus existed we watched successful revolutions across Eastern Europe – many have said Western journalism helped get these stories out and fueled the protestors for democracy. We currently have a revolution beginning to bubble in Iran and the lack of Western media actually over there covering the story is shocking. If you only get your news from mainstream media you would have no idea what is happening there. Fortunately we have DIY journalism on YouTube, Flickr and Facebook to spread the word, and ironically I’ve seen pleas from mainstream media asking these brave Iranians to act as (unpaid) correspondents! Sorry guys, you reap what you sow.

But there have been some media success stories this decade. Just as the online audience has fragmented and narrowcasted, the successful media outlets have been ahead of the curve and provided terrific coverage and breaking commentary first. Specifically, I’m thinking of TMZ.com. TMZ was the first to break Michael Jackson’s death, Tiger Woods’ er, “mishaps” and is actually expanding into sports. Why has TMZ succeeded? Because it completely eschews the old-school media model in favor of non-printed breaking news – almost an AP for gossip. They also have the old media model of a small army pounding the pavement looking for news (or dirt).

Do they pay for tips, if not stories? Yes, sometimes they do. But TMZ has never pretended to be anything other than what it is. And with NBC now crossing the same lines TMZ ignores, it’s quite possible that checkbook journalism will become a stronger player within the mainstream media in the next decade, if only to keep up with its smaller, faster rivals. TMZ’s success and accuracy cannot be ignored any longer. There is a lesson here.

More info: Politico is another good example of the new Web media working. And they’re hiring. If you were a recent journalism grad, where would you go?

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part IV - The Conclusion

If you have read all the posts so far and still believe CFR laws are either correct or effective, there is additional information I have researched that I did not discuss here. One is that fundraising success, not media time or attention, is the most effective gauge of popular support for candidates and causes. A review of www.opensecrets.org reveals that PACs and so-called special interests actually supply a small minority of the voluntary donations provide the fuel that power political communications to inform and educate the electorate, something that Jefferson said was necessary to the health of a democracy. Obama’s fundraising strength – 100% of which came from voluntary donations – gave him the means to wage an effective campaign against both Clinton and McCain. The media did not take candidates like Howard Dean and Ron Paul seriously until their fundraising totals showed they enjoyed a great deal of popular support.

But CFR laws passed in the guise of “money undermining the public” and “taking the money and interest groups out of politics” have not achieved these goals. In fact, they have exacerbated the situation by the sharp rise in incumbency and millionaires winning office. In the hope of limiting private donations, they have made politicians more reliant on fundraising than ever before as the realities of the marketplace require increased time spent on raising funds. Limits on donations mean more time spent fundraising, and lower donation amounts obviously leads to increased interaction with those who can give the maximum.

Most alarmingly for political communication, regulating donations limits the ways citizens can participate in the political process and also limits the ways politicians can present themselves and their platform to the electorate. Any law that restricts freedom of speech, limits freedom of expression and affects the outcome of election should be a violation of the First Amendment and a detriment to popular sovereignty. Yet these laws continue to be popular with the public, who are clearly unaware of these serious consequences and unable to follow the complexities of CFR. Even among CFR supporters, there is a backlash because they do not believe the laws are working. When a CFR champion like John McCain abandons the Presidential Campaign Fund and begins employing the same techniques he excoriated others for using, it is obvious the current system is broken.

The challenge, then, is whether to keep passing new CFR laws or try something radical like gutting the entire CFR structure. The answer is likely to be neither in the near term, although the current makeup of the Supreme Court may encourage some organization to challenge the laws on First Amendment issues. In 2007, the Court weakened the 60-day ad provision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, ruling that the BCRA's limitations on political advertising were unconstitutional when applied to issue ads similar to ones the Wisconsin organization wanted to run.

There is one CFR facet I agree with because it assists politicians, the public and the First Amendment – the call for transparency and added disclosure. The public deserves to know where politicians, PACs, 527s and other organizations are getting their money, and how they are spending it. Web sites like www.opensecrets.org present this information in great detail. It helps create a money trail and assists with accountability. Anything that continues to promote good governance should be encouraged.

But by and large, CFR laws are preventing effective political communication. The laws were designed to prevent inequities, but social and economic inequality will always exist in our society regardless of the level of campaign contributions from the private sector. The more money a candidate can get, the more they will be able to communicate with the voters. The more informed voters are, the better informed they will be. It’s conceivable that Obama’s huge base of support simultaneously comes from and is driven by the large amount of private contributions he has raised from the public. And remember, he also rejected the matching funds from the Presidential Campaign because he thought he would need more money to win the campaign. It turned out he was absolutely right.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part III - Why Incumbents and Millionaires Love Them

Even if you disagree with both my posts on Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) so far, there are three incontrovertible truths about what has happened since the Supreme Court upheld part of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. First, since 1976 there has been a huge jump in the number of incumbents that have been reelected. Second, there is a growing number of millionaires being elected to public office. And third, so-called “public financing” of elections to purge the system is not a viable option and – in the case where it has existed since 1976 – is dying on the vine. These are additional reasons why CFR laws have been a complete failure, made politicians more dependent on money than ever and have made the political system and money more interdependent than ever.

Let’s talk about incumbency first. Incumbency has always been a difficult mountain for political challengers at any level to overcome. Unless an incumbent is truly unpopular or besieged by scandal, challengers everywhere have an uphill battle for name recognition, let alone victory. That is why so much attention is devoted to “open seats,” where there is no incumbent running. Since CFR laws were passed, this difficult task has been made close to impossible because these laws discriminate against challengers by making it almost impossible for them to raise enough money to effectively challenge sitting congressmen and senators. Is this why CFR laws always pass by wide margins?

Below are the results for Congressional incumbents pre- and post-Buckley up to 2000. If you want to view the 2000-2008 results visit the House Clerk's page but I promise the results are the same.

House Races 1920-1974

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 9,733 1,005
Winning Percentage 90.6% 9.4%

House Races 1976-2000

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 4,826 218
Winning Percentage 95.7% 4.3%

Senate Races 1920-1974

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 454 161
Winning Percentage 73.8% 26.2%

Senate Races 1976-2000

Incumbents Challengers
Winners 230 45
Winning Percentage 83.6% 16.4%

Source: Rodney Smith, Money, Power & Politics, LSU Press, 2006, p.9.

The most important thing a challenger must do in any election is build up name recognition, and the way to do that is through political communication – direct mail, advertising, lawn signs, bumper stickers and other established methods. If a challenger cannot effectively communicate because his or her fundraising is being handicapped by CFR laws, those laws are not only breaking the First Amendment but also interfering in election outcomes. This is not the only reason so many incumbents are re-elected, but it is the primary reason why challengers have become less successful overall since these laws first took effect.

While incumbents must adhere to the same contribution limits, they are not prevented from raising money while in office, and this has led to a perpetual fundraising quest so incumbents can also overcome contribution limits while simultaneously building up war chests to discourage competitors. Virtually every elected official in Congress develops a PAC, and naturally seeks out individuals and other PACs who can donate large amounts of money. Massachusetts has a $500 limit on contributions, and while state races are less expensive the lower amount causes local politicians to spend even more time fundraising to compensate. And when there's a war chest to build up to both run campaigns and deter challengers, a politician is practically forced to spend time soliciting those individuals or PACs that can give him or her the maximum amount.

But there is one glaring loophole to CFR laws – spending one’s own money to win elections. While being the richest candidate does not always guarantee success (just ask John Corzine in NJ, or Jack E. Robinson here in Massachusetts), being able to tap one’s own wealth makes CFR laws moot. The richest candidate may not always win, but the candidate who spends the most money generally does and both parties are increasingly turning to millionaires as viable candidates – candidates who are rarely representative of the districts and states they represent. Congress has become an exclusive club, far different than the citizen legislature it once was.

In 2004, Agence France Presse reported that 123 members of the 435-member House of Representatives earned at least $1 million in the prior year, and one in three U.S. Senators were also millionaires. Senators are not getting this rich from their salaries, which is $154,700 for newcomers. Financial wealth is a bipartisan issue, with Republicans and Democrats alike reporting huge financial assets; the wealth of Mass Democrats John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy are well-known. There is little doubt that CFR has made it infinitely easier for wealthier upper classes to run for public office because they can skirt campaign finance reform laws, while middle class office-seekers and other average Americans must contend with the existing system that places limits on how much cash is available for them. It is an uphill battle few of them can win.

One frequently cited solution to CFR is the public financing of elections. Common Cause says this is a way to, “give voters more control over government, make politicians accountable to constituents rather than campaign contributors, save taxpayers money and level the playing field by giving all citizens a fair shot at getting elected.” Unfortunately the most prominent public financing of all – the Presidential Campaign Fund – is atrophying from a lack of interest from the public and a growing number of candidates opting out of the system. The Fund is founded by taxpayers who voluntarily mark off a $3 donation on their federal tax returns. The law then gives candidates a fixed amount that is indexed for inflation to spend before the primaries, and a larger amount for the two nominees to spend between the conventions and Election Day. In return, the candidates must adhere to a spending limit and not spend more than $50,000 of their own money.

Both party candidates used the system until 2000, despite the fact that the largest percentage of taxpayers to ever check the “Yes” box was 28.7% in 1980; by 1994 only 13% checked the box and in 2007 only 9% said yes. The steady decline indicates the lack of public support for the system. In 2000, George W. Bush became the first candidate to decline public funding, believing that in a campaign season that had grown longer and more costly he would not have enough money to win the election if he had to abide by spending limits. Bush was also able to raise far more funds than he would have received from the Fund. In 2004, Bush, Kerry and Howard Dean all declined money from the Fund for the same reason, and their fundraising success was a watershed moment for presidential candidates. In 2008 Democrats Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson opted out, as did Republicans McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Paul and Huckabee for the same reasons the 2004 candidates did. The success many of these candidates had raising money from the private sector (or in Romney’s case, tapping his own fortune) proves that the Fund has become antiquated, if not irrelevant.

I'll wrap this up in the next post.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part II - The First Amendment

Many liberals have fond memories of the late Senator Gene McCarthy, whose anti-Vietnam presidential platform caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 campaign. But very few of them know that in 1974, McCarthy went to court with fellow Senator James Buckley and a host of other groups ranging from the New York Civil Liberties Union to the Mississippi Republican Party to sue the United States against new amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The coalition of ultra-liberals and arch-conservatives believed the new stipulations were unconstitutional, muzzled free speech and caused the government to influence election results and compromise popular sovereignty.

Two years later, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (Buckley got the recognition because his name was first) did indeed agree with McCarthy and others and threw out the bulk of the new laws but upheld some key provisions, including the creation of the FEC, public financing of presidential elections and capped campaign contribution limits at $1,000. The court ruled that limits on individual and campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment, but contribution limits did not.

But is that truly the case, and was Gene McCarthy and the NY Civil Liberties Union 100% correct? In my opinion, yes. All forms of political communication to a mass audience of voters and constituents require money to create (often by hiring consultants), produce (everything from direct mail to bumper stickers and advertising copy) and distribute or broadcast. Political advertising and speeches is clearly communications and deserves the same protections as any other form of speech, including the partisan rhetoric of 527 ads and the personal views expressed on this blog.

By limiting campaign contributions, Buckley v. Valeo is limiting the contents and varieties of political communication available to political campaigns. It is also suppressing political dialogue and debate by preventing candidates from amassing enough resources to communicate with the public. Campaign contributions also enable other means of political communication, including grassroots mobilization and get-out-the-vote drives that further educate the public to a candidate’s positions.

The Court has ruled in numerous other decisions regarding communication that money equals speech, and politics is no exception. Money permits challengers and incumbents alike the power to communicate through advertising to try and persuade voters. But when the money spigot is curtailed or cut off, that severely limits the effectiveness of free speech and has the power to determine the outcome of elections. If Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) laws are hampering popular sovereignty, they are having a deleterious effect on democracy.

CFR laws also adversely affect people who wish to donate to their preferred candidates, parties and political causes. One of the best ways citizens can participate in the democratic process is by political contributions, but if a citizen wants to give more than is allotted by law their free speech rights are also being violated. Look at the figures from the 2008 elections at OpenSecrets.org and you will see that private donations from individuals provide the vast majority of money to the political system, not the PACs and nebulous “special interests” that CFR supporters claim. In fact, recent presidential candidates like Howard Dean, Barack Obama and Ron Paul became serious contenders entirely through private donations.

In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) was passed that created additional CFR restrictions. It included a ban on the “soft money” contributions made to political parties, raised the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,300 and indexed it for inflation, and banned ads by organizations that identifies a candidate by name within 60 days of election. The Democratic and Republican parties used soft money for a myriad of reasons, but they were primarily used for issue debates ranging from the environment to taxes and were often used in conjunction with specific races. By banning these donations, the parties are also now subjugated to the same First Amendment issues raised earlier because they are being prevented from fully engaging in these political debates. Perhaps more insidiously, donations that used to go to the parties (that were fully disclosed) have been diverted to 527 organizations and other entities that are not required to be transparent or accountable for their actions.

CFR laws were certainly written with good intentions, but the consequences to the public, the parties and the candidates have unacceptably influenced elections by curtailing free speech. Unfortunately, CFR laws are undermining more than the First Amendment and are adversely affecting politics in other ways as well. I'll explore that next.

The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform, Part I

If you ever tried to read anything about campaign finance reform (CFR), you probably gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. If you ever tried to sit down and actually study the reasons behind campaign finance reform, you definitely gave up because you couldn’t figure it out. The vast majority of Americans are against CFR, although very, very few can cogently explain their position beyond the clichés “There’s too much money in politics!” and “Special interests decide elections!” arguments. But there is one thing everyone on both sides agree on – CFR laws are not working. The slew of CFR laws has not stemmed one dime from entering a candidate’s coffer.

Yours truly HAS actually spent long hours studying CFR, and part of my day job is working with my company’s Political Action Committee (PAC) that donates funds to some members of Congress. I have learned many things about CFR and can tell you the primary reason why CFR does not work is an error in the very idea of “taking the money out of politics.” What that noble fact overlooks is that we live in a capitalist society, and anyone who has tried to start a business or works at a nonprofit knows that fundraising is absolutely essential to survival. You cannot take the money out of politics the same way you cannot take the money, or the necessity of money, out of Wall Street, non-profits or any business from a small startup to a Fortune 100. And that is why CFR laws do not work and never will work.

But since many Americans have a negative view of Washington, dislike negative political ads and often hear about financial waste and excess in the government, the idea of campaign finance reform is a concept that elicits a positive reaction with people who only follow politics and elections casually. I believe that because CFR is constructed under an unrealistic notion that money will be mitigated from politics, it has led to a series of unintended consequences that have not only failed to stem the money tide, but also led to serious issues that lie at the heart of how politicians are elected and how they communicate with the public.

CFR is an emotional topic, and you hear groups like Common Cause, PIRGs and even some politicians say claims like “Elections are for sale” and “Big money in politics undermines the public interest!” Like many emotional claims, these are made without understanding the situation and I have never seen any of these backed up by hard proof, a single footnote or simple empirical evidence. In the postings to come, I will explain how all of these claims are untrue, and how the unintended consequences of CFR have actually helped millionaires, incumbents, and undermined the First Amendment.

Reading the Post-Election Tea Leaves

With the recent elections a week removed, I’ve read and heard Republicans saying their victories in New Jersey and Virginia mean the party is back in action. I’ve also read and heard Democrats saying their victory in upstate New York means their party is back in action and the conservative firebrands have been repudiated. None of it really means anything, because it’s the same thing I hear after every non-Presidential election. Here’s what it does mean:

With all due respect (and congratulations) to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, it would have been pretty difficult to lose to incumbent governors Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine. The Virginia election outcome was never in doubt, and the only strange thing about New Jersey was how close it was. But the outcomes had nothing to do with party, anti-GOP or anti-Obama mobilization. What did matter was (1) a reminder about what makes elections in America unique, (2) all politics remain local, and (3) anti-incumbency ruled the day; the party in charge was irrelevant.

The U.S. is unique among world democracies because it encourages voters to vote for the candidate instead of the party. There are partisans on both sides that will vote for any candidate that calls themselves a Democrat or Republican, but those are the minorities. Here you can vote for whomever you want, which accounts for the huge number of Americans that call themselves independents and usually end up deciding races. In Great Britain, India, Israel and most other democracies everyone belongs to a party and votes for the party they belong to (ballots in other countries sometimes do not have candidate names on them) and the head of that party becomes the man or woman in charge. But it’s different here. Voters can vote for their choice and cross party lines, and you can have candidates who are pro-life Democrats or pro-government health care Republicans.

Second, Tip O’Neill remains correct – all politics is local. I’ve continually ranted about how social conservatives are driving the pro-business and social libertarians out of the Republican Party, especially in the Northeast. So look again at Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell – not only did they not run on the socially conservative dogma espoused by the national GOP, but they rejected offers from the Sarah Palins, Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world to help. They ran respectful campaigns and focused on local issues like property taxes in New Jersey and unemployment in Virginia. There was none of the ridiculous tea parties or equating Obama to Hitler rhetoric we’ve seen elsewhere, because they knew that would have the wrong effect in their states. In contrast, the effect of ignoring local politics in New York’s 23rd district has been well-documented and when a social conservative bumped the correct candidate off the ticket, the GOP lost a seat that had been Republican since 1852. That’s what happens when you ignore the local angle, and think voters place the party in higher esteem than the candidate.

Finally if you look at all three races it was the incumbent who lost (you could view the 23rd seat as a Republican incumbent) and Mayor Bloomberg of NYC barely squeaked by in what was supposed to be a cakewalk. In case you missed it, voters are pretty mad across the country and when unemployment is high, personal finance accounts are low and the economy is in a general rut incumbents have their work cut out for them. It’s not an anti-GOP or anti-Obama fervor hitting the voters, it’s an anti-political system, vote-the-bums-out policy that is targeting everyone in office. This is the anger fueling the votes, and politicians of every stripe and ideology ignore it at their peril.

I Think I Remember Rock and Roll Radio

When the once mighty rock station WBCN in Boston disappeared this August, the reply from many was a disappointed shrug – disappointment in how one of the most important rock stations in the country was being transformed into a sports station by CBS, the corporation that owned it, and shrugs in that nobody was really surprised. If anything, many of the comments I’ve linked to ask why it took so long to happen.

This is not a eulogy for rock and roll music. Rock and roll is doing just fine, thank you. New bands like The Mars Volta, The Gaslight Anthem, Mastodon, Death Cab for Cutie and The Foo Fighters show the now-middle aged rock genre remains vibrant. Those are my choices for good rock music these days, and your opinion may differ. But what almost all these bands have in common is that you almost never hear them on the traditional radio stations or MTV. You can find them on the Internet, satellite radio and on tour, but almost never the way you used to.

When I came to Boston in 1987, EVERYONE listened to WBCN. Sure, it was a different time with fewer choices but within a week of being here my ears were opened to all the exciting music Boston had to offer. For every Bruce Springsteen song, they also played one by a great local band called Scruffy the Cat. Much has been written about WBCN being one of the first to break through Boston bands like Aerosmith, the J. Geils Band, The Cars and Til Tuesday. It was the classic story of local stations customizing their playlist to help local bands get known in their hometowns. Since Boston was, to paraphrase Spinal Tap, such a big college town, pushing local rock bands playing at local clubs went over well. WBCN’s practice was noticed by other bands on the edge of stardom, and whenever Bono and Sting played local arenas they always thanked WBCN for being one of the first stations to push them.

Eventually WBCN became part of the CBS empire, and you can guess what happened afterward. By the early 90s the local bands had vanished and it had basically become a classic rock station, playing the same 50 songs by Led Zeppelin and The Doors every other rock station plays. Rock music and the younger generation’s tastes had changed, but WBCN refused to acknowledge it. After the second Woodstock in 1994 there was a reboot, as if the suits finally realized new music existed, and the station went “alternative” just as alternative was becoming the mainstream. Within a few years it was playing the same 50 songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana and U2 again and again until CBS pulled the plug. Many were understandably angry.

But in hindsight, I think it was not only a mercy killing, but also pretty symbolic of the whole rut traditional rock radio finds itself in. You can’t goof on classic rock stations for making you sick of “Stairway to Heaven” when so-called modern rock stations do the same things with Pearl Jam’s “Daughter.” That song is now 16 years old, and Pearl Jam hasn’t really been relevant since it came out. Even if you like classic rock, do they play any new music by Dylan, Neil Young, Bowie and Springsteen or just the same old songs again and again?

Part of the problem is that rock is still considered rebellious music for younger generations and the bands being played on the radio are anything but that. It’s also that the programming and playlist decisions are made by middle aged men who are likely old farts when it comes to new music. But what has also happened is the concept of rock music and rock stars themselves have transformed, and the suits behind the rock stations are still mired in their past glory days with their heads in the sand.

The legendary rock journalist Stephen Davis has just come out with a new book on Guns n’ Roses called Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns n’ Roses. What Davis nails is that Gn’R was actually the last prototype of the classic rock and roll band. Remember the old Guns n’ Roses? It was the classic tale of poor band gets big, egos get bigger, excess consumes the band, members can’t get along until a classic implosion. All the while, the classic clichés of sex, drugs, lead-singer-as-petulant-idol/rebel and rags to riches worked. Guns n’ Roses also had the classic rock lineup of five guys, including the two guitarists and charismatic frontman.

Of course grunge changed all that and while grunge has come and gone, its changes to the classic rock music and rock band remain. Davis actually isn’t surprised the classic hard rock movement ended with Gn’R, as he writes all musical movements come to an end. But as I said, rock itself is just fine – you only need to look harder. And don’t look for it on commercial radio. WBCN’s demise is indeed the symbolic end of what became a lost era.

Putting Out Fires with Gasoline

Most kids know that words will never hurt them. Can someone please tell the White House?

Obama’s press office has decided to treat Fox News like an enemy, saying it is “not a legitimate news organization but a wing of the Republican Party.” Fox News, the undisputed leader in cable news whose ratings are up 20%, probably couldn’t be happier. And you’d think the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn’t want to add a war with the media to his other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doesn’t all this seem a little beneath an American president and his office? There hasn’t been a single one in history that didn’t go through the media gauntlet unscathed. Look back 100 years ago to the age of yellow journalism and you’ll find things that would shock Glen Beck.

The White House posturing conjures up dozens of worn but true clichés: Never get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Never let them see you sweat. Don’t let it get under your skin, etc. Has the White House forgotten how low the public regards the media? Outside of a very noisy minority of diehard partisans, does anyone take Glen Beck seriously? What would the president gain by giving him more attention than he deserves? Will it ever come out unspoiled in a mud wrestling match with Sean Hannity?

But there’s an even bigger mistake the White House is making. George W. Bush actually said it best. One day in Texas he invited some media to a barbecue. An editor there asked that if he didn’t read the papers, how would he know what the public thinks? Bush said, “You’re making a huge assumption – that you represent what the public thinks.”

If Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly and the rest of Fox News’ on-air talent had that much pull, how come McCain isn’t in the White House? In fact, why isn’t Fred Thompson in the White House? Limbaugh and his cronies pushed for Thompson, then Romney, then Hillary Clinton after McCain won the nomination. I don’t doubt the ratings of these guys, I’m sure they have plenty of fans and they make for good TV. But never think elections and bill debate are won and lost in the media. Don’t think Fox News represents the Republican Party. Obama needs to work with and influence the Republican Party, not Fox News. If you’re reading this and you like Rush Limbaugh, do you do every single thing he tells you to do and agree with everything he says? Of course not. Why on earth would the White House believe it?

I’ve worked with the media for years and can tell you that George W. Bush is absolutely right. Not only does the media not represent the public, but people outside the media who drink that Kool Aid are in serious trouble when it comes to gauging public opinion. It’s been disheartening to watch Republican leaders kowtow to people like Limbaugh and Hannity who they believe represents their Party, their voters and the so-called “Real America.” It’s beyond baffling to watch the White House press corps make the same mistake.

Dave's Mighty 2009 NFL Predictions

Has it only been seven months since the great sport of football last graced our televisions? Do you remember looking back on my predictions that stated the Arizona Cardinals would be NFC Champions at 9-7? That Kerry Collins would come off the bench and lead Tennessee to a 13-3 record? You don’t? Well, how about where I compared Matt Millen to a box of rocks and said Detroit had nothing to be proud of? I nailed that one.

If you haven’t done so, it’s time to stimulate the economy like I did and start watching football on a REALLY BIG TV. I can even read the player’s tattoos.
So here we go, along with my dark horse picks. Just a warning: My political musings are usually more accurate than my NFL ones.

NFC EAST
1) NY Giants: You’re going to notice a trend this year. Good teams have good defenses and good running games. Bad teams have neither. The Giants are a study in the former. Is there a better offensive or defensive line in football? Brandon Jacobs loves to hit people, and he’s not even on defense. Eli Manning is streaky, but tends to just squeak through in the clutch.
2) Philadelphia: Wild Card Team. I’ll say this for Philly this year – they won’t be boring. I don’t think the players have the slightest idea what’s going to happen if McNabb enters a funk and Vick is on the bench. That said, I’m not sure how much gas Westbrook has left, and Jim Johnson’s death leaves a mighty big void.
3) Dallas: There’s no T.O., but they’re not getting younger, especially on the offensive line. They’ve got some talent at RB with Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when Barber’s healthy) and DeMarcus Ware is great, but after Ware the defense kind of slacks off. Look out Wade!
4) Washington: The good news is they have Albert Haynesworth, although Dan Snyder overpaid as usual. But it’s not good when Snyder tries to dump the QB that the coach is trying to build around. If Jason Campbell heats up the Skins might surprise us, but there’s not enough pop in the team.

NFC NORTH
1) Green Bay: Surprise! The Packers were 6-10 last year but Aaron Rodgers played well and the offense is great, with Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant. They’ve switched to the 3-4 defense which might take a game or two to settle in but will provide more flexible to LBs Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk. And as nice as the people in Wisconsin are, don’t you just know what’s going to happen when Farve shows up?
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Yes, Farve makes the Vikings better. Yes, everyone has forgotten how he single-handedly destroyed the Jets late last year with bad mistakes. The defense is actually pretty good, provided their best player – Pat Williams – doesn’t get suspended.
3) Chicago: Lots of people are picking the Bears as their NFC Champion because of Jay Cutler. This is the same Jay Cutler that led the Broncos to a mighty 8-8, and that’s when he actually had someone good to throw to. Cutler won’t solve the Bears’ defensive and injury woes either.
4) Detroit: For years I laughed at Detroit because of Matt Millen’s bonehead mind, decisions, leadership, scouting and overall football knowledge. But when the Lions finally got what they deserved and threw him out, now I actually feel bad for them and want them to win. I’m tempted to make them my Dark Horse team because if they win three games, they’re the most improved. I’ll resist the temptation, but three wins sounds right.

NFC SOUTH
1) Atlanta: It will be tougher this year and this is a good division. But there are too many new stars on this team; Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White on offense (plus Tony Gonzalez joined), plus John Abraham, Mike Peterson and Curtis Lofton on defense. Atlanta just seems hungrier than the other teams here.
2) New Orleans: No problem on offense with Drew Brees gunslinging, but the defense stinks more than a Bourbon Street gutter. And their best defensive players – Will Smith and Charles Grant – will likely be suspended for four games. That’s too big a hole to climb out of.
3) Carolina: Tough ride for QB Jake Delhomme. He’s solid, but I think the beating they took in the playoffs last year still stings. A great RB with DeAngelo Williams and a mean defensive line, but they lack the eye of the tiger.
4) Tampa Bay: It’s not a good sign when I couldn’t remember the last team in this division. When I did, I also remembered the new offensive coordinator got fired last week, longtime defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is gone and Byron Leftwich is the starting QB. Next!

NFC WEST
1) Arizona: True, I did not pick the Cardinals to win the division last year but they were my dark horse team. And in what could be the weakest division, another 9-7 season could clinch it again. Offensively the Cards are fun to watch and Kurt Warner is the perfect QB for the spread offense they use, although the running could be better. Defense is another story, but when your division opponents are the three teams below how good do you need to be?
2) San Francisco: Dark Horse Team. I’m picking the Niners to surprise a few teams and finish around .500 because of coach Mike Singletary. If he is half as scary on the sidelines as he was on the field, the Niners will not only fear for their lives but he will become the meanest player to become a good coach since Jack Del Rio. He’s not afraid to bench starters and probably screams louder than anyone else in the locker room. It’s not good when the starting QB is someone named Shaun Hill, but Frank Gore is the RB and there’s signs of life on defense.
3) Seattle: No team got hurt more last year than the Seahawks. QB Matt Hasselback returns and can throw to TJ Houshmandzadeh. The defense is good. But the starting RB is Julius Jones.
4) St. Louis: Best of luck to former Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo on his new gig. It’s good there’s no pressure on him this year, because turning the Rams defense into something respectable is at least 365 days away. RB Steven Jackson can’t do it all, and I think Marc Bulger has been quarterback since Kurt Warner left town.

AFC EAST
1) New England: Not a tough pick, but methinks trouble looms ahead on defense. Longtime leaders Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau are gone. That said, Belichick is good at making lemonade and Brady is back with Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Joey Galloway. The league’s best offense should overcome.
2) Miami: Two reasons they won’t repeat. First, they went from a last place schedule to a first place schedule, and second, everyone’s ready for the Wildcat now. But the offensive line is good and Ronnie Brown is a great RB.
3) NY Jets: The focus is on new QB Mark Sanchez (who, by the way, only has WR Jerricho Cotchery to throw at. Hello, double coverage?). But look at the rest of the Jets team; they’re…good. Not great, but good. RB Thomas Jones got 1500 yards but is 31. DT Kris Jenkins is good but won’t start anyone’s fantasy league.
4) Buffalo: Everyone is excited about T.O. and the no-huddle offense. When Buffalo last run a no-huddle, they had the league’s best offensive line and Jim Kelly was QB. This time they have the league’s worst offensive line and Trent Edwards is QB. RB Marshawn Lynch is suspended for three or four games. Looks like another long winter.

AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh: Not a tough pick, part two. Everyone is back from last year, but I’m curious to see if teams try to spread the Steelers mighty defense across the field this time after the Cardinals almost pulled it off in the Super Bowl. How cool are James Harrison and Troy Polamalu?
2) Baltimore: Wild Card Team. Ferocious defense? Check (Haloti Ngati, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs). Good QB? Check (Joe Flacco). Good RB? Maybe (Ray Rice and Laron McClain, no relation to the Arizona senator). If one of those RBs shines, look out Pittsburgh.
3) Cincinnati: Well, there’s Carson Palmer and that Ochocinco guy and then, uh, who’s on defense? Wasn’t Marvin Lewis supposed to fix that five or six years ago?
4) Cleveland: I understand that new head coaches usually start with a bad team, but not even Bill Walsh could turn this team around. Besides the QB debacle, can you name one player? And if you can, does he impress you?

AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis: This was a tough pick, because Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison are gone. But Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Adam Vinatieri and Dwight Freeney are still there. But the Colts are no longer elite and I don’t see them going far in the playoffs, let alone against New England or Pittsburgh.
2) Tennessee: Wild Card Team. I just can’t see the Titans going 13-3 again, especially without Albert Haynesworth and Jim Schwartz on defense. And as much as I like Kerry Collins, his age and streakiness don’t bode well in the long run.
3) Houston: Dark Horse Team. In a weaker division, the Texans would be in the playoffs this year, and they may sneak in if the Titans or Colts screw up. Matt Schaub has become a solid QB and Andre Johnson is one of the best WRs in football. The defense is great with future stars DT Mario Williams and LB DeMeco Ryans. If they can cut the turnovers and get a good divisional record, they could pull it off.
4) Jacksonville: Two years ago Jacksonville was 11-5 and I thought 2008 was their year. Then their best offensive lineman got shot the first week of the season and injuries flattened the rest of them. The new GM has cleaned house and while everyone likes RB Maurice Jones-Drew, this is what they call a “rebuilding year.” Eh.

AFC WEST
1) San Diego: This is how bad this division is. The Chargers won with an 8-8 record. As predicted, Coach Norv Turner has underachieved as usual, although it would be tough to mess up a club with Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, LaDanian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman.
2) Kansas City: Look at this way – when you have four games against Denver and Oakland you can go 4-12 and in this division, 4-12 is good enough for second. The Chiefs seem to have the fewest problems among the three doormats here provided QB Matt Cassell gets healthy fast, and with Dwayne Bowe and Larry Johnson the offense could show signs of life.
3) Denver: Let’s see. New coach Josh McDaniels got rid of the starting QB for…Kyle Orton. The best remaining player, WR Brandon Marshall, wants a trade. Except for new CB Champ Bailey, there is no defense to speak of, and I’ve never heard of the RB. Apart from that, everything’s peachy.
4) Oakland: Richard Seymour just got traded here and he has refused to report to the team. Can you blame him? Oh, and the team got rid of QB Jeff Garcia so JaMarcus Russell can keep up his good work.

Why I'll Miss Ted Kennedy

“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized--the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old…When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Ted Kennedy, August 3, 1971

I am not from Massachusetts and never bought into the Kennedy mystique. He was, at the end of the day, a politician – and one who, like the example above shows, flip flopped as much as any other. He cared about the environment, but opposed putting a wind farm off Nantucket Sound. When his fellow Massachusetts senator John Kerry was close to winning the presidency in 2004, he got his home state to change the law to make sure the then-Republican governor couldn’t appoint anyone to the position, but on his deathbed tried to change the very law he championed when a Democrat was governor. His drinking and sexual indulgences lasted into his 50s. And you could argue that Kennedy’s crusade against Robert Bork in 1987 set the stage for the hyperpartisan gnashing and voting that greets any Supreme Court nominee today.

Why then, will I miss Ted Kennedy? Well, first as a selfish Massachusetts resident Kennedy certainly had the chops to bring both the pork and bacon home to his constituents. But most importantly – and unlike his late brothers – Kennedy spent his career in the Senate and understood the art of compromise and the importance of deal-making in order to get things accomplished. The best advice I ever heard on negotiating was if someone offers you at least 51% of what you want, take it. Kennedy grasped this, and was unafraid to cross the aisles to work with Republicans to get him at least more than halfway to his eventual goal. I would divide Kennedy’s life in half. The first is pre-1980, when he literally got away with murder, was more known for boozing than legislating and embarked on a truly misguided presidential campaign and one of the most liberal convention speeches in history that gave Reagan the election on a silver platter.

But afterward, Kennedy became the new Henry Clay. He never renounced his liberalism but always strove to get things accomplished. Instead of going for the Hail Mary touchdown pass of liberalism he described in his convention speech, perhaps the 1980 campaign and election seemed to awaken the understanding that going yard by yard was a better way to get things done. Much has been written about how universal health care was his lifelong goal. That was never achieved – and it seems increasingly unlikely it will be achieved again this year. But look at Kennedy’s incremental health care accomplishments – Americans with Disabilities Act, SCHIP, COBRA, the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Those are impressive accomplishments that not only extend the liberal notion of health care access but are causes that nobody could refute.

And if you look not only at those accomplishments, but also at Kennedy’s more recent achievements like No Child Left Behind and the immigration bill that did not become law, you notice they were all bipartisan. Most were also achieved with people like John McCain, Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum – Republicans who also understood the art of the deal and the importance of compromise.

It’s a sad comparison to the state of Congress today, where both parties are headed by rabid hyperpartisans unversed in dealmaking and wanting an all-or-nothing approach. Much has been said that if Kennedy were still able to attend Senate hearings the last few months, a health care bill would have been passed. I would say that if Kennedy were still around, he’d be working on a compromise with Republican colleagues that would ensure something effective would be passed. It would probably not be everything the president wants, but it would be at least 51% of it.

More Info: Some people have said Kennedy is burning in hell. I haven’t seen such blind partisan hatred for the departed since, well, since liberals hoped Jerry Falwell was burning in hell.

It's the Message, Stupid!

How can the Obama team, which did such a good job staying on message during the campaign, have lost the messaging war in the health care debate? Let us count the ways.

First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.

Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:

· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system

All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.

There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.

So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.

More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.

Health Care Reform Will Not Cure Ignorance

I recently had breakfast with Jim McGovern, Democrat from Massachusetts’ 3rd District by Worcester. He told a story of how he stopped by a McDonald’s near his home and five old men in a booth yelled at him to come over. They then accosted and berated him on the new health care bills in Congress, screaming how they didn’t want the government to get into the health care business (only in terms more crude than that).

McGovern then asked how many of them were on Medicare. They all said they were. He then asked if they had any major problems with it. Nope, they said, and they wanted it to stay that way. McGovern then asked, “Did you know Medicare is a government-run, single-payer health care system?” Blank stares were the only reply.

I know plenty of liberal partisans who blindly repeat whatever the New York Times says, but at least most of the Times’ articles and editorials are well-written and have a cursory basis in facts. But McGovern’s Mickey Dee’s moment, which is being played in town halls across the country, shows what happens when the opposing army sends their soldiers into battle without a plan or at least a few talking points. It doesn’t help when the topic is as byzantine and esoteric as health care, and there are currently three different health care bills circulating in Congress to confuse people who are actually trying to pay attention.

As with the prior phony “tea party” anti-tax protests in April, I like the whole idea of asking Congressmen and women tough, challenging questions at town hall meetings – Jefferson himself would have loved the concept. But Jefferson would also be floored at the lack of civility and utter ignorance showcased at these events. The irony of old people on Medicare hollering against a government-run health care system is to put it mildly, bizarre, and those who are just regurgitating whatever the so-called conservative firebrands tell them are going to miss that forest for the trees. It’s also interesting as an observer who watched liberals and progressives shriek apoplectically about anything George W. Bush did for eight years see the exact opposite crowd doing the exact same thing about Obama. Both types of these people seem so driven by rage that they can’t even think straight.

It’s a shame because there is a problem with health care in this country and a civil dialogue could get some important steps accomplished. Both sides could probably agree quickly to get something done about costs, particularly malpractice tort reform, excessive outlays and tests charged by hospitals, and how each state has a few dominant healthcare providers that charge what they want and extort fees from insurance companies and consumers alike. If the Republicans wanted to battle Obama on reining in health care costs instead of sending clowns and seniors to spew nonsense about euthanizing old people, then they’d actually be on to something. I also know far too many Canadians and Europeans who moved here for health reasons because of bureaucratic boondoggles in the foreign, single-payer health care systems Obama spotlights. But that would require arming foot soldiers and Congressmen alike with a plan and encourage them to discuss things rationally, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

More Info: Now this is how the Republicans should argue.

...And That's The Way It Is (Back Then)

Walter Cronkite was lucky to live to 92, and even luckier to live when he did – at a time when everyone got their news from the same television station at the same time, and anchors were still required to be objective journalists. It didn’t matter if they wore glasses or spoke in a gravelly voice or appeared on TV in their sixties. Back then, it was OK to spend several minutes on a story to make sure viewers received all the facts, and the story never was influenced by ideologies or pressured by major advertisers.

If Walter was graduating today, he probably wouldn’t think of journalism as a career, and even if he did he would never be picked to anchor a local broadcast, let alone a national one. Too dour, people would say. Too much of a perfectionist. Walter is remembered today not so much for who he was, but what he represented. Some would say his editorial on Vietnam following the Tet Offensive was a switch from journalism to editorial, but to reach that conclusion he had the nerve to actually travel to Vietnam and find out the facts first. And when you watch him and listen to his voice, there is none of the condescension and taunting that flows from so many so-called news anchors and bloviators today. He spoke with absolute authority, for he had actually bothered to do his homework. The nerve of him.

Walter also had the politeness and the class to wait until he was retired (actually, forced into retirement) to begin making his true political feelings known. That was perfectly acceptable – he was no longer an anchor or journalist. I’m sure he was disappointed in many things concerning journalism and the media, especially the partisan sniping that masquerades as debate and the downfall of the once-mighty CBS News. But if I had the audacity to guess, I think what bothered him the most was both the move from reporting the news to editorializing the sensational and the trivial. President Obama recently said he was surprised the media made the recent “beer summit” the top story instead of the meeting he had with the president of the Philippines. He had to have been joking, but Cronkite would have said, “And right there…that’s why the mighty Fourth Estate has fallen.”

Massachusetts is not a Democracy

If you only had one choice on the ballot for every election, would you think you live in a democracy? Unfortunately this describes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it comes to local elections.

After I moved in the summer of 2006, I went to vote in the September primaries and found with the exception of the governor’s race, it appeared that every incumbent in my district, all of whom happened to be Democrats, were running unopposed. When I checked the statewide results the next day, it appeared that not only had many Democrats not faced any opposition, but also more races were being contested by Green Rainbow party candidates than Republican candidates. This trend repeated itself in the 2006 general election, the 2008 primaries and the 2008 general election. In fact, six of Massachusetts’ 10 U.S. Congressmen, all of whom are Democrats, did not face a challenger and the rest had token opposition. Numerous empirical studies have shown that Massachusetts is one of the least contested states in the country when it comes to local races. The 2008 state House and Senate results are notable for the dearth of any contested seats – in fact most challengers to Democratic seats were other Democrats.

The curious thing about this is while Massachusetts is a blue state in presidential elections, most registered voters are Independents and Republicans have a long history of inhabiting the Governor’s office. Deval Patrick ended a 16-year Republican run (1990-2006), and notable former governors like Francis Sargent and John Volpe were Republicans. Also if you look at the history of ballot questions, Massachusetts voters have voted to roll back income taxes, abolished rent control, approved term limits, rejected universal health care and rejected a bid for supermarkets to sell alcohol. Clearly Massachusetts voters are not all blind liberal partisans when it comes to social and economic issues.

If voters have just one candidate to choose from in repeated elections, it does more than give a tenure-like quality to Massachusetts legislative members. It also undermines the very idea of a democracy, where voters are expected to select the best of two or more candidates for office. The degree to which voters are not offered choices on the ballot raises significant questions about the health of a democracy and additional questions about the vitality and efficacy of the Republican Party providing voters with an alternative to the Democratic-dominated legislature. Currently Democrats control 141 out of 160 seats in the Massachusetts House, and 35 of 40 seats in the State Senate. That is not just a majority – it’s virtually a monopoly.

How could this have happened? Standard variables like the power of incumbency, gerrymandering and redistricting and the lack of the legislature to enact the term limits that voters wanted are part of the reason. But much of the blame must go to the state Republican Party, which never capitalized on its success in the 1990 election to build up a grassroots farm system of next-generation candidates. I doubt that even many Massachusetts Republicans could discuss what the party’s platform entails or how they can help end the tide of GOP failure at the Legislative level.

Another issue is the stigma the national Republican Party has made not just in Massachusetts, but across the Northeast. When you look at notable Republican governors and Senators across the Northeast – Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, Massachusetts governors from Bill Weld to the first Mitt Romney (hold that comment for a minute), Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, Connecticut’s Jodi Rell, New York’s George Pataki, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter – a pattern begins to emerge. That is the classic fiscally conservative, socially liberal (almost Libertarian) northeast Yankee Republican. Because the national GOP has moved so far to the right on social issues, this species has been almost rendered extinct. The last two elections have not been easy for any Republican, but the shift in GOP attitudes coupled with their recent electoral failures have definitely trickled down to the state level. Romney won the governorship in the classic Northeast Republican mode, but he had to flip-flop his social positions to even be considered by the national GOP, making him appear disingenuous and costing him the nomination. Currently there are no Republican members of the House of Representatives in the entire Northeast.

Recently noted Republican Charlie Baker announced he would challenge Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts governor's race in 2010. I’m sure local Republicans are thrilled with the news, but they should devote the bulk of their time and energy to recruitment and winning more elections on Beacon Hill. Even the most diehard liberal Democrat in the Bay State would agree that having one choice on the ballot undermines the very concept of a democracy.

Supreme Diversity

A minority goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Supreme Court nominee. The nominee has an amazing personal history – born into poverty, a parent who died while they were young, the other parent persevering and a family who wouldn’t let them give up and who believed in the American Dream. The nominee became the first in their family to attend college and eventually graduated from an Ivy League law school. Clerkships and a legal career follow and soon the nominee becomes a judge, heading up the ladder to a Court of Appeals and is finally tapped by the president.

But wait. Accusations begin to fly about the nominee being a “token” because of race. Interest groups on all sides begin trading accusations and making projections. They worry because the nominee’s race, sex and background may affect their decisions in cases. Cries of racism and sexism become common. Soon partisans are lined up on both sides, and the vote tends to go largely down party lines as expected.

Is this the scenario for Sonia Sotomayor? Well, yes, but I was actually describing the life and nomination of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ personal background is strikingly similar to Sotomayor’s. This shows you why the cries about diversity on the Court is largely a crock. If you dislike Thomas or Sotomayor, you really don’t give a hoot about their backgrounds or how they will diversify the Court. And once again, I find it illuminating how those who claim one nominee inspires them can be disgusted by another nominee, even if their backgrounds are the same. Cultural diversity is one thing, but diversity of opinion? Forget it. This goes for partisans on both sides.

And for those of you who think Sotomayor will definitely change the ideology of the Court for better or worse, I recommend reading my last post on this subject.

Decency and Credibility

When Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, was in high school he decided to run for class president. In what was likely a very clever goof, he ran on a platform called Teens for Decency and his slogan was, “If you’re against decency, what are you for?” His classmates, who were likely impressed and confused at the same time, elected Matt president.

I bring this up because I continue to be flabbergasted at the Republicans. Just five years removed from the height of their powers, they now wander aimlessly – against everything the president wants, but for absolutely nothing. You can look at the so-called “leaders” of the party like Limbaugh, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney and Palin to quickly see why – all of them have horrendously high unfavorable ratings, are polarizing figures and haven’t offered a single good idea to move the country forward. I’m not surprised there was a bloodless purge in the GOP after the election, but I was surprised that they haven’t rallied around a single likeable figure that may have appeal to people outside the Ozarks and Smokey Mountains.

Having the right leader would also help the GOP with its credibility. You can’t accuse a president of fiscal recklessness when the last Republican president spent money hand over fist and expanded government more than any president since Johnson. You can’t call a Supreme Court nominee racist when you’ve opposed anything that might help minorities. If an independent or someone with a better reputation mentioned some of these points, they may hold water. But if someone with no credibility and is unlikable to boot says them, forget it. You always need to consider the source.

As for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the GOP is probably relieved to have a heterosexual scandal for once. But once again, here’s what Sanford said about Bill Clinton when he was in Congress. If Sanford wanted impeachment for what Clinton did, he’d best step down himself. That is, if he still holds an ounce of credibility. Wasn’t the GOP damaged enough already before he blew it too?

The Revolution Will Not be Televised

Leave it to the brave people of Iran to not only find a legitimate use for Twitter, but also to kick the mainstream media to its knees. Remember how the first Gulf War brought CNN and 24-hour cable news into the forefront by showing how antiquated the old network news broadcasts were? The current situation in Iran will go down in history as the first one to be brought to homes around the world through viral video, tweets, blogs and cell phones while traditional media fiddles around with Palin vs. Letterman. When you don’t cover such a volatile, important election in a critical part of the world, especially because you’ve carelessly cut your overseas bureau, expect to be caught flat-footed when the world passes you by.

It’s amazing how far things have progressed, not just in Iran but in the power of technology to empower people to take matters into their own hands. State-run media, clamping down on foreign correspondents and censorship count for nothing under these circumstances. Imagine what could have happened in China 20 years ago if the technology of today was around. Who needs the media to broadcast your message when you can do it even better by yourself?

Another variable few are mentioning is one even I am beginning to believe. The democracy that still has a fragile hold in Iraq is starting to sow seeds across the Middle East, hands down the most undemocratic region on Earth (except Israel). Recent elections in Lebanon went well and we could very well see be seeing the green shoots emerging here. It may be time to read this post again.

We are certainly hopeful in Iran that the people will prevail. You can see plenty of coverage in Iran across the Web (except the mainstream media sites) but here are three that show the marches:

Iran Protest March I
Iran Protest March II
Iran Protest March III

And here are three that show the government cracking down (some are graphic).

Iranian Police Cracking Down
Iranian Police Shooting Civilians
Protesters Rioting and Police Shooting Them

Thoughts from a Grumpy Old Man

As I approach 40 I remember back to over half my lifetime ago and recall how aghast I would be when older people would have no clue what shows young people were watching (back then it was Miami Vice), music they were listening to (Depeche Mode for goth kids, Springsteen for regular kids, The Replacements for punk kids) and which celebrity was considered cool and a teen role model at the time. Of course back then there was no Internet and cable was only about 40 channels so there were basically two groups – the kids and few adults who knew this stuff and were “with it,” and the many adults and few kids that didn’t know what was happening in the mass market. I remember thinking that as an adult I would do my best to try and stay connected to popular trends so the next generation wouldn’t consider me an old fart.

Naturally, I was unsuccessful but guess what? I’m not ashamed; in fact, I’m proud of my pop culture ignorance. I think the turning point was just this past week when the brouhaha over the parents of “Jon & Kate Plus 8” came out and my first thought was: I’ve never heard of this show, I have no idea who Jon and Kate are and I DON’T CARE. And I felt much better about myself.

Part of this metamorphosis is the unavoidable fragmenting of the way we receive entertainment. Back in the 80s and early 90s you could watch TV, go to the movies, see a band, listen to the radio or buy a cassette. You knew where to get this information because there were only so many places to go. Now of course, the plethora of choices is too vast for any pop culture aficionado to simultaneously track. As choices proliferate, so too do the multiple audiences that find them fascinating. Shows like “American Idol” used to be the norm to find new entertainment to emulate (my generation’s was MTV); but now mass market shows like this are the exception.

Entertainment itself has also changed. While musical or acting talent is always in the eye of the beholder, you used to have to show at least some talent to achieve fame. Now of course, everyone has the means to be a celebrity and talent is less important. You can be famous for simply being famous. While I have never seen Jon & Kate’s show, I doubt there is anything on that show that only they can do. Most reality TV is resplendent in its ordinariness. We used to watch TV to see interesting characters or exciting scenarios. Now many watch TV and see ordinary people doing ordinary things. Does simply being on TV make the ordinary interesting or fascinating? Future anthropologists can decide that. I wonder what people like Margaret Mead or Andy Warhol would think of how popular culture is established today.

And me? I used to eat up popular culture when I was younger too. But as I got older and started a family I inevitably got busier with work, kids, grad school, blogging (sometimes) and other more important things. In essence, I got a life. And if doing that takes time away from keeping track of TMZ, then I can very easily accept that. Instead of watching life I am living it. Just like Jon & Kate!

Yankees to NY Fans: Drop Dead

It gives me zero pleasure as a lifelong Yankee fan to say this, but I am extremely happy not to live in New York and say that my tax dollars went to subsidize the most expensive baseball stadium in history that gives fans views like this:

And if that’s not enough, the Steinbrenners are shocked – shocked, I say! – to find people unwilling to shell out $2,500 for seats behind home plate. Today they cut prices 50%, as if that will make any difference. The result has been constant views like this on TV:

Just as politicians in Massachusetts may follow Herbert Hoover’s suicide example of raising taxes during a recession, the Yankees fleeced New York’s taxpayers out of $1.5 billion with a subsidized stadium. Then they fleeced their fans by charging four figures for a single seat or $5 for an obstructed view seat. An obstructed view seat is not worth five cents. And if all that wasn’t enough, this money is going to the highest payroll in baseball that boasts Chien-Ming Wang with a 34.50 ERA and Mark Teixeira with a .220 batting average. Why isn’t Joba back in the bullpen already?

Like all diehard sports fans, Yankee fanatics follow their team through good and bad. But occasionally something really, really stupid happens that sends fans in an uproar. This time, there were about 20 stupid things that have happened. It’s likely the Steinbrenners lowered the premium seating prices because they were embarrassed by the empty seats on TV. I happen to think people not paying for these seats is absolutely justified. You reap what you sow and you get what you pay for, and nobody is going to fork over four figures for a team that treats their fans this poorly, no matter what the economy is or what place the team is in.

The Steinbrenners still haven’t learned that you can’t buy a championship. It appears they also haven’t learned you can’t build a stadium at the taxpayers’ expense, overcharge them on everything from a $9 beer to a $1,250 plastic seat, and expect them to keep their blind devotion. It appears New Yorkers, never known for their patience, have finally had enough.

More Info: My earlier post on keeping George Steinbrenner the hell away from the Hall of Fame.

The Photo-Op Tea Party

As a PR flack, I like the concept of the anti-tax, anti-bailout tea parties that took place today. We all lost money in our retirement plans last year, our wages are frozen and those of us lucky enough to have a job are hunkered down, but we still have to cut a check to the government. The government will then take much of this money and offer it to banks and investment firms that made dumb decisions on mortgage default swaps and CDOs, or auto makers that made dumb decisions on SUVs and continuing the mighty Buick brand.

Who wouldn’t be a little aggrieved by these decisions? The whole idea has a nice populist ring to it, and it appears the folks behind the tea parties (hold that thought for a minute) spread the word online through viral video and Twitter, showing the overhyped online service has another use besides telling everyone who’s not listening to the radio right now what song you’re hearing and hating.

But while the tea parties make good theater and the clueless media will eat it up, the whole thing came across as staged and phony. The idea did not match the execution. No American, regardless of their politics, likes to pay taxes, but what will be the outcome from these protests? Are people going to refuse to pay taxes? The colonists in 1773 had a plan – no unjust taxation without representation – and they stuck to their plan. To borrow a working phrase, what are the action items coming out of this protest?

Then there’s the tea party organizers. It’s no secret this was the brainchild of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, and then was spurred on by organizations like Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group) and Top Conservatives on Twitter. Fox News has breathlessly overhyped the event, with live coverage across the nation. All of this is perfectly legitimate, of course.

But once again, where the hell were these so-called “conservatives” when our last president was spending money and expanding government hand-over-fist for the last eight years? If you don’t like the tax-and-spend policy, fine. But what is your answer for the current situation? If you don’t want a big stimulus package, how would you get the economy moving again? If you don’t want to bail out AIG or GM, what’s your answer for safeguarding the American jobs and industries that would vanish if both of them disappear like Lehman?

It’s natural for an opposition party to say it’s against something. But if you don’t offer an alternative, forget anyone on the fence jumping on board with you for long. And if you claim to be a “conservative” but didn’t flinch when Bush was doing the same things as Obama, you’re nothing but a partisan weather vane, as mindless as the partisans in Berkeley and Harvard Square that you claim to despise. You’ve actually got more in common with them than you think.

So while the tea parties might make you feel good for a week and will get you a photo op or two on Fox News, in a week it will all be forgotten without a real platform. They are full of sound and phony fury, signifying nothing.

The Media Keeps Circling the Drain

Did you notice who did and did not get picked for a question in last night’s presidential press conference? Here are the winners:

Associated Press
NBC
ABC
CBS
Univision
Stars and Stripes
CNN
Fox News
Politico
Ebony
ABC Radio
Washington Times
AFP

Note who did NOT get called: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc – not a single leading daily paper. That’s gotta hurt these places, many of whom are already on life support. I’ve blogged many times about the media’s problems, including here and here.

When a president does a press conference, he usually has a chart stating who is attending and where they are sitting so he can choose who to ask. Remember this was a one hour conference with 13 selected questions, and since Obama likes to give long answers you’ve got a little over 4½ minutes per question. He can freely decide who to ask and who to ignore. Did Obama decide to ignore the daily papers because of their growing obsolescence, or was it an accidental oversight? May the conspiracy theories begin, but you know what I think.

I actually like some of these choices – Univision is the network of choice for the country’s fastest growing minority, Stars & Stripes is a wise selection and Politico is one of the rare media outlets that is actually growing because they're on to something. And by including Fox News and the Washington Times you can’t say he only chose places that would throw softballs. And except for Ann Compton at ABC Radio, all the questions were pretty good.

I am confident predicting that in the next couple of years the president will return to his high-tech outreach that worked well during the campaign, and conduct some webcasts and online-only exchanges with the public. I know I disparaged Twitter below, but grassroots mobilization for elections lends itself well to online social media as more industries realize you don’t need the media to be the messenger anymore. Everyone but the daily papers get that.

The AIG Bonus Dilemma

In the days after 9/11, an almost unanimous Congress passed the Patriot Act. While most of the Act was indeed important and deserved to be passed – especially parts that improved border security, tracked foreign assets and allocated money to improve surveillance technology – debatable items like indefinite detentions without trial for suspected terrorists and the ability for the FBI to search personal records without a warrant have come under criticism by those who believe the Act violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. In its haste to respond to such an unbelievable act of terror, Congress may have rushed to judgment on some actions that should not have overlooked the Constitution.

Yesterday, the House fast-tracked a bill that would place impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to any AIG employees and employees of other financial companies that accepted at least $5 billion from the TARP bailout. It was approved by a vote of 328 to 93. I am having déjà vu all over again.

I am in no way defending the boneheads at AIG who destroyed the world’s largest insurance company by their over reliance on collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. And I’m sure Congressional phones are ringing off the hook with outraged constituents gathering torches and pitchforks. The pressure for the government to act, after they may have overlooked this payment, must be enormous.

But in the heated mode to act fast and ask questions later, serious mistakes can be made. I call this the “ready-fire-aim” plan of action that I try to avoid on a personal level. By changing an existing contract – unfair as that contract may be – the government is setting a dangerous precedent as an unreliable and capricious business partner; one that can quickly change any written contract based on popular opinion, as opposed to the rules of law and the Constitution itself. That occurred with part of the Patriot Act and I feel it happening again.

Unfortunately the government needs the insurance companies and hedge funds of the world to fix this problem, especially if it unveils some kind of public/private sector combination of buying troubled assets from banks. If I ran a hedge fund (and still had a job) this would show me that the government cannot be trusted if it has the right to change the plans and redo compensation and benefit laws at will. This is a dangerous precedent that I doubt would stand up in a court of law.

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times stated this very fact a few days ago, along with the possibility that the AIG people receiving these bonuses may be the only ones who know how to clean up their mess. I’m skeptical about the last part, and Sorkin has been raked over the coals for this. But he’s right about the contractual obligations and the knee-jerk response it has understandably and unfortunately set. In our rush to punish wrongdoers, we cannot overlook the law, even when it comes to detaining terrorists or suddenly taking bonuses away from people who have not deserved it.

UPDATE: Look who agrees with me -- Nate Silver, Henry Blodget and Paul Krugman. Holy crap!

Zero Credibility

Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the top
Republicans in the House and the Senate, said they strongly opposed the massive
spending that the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved so far this
year. "Most of my constituents are wondering how long the spending binge
is going to go on here in Washington," Boehner, the House Minority Leader, told
reporters.

"We're spending the first 50 days of this new administration at the rate of
one billion dollars an hour," said McConnell. "At the rate we're going,
we're going to double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10
years," he said. "I don't think anybody seriously thinks that that's a good
idea."

I love, absolutely LOVE, those statements. The leaders of the party that stood by and supported the massive spending binge and bloated federal growth of the prior eight years have suddenly remembered they are supposed to be the ones preaching fiscal restraint and small government.

Much has been written about the leadership drift of the GOP – is it Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner or someone else? What is most troubling is that nobody can now specify exactly what the GOP stands for, or who exactly a “Republican” is right now. You can’t preach fiscal prudence when you’ve spent the last eight years spending like gamblers at a craps table. You can’t talk about removing government from people’s lives when you embrace social policies and leaders that place religion and intolerance front and center.

And most importantly, you cannot keep saying “no” to the new president’s policies without proposing some new ideas of your own. The old cutting taxes mantra is getting a bit stale by now. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they had big, populist ideas that everyone could understand and get behind, and the Democrats lost out because they kept saying “no” without offering a policy of their own. It took 15 years, but the tide has finally turned. Nobody knows whether Obama’s policies will work, but at least he’s not offering the same old recipe. Americans are giving him credit for empathizing and understanding the situation. This is a true crisis; an economic 9/11. And just as that date day begat an unusual and extraordinary response, so does the current situation.

If the GOP wants to restore their credibility and really make us believe they’ve ditched their holy roller wagon and are reborn with the true conservative religion, they need to stop yelling and badmouthing the president (and each other). They need to come up with some constructive ideas that will restore consumer confidence and help rescue the finance and auto industries. By treating this crisis as a crisis and dropping the mad-as-hell and sour grapes attitude, they may just score some sympathy votes and the public would at least give them a listen.

But when you’ve got Boehner and McConnell saying those ridiculous things, and polarizing firebrands like Limbaugh saying more ridiculous things, your biggest problem is credibility. And that's the first thing the GOP needs to restore before it can even think about proposing any new ideas. You’d think someone here would step up and take responsibility and declare what the party stands for. But with the current infighting and lack of focus, don’t plan on it happening anytime soon.

Not Atwitter Over Twitter

Last year a couple of people I know told me I should start using Twitter, so I did. I almost lasted a whole day before junking it.

I was being completely overwhelmed with Tweets back and forth regarding traffic outside the office, lunch plans that I wasn’t even part of, what they should have for dinner, deadlines they weren’t ready for, songs they were listening to on the radio and other parts of their unremarkable day that I had zero interest in. While it seemed to be a good time waster if you didn’t feel like working, and a good way to keep in touch with someone if you had no cell phone, I saw no difference between Twitter and instant messaging.

Now, of course, I’ve got everyone from the media to other fellow PR flacks telling me I should get on the Twitter bandwagon. This is a temptation I can resist. I am not a luddite – I can’t work without a laptop and BlackBerry and push hard in my company to enhance our communications with RSS, XHTML, XBRL and everything in between. But when a fellow old fogey like Jon Stewart says he can’t stand Twitter, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone.

I often wonder how many of these people using Twitter – likely college-educated 20- and 30-somethings who often whine about the public and the media’s short attention span and focus on the superficial – notice how they are limiting their interaction with each other to 140 characters. And I’m reminded of the other thing I wondered about some other “hot” tech startups around a decade ago (or Second Life last year, or MySpace the year before, and so on)…exactly how is Twitter going to make money? And how smart could the twits at Twitter be to have turned down $500 million from Facebook in today’s economy? That doesn’t make me confident there’s a business plan or exit strategy at work here.

Twitter is the latest technology wave of social networking, which will never EVER replace real networking as a way to meet people and form lasting personal or business relationships. Ask anyone if it’s better to have a date or sales meeting in person or over the phone or Web. This is why it is especially difficult to hear public relations consultants say Twitter should become a mandatory part of my job. I will continue to maintain that there will never be a substitute for pounding the pavement and making the time to personally meet and establish a relationship with the influencers in media, the public, the government and the analyst communities that can help drive sales and enhance a company’s reputation.

Perhaps there will be a way to change Twitter into a more useful tool. Publishing your @Twitter address guarantees you will be bombarded with filler you couldn’t care less about and ingrates trying to sell you something you don’t need. And there may be room for it in either grassroots mobilization or marketing toward people whose lives are tuned out to other forms of communication. There are probably a handful of people who are currently doing it right. But by the time the folks at Twitter figure that out, there will be another technology to waste everyone’s time.

Octomom Backlash

I was going to resist delving into gossip with my two or three cents on the feeding frenzy surrounding our newest media whore Nadya Suleman (hereafter referred to as “Octomom”), but I can no longer hold out.

When multiple births occur, most companies from Procter & Gamble to GM and Disney shower the overwhelmed family with gifts from diapers to minivans and clothes to vacations. This has notably not happened here. Why? Is it the stigma of single motherhood? Are companies less able to provide these freebies in the current economy? Is it because she’s considered a shady and possibly unstable character that may be addicted to pregnancy, or unethical and unreliable because of her reliance on government assistance while her house is in foreclosure? I find it interesting how much character and circumstance plays into such decisions on a corporate level.

It’s also fascinating how these play into the popular backlash as well. This is a bit less surprising, since as a society we help those who are victims of chance and reward those who have an independent work ethic, and frown upon people whose work ethic may be compromised or who willfully make choices society dislikes. Both of those instances apply to Octomom. We’re currently in a time and place where responsibility – especially at the government and corporate level – has vanished and ordinary people who played by the rules are left holding the bag and are understandably angry. When they see another example of someone who is not “responsible,” charity will not be their first reaction. What a surprise that the media is the only one giving this woman what she wants!

There has also been a call to better regulate fertility clinics since they did not stop her from implanting all those embryos. But that is dangerous ground – doctors often need to give patients what they ask for with voluntary medical procedures. They can take doctors to court if they refuse.

This is also a good time to note – especially to those of us who are pro-choice – that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose, but then try to legally restrict how many babies she can choose to have (naturally or artificially). If a “normal” unmarried executive or lesbian wanted to get pregnant through a fertility clinic and was refused, pro-choice people would be outraged. The same rules apply here. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose and then try to restrict access to fertility or have a law stating who is or is not capable of having a baby (or eight babies).