2008 Primaries, Views on News, public relations • July 3rd, 2008

Children of the corn

by Chris Lato

In the corn-growing Midwest, members of Congress are picking sides over ethanol. This is shaping up to be a serious campaign issue, but one presidential candidate is walking a tricky line that will be tough to maintain as anger over high gas and food prices grow, and the public gets restless and demands solutions.

To set the stage, U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner recently sent a piece out to his constituents with the headline: “Ethanol Mandate Must End.” He makes the argument that record prices for gas and groceries can be traced back to a great extent to the mandate, which subsidizes the ethanol industry and gives incentives for farmers to grow more corn to use in fuel.

Sensenbrenner points to studies that contend ethanol is actually bad for the environment in a number of ways – causing more carbon emissions, prompting poor land use decisions, and requiring a huge amount of water to produce ethanol.

Now, consider this bit from a long interview with Barack Obama in the current issue of ‘Rolling Stone’ (I know, I got a lot of column fodder from this issue). The interviewer is the fair-and-balanced Jann S. Wenner, who actually makes a half-hearted attempt to pin Obama down on this one. Wenner actually sounds a little like Sensenbrenner – talk about strange bedfellows.

Jann S. Wenner: You’ve been a big supporter of ethanol. But studies show it doesn’t do anything to reduce global warming, it’s actually a less efficient way to produce energy than gasoline, and it’s contributing to growing food shortages worldwide. Are you going to continue backing it?

Barack Obama: Corn-based ethanol I see as a transitional technology. We’ve got to invest in alternative fuels.

Wenner: This one is ranked as pretty bad.

Obama: I understand, which is why we’re going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy.

Wenner: So you foresee this coming to an end.

Obama: What I foresee is us transitioning into other ways of developing these energy sources. The fact that we had corn-based ethanol, and that industry has matured, provides us with distribution networks and infrastructure that can ultimately be used for other ethanol sources.

Wenner doesn’t touch on why Obama has been a big supporter of ethanol, and notice Obama is carefully refusing to explicitly bash ethanol. He has his reasons – read this fascinating New York Times story to get the scoop on why this is.

For starters, I’m not a scientist but I have to think it’s not as easy as just flicking a switch to make such a massive change in the production of ethanol. Will the government be funding such a massive changeover? How long would it take? What about farmers being pushed to make a big change in what they grow, such as switchgrass, which Obama has said could be used to make cellulosic ethanol?

Also, Obama is a Senator from a corn-growing state. He has voted for the ethanol mandate in the past. Does he now repudiate that vote? Will he continue to support corn-based ethanol, of immediately push in a new direction? What will his friends in the ethanol industry think?

No one asked me, but I would suggest Obama rethink his campaign structure when it comes to those he is relying on as energy advisors, and make a stronger effort to advance his energy agenda specific to ethanol. The public is moving past rhetoric and looking for answers every time they put $80 in their gas tank and pay ever-rising prices at the local Piggly Wiggly.

Obama and John McCain both have energy plans out there for all to see. But as the cliché goes, the devil is in the details. And when it comes to politicians, it’s what they do, not what they say, that is always the most telling. Speeches may dazzle, but voting records are far more telling.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix • July 2nd, 2008

The case of the reappearing pin

by Chris Lato

I have subscribed to ‘Rolling Stone’ for nearly 20 years now. What can I say? I like the pop culture coverage. As for the political stuff, it’s all been downhill since Hunter died.

Anyway, I was greeted at my mailbox this week with the new issue of ‘RS’ and the grinning face of Barack Obama, eyes closed, head tilted slightly downward…

OK, the coronation of Barack Obama has begun at ‘RS.’ That’s about the least shocking news in recent memory. But what I was struck by was the very conspicuous return of ‘The Pin.’ With such a basic, copy-free cover, that American flag pin on the senator’s lapel just leapt out at me.

Remember the flap a few months ago when Obama took the time to offer a dissertation on why he wasn’t wearing an American flag pin on his lapel? Read this for a refresher.

Now, I wouldn’t deny Sen. Obama the right to change his mind (the more combative term is ‘flip-flop’). Ultimately, it is up to the voters to weigh whether Obama’s changing positions are a thoughtful reconsideration of the issues, or a sign of a candidate who is not prepared to lead.

The flag pin sends an undeniable message. In some states, refusing to wear that pin would cost a whole lot of votes. I appreciate Obama’s belief that his ‘ideas’ are the true sign of patriotism, but sometimes in politics the game is simple: step up and embrace the symbolism along with the substance. Not wearing the pin on the campaign trail, and offering what could be perceived as a condescending explanation of that decision, also sends a powerful message.

The flag is one of those few symbols that many Americans of all generations respond to deeply and without apology –witness the passion that emerges anytime a flag-burning story is in the news. To deny this basic truth is to run the risk of alienating large chunks of voters. It looks as though Senator Obama is learning as he goes on the campaign trail. The real question is whether he is learning fast enough.

Regarding candidates and patriotism, check out this week’s exchange between Greta Van Susteren and Karl Rove. The full piece can be found here.

ROVE: Well, remember also, Senator Obama said that he stopped wearing a flag lapel pin because he decided after 9/11 that true patriotism did not consist in wearing a flag lapel pin but in speaking out on the issues. He questioned the patriotism of anybody who thought, you know, that they were honoring their country by putting a flag lapel pin on. So I mean, I thought it was really interesting that he was so sensitive. I don’t know who he’s talking about questioning his patriotism, but I do know that he questioned the patriotism of literally millions of Americans, who in a symbol of devotion to their country, put a flag on their lapel or on their uniform or on their automobile. I mean, I just — you know, it’s…

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I take sort of a flip on that, though. I actually — I side with Senator Obama partially on that, is that anyone who would criticize him for not wearing a flag pin, because you know, I — I don’t know why, but that’s not the measure of my patriotism, so…

(CROSSTALK)

ROVE: I agree — I agree with you.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK.

ROVE: Nobody should be criticized for not wearing a flag lapel pin. On the other hand, nobody should say that you’re not being a true patriot if you do wear a flag lapel pin, which is what he said. He said true patriotism does not consist of wearing a flag lapel pin but instead speaking out on the issues. Look, you can be a true patriot and wear a flag lapel pin or not. You can be a true patriot speaking out on the issues or not. But the judgmental nature of his approach, saying if you wear a flag lapel pin, that’s not true patriotism, that was calling into question the patriotism of those who make the decision to wear that symbol.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Branding Politix, Strategic Blueprints • July 1st, 2008

And the best candidate for vice-president is…

by Chris Lato

You’ll never believe this. Or maybe you will. At first blush it seemed ridiculous, but upon reflection it makes some sense.

Colin Powell for Vice President? For BOTH McCain and Obama? This story offers a fascinating, if egg-headed way of reaching this conclusion. His is the one name that hasn’t really been on the radar screen until now. Perhaps Powell paid for the study?

But consider: Powell is seen as a moderate who can work from the middle to achieve consensus. And while he has been tied to GOP administrations and his initial support of the current Iraq war, he offers the ‘elder statesman’ heft that Obama needs, and a moderating influence for those ‘McSame’ critics who believe McCain is little more than a war-monger in the Bush mold. He’d be a pretty strong pick for either one, if you believe (as I do) that the VP choice matters more in the 2008 cycle than it has in the past.

Interestingly, this story surfaces as the debate rages over the degree to which McCain should discuss and campaign on his military service record. Wesley Clark took McCain to task, and now Obama is backpedaling while the GOP lines up in a massive fit of outrage.

I remind you only of this: four years ago, if memory serves, the military service records of our presidential candidates was a pretty darn big deal. Remember the howls from the left about President Bush’s service in the National Guard while John Kerry was in Vietnam? Remember how Kerry proclaimed he was “reporting for duty” at the 2004 national convention? Hmm. I guess certain political experts are counting on the voting public to have a short memory about these things. But I digress.

Back to the VP-picking: Will anyone choose Colin Powell? Nah. He’s probably not interested. But it’s fun to ponder these notions of a dream ticket, and how things like ego trip up notions of a perfect pairing of candidates.

Just like Obama won’t pick Hillary for VP, and McCain is said to be weighing whether he can stomach Mitt Romney as a running mate (seems like a long-shot to me, but that would be a pretty strong ticket), this is the kind of prognosticating that we can - and probably will – be doing right up to national convention time.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Grass Roots Organization, Leadership, Messaging • June 30th, 2008

The best use of resources…?

by Chris Lato

Good-government types are always bemoaning the fact that Wisconsin’s legislative incumbents often sail to re-election without even facing a legitimate challenger – which makes this piece from Wispolitics all the more interesting.

Take a poll of friends and neighbors of what they think of their representative, and the answer is often the same when you drill down to it: the Legislature is corrupt, but MY representative is A-OK. Why? Because if the incumbent has half a brain and wants to keep his or her job, a constant presence will be maintained in the community. Appearances at parades, mailers to constituents, open houses/townhall meetings, good constituent relations, etc. are all part of keeping up appearances with those who put you in office. A good level of contact typically keeps constituents satisfied and maintains the profile of the politico.

Anyway, Wispolitics reports the Democrats are taking it to the GOP, fielding candidates in all but a handful of Wisconsin’s 99 Assembly districts. There are two ways to look at this development.

The first: the Democrats are clearly counting on a repeat of ’06, when virtually anyone with a ‘D’ next to his or her name rode the wave of anti-GOP (and anti-Bush) sentiment, regardless of actual merit as candidates. It’s also a perception game: give the impression that Dems will be out in force and aggressively take it to the other team. Remember the ‘Barack Obama invades Wisconsin’ story?

The other side of that coin is that Assembly races are extremely localized and people will respond not just to the political affiliation, but to the person doing the job. Some of these districts are so safe that Democrats are running as little more than cannon fodder.

Also, a lot of it depends on resources. If the Dems are actually willing to commit to supporting those candidates, then this tactic will be interesting to watch play out. However, if it’s all a smokescreen - these candidates are sub-par and are only out there to put someone with a ‘D’ on the ballot, and are left to twist in the wind without support from the state party - then local voters will be smart enough to see through the ploy and will likely vote accordingly.

No Comments »

Leadership, Views on News, public relations • June 27th, 2008

Surveying the landscape

by Chris Lato

The weekend is almost here, and my short attention span won’t allow me to focus on any one topic – a few things grabbed my attention this morning.

First, were you listening to Wisconsin Public Radio at 8 this morning? If not, shame on you. Catch the Week in Review in the archives here. Thanks to Joy Cardin, her staff and Matt Rothschild for a fun and enlightening hour.

Next….is there any doubt that Scott Walker is going to veto this thing? It’s the tax idea that simply won’t die in Milwaukee County- and great timing to boot, what with the economy and all.

Supporters say the money will go to aid parks and mass transit, while cutting back on property taxes…whenever politicians start talking about tax shell games such as this, alarm bells should start ringing and you should put one hand on your wallet at all times.

Granted, this has a long way to go before it would get before the voters as an advisory referendum. One thing’s for sure: if this ever did go before the voters in Milwaukee County, it’s safe to say this would go down in giant, red-hot flames.

A suggestion: if revenue is needed, consider such moves as outlined in the story – privatizing Mitchell Field, competitive bidding for transit services, concessions at the parks, etc. Consider trying something new and different. Imagine the points that could be scored if some of the tax-supporting supervisors got together and put some new thinking on the table, instead of beating their collective head against the wall with this notion of raising the sales tax.

Next, we travel to UW-Parkside, where a PR nightmare is brewing over the selection of a Chancellor with a highly controversial past. Turns out Robert Felner had received a ‘no confidence’ vote back in 2006 from another university, and has a criminal fraud investigation pending against him. Oops! I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, but really, let’s be real: this can’t be the best choice to lead UW-Parkside. If it is, then it doesn’t bode well for the UW System.

You can read all about it here, here and here. Felner has handed in his resignation already, but the common theme from the school’s muckety-mucks is troubling: a defensive posture, a ‘what, me worry?’ stance, a refusal to take responsibility, and concern over what this means to Felner’s career instead of trying to remedy this big blunder in future hiring moves. Not the course of action I would recommend.

This properly raises questions about the process of selecting these top dogs for the UW. One spokesman for Parkside says this presents an opportunity for a ‘teachable moment’ and that officials will take ‘a moment’ to review the process. That observation earns the Understatement of the Week award. Hopefully they spend a bit longer than that and reconsider their public approach to this flap.

And, last but not least, WMC is paying the price for its spending in the recent state Supreme Court races. This is hardly surprising, given the bitterness that surrounded this contest and the political leanings of those involved. Something tells me WMC weighed the pros and cons here, and decided it could survive. After all, Shirley Abrahamson’s race is right around the corner.

And, with WMC under heavy ongoing fire, will WEAC continue to get a free pass on the criticism? Hmmm….

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Grass Roots Organization, Views on News • June 26th, 2008

Shameless self-promotion…and another take on Twitter

by Chris Lato

After a couple days in sunny L.A. to work with one of my finest clients, I am back in Wisconsin with this commercial announcement: turn your radios to Wisconsin Public Radio this Friday, June 27 at 8 am to enjoy yours truly on the ‘Week in Review,’ with host Joy Cardin and fellow guest Matthew Rothschild of ‘The Progressive.’ I anticipate more shouting than your average episode of ‘Hannity and Colmes.’ As always - if you call in, be kind.

Since we’re in the middle of a promotion break, ever heard of ‘Twitter?’ A techie genius I work with tipped me off to this…and its possibilities as a promotional tool for political campaigns.

It’s interesting, because not too long ago I remember reading a story (from a reporter, I think – might have been a PR guy) about how the news release is dead – an outmoded way of communicating. Now, Twitter is here to tell us that e-mail is dead, too – if you can’t boil down your message to 140 characters or less, fuggetaboutit.

Read Jon Tingley’s take on Twitter below – as you can see, the Obama campaign is on top of this trend, while McCain’s team isn’t quite there yet. It offers a striking difference – Obama supporters are more technologically savvy based on these numbers. Obama is counting on the youth vote this fall, so it all makes sense.

Twitter has its place in an information-overloaded world where even brief e-mails will cause one’s eyes to glaze over before hitting the ‘delete’ button. Tweets can help connect with voters and volunteers. It is another arrow in the campaign’s quiver that should be deployed. As part of a well-considered campaign that fully incorporates social media opportunities, one shouldn’t ignore these trends.

However, it’s a mistake to over-rely on these trends and proclaim traditional methods of information disbursement dead. They aren’t. For example, there’s a reason every campaign spends millions upon millions of dollars on TV ads – because huge amounts of people can be reached with a single ad. News releases, when well-targeted, provide more detailed information for the media and those who want to do more than skim.

Call me an old fogey (I can take it) but there’s still more smoke than fire related to online campaigning. Again, I stress it should play a role – potentially a big one, depending on the size of the campaign and the resources available – but for the vast numbers of those potential voters out there, who want to feel close to a candidate and who can’t get a sense of who to support from a 140 character message, they need more ways to connect.

It is awfully easy to appear to have an army of support out there by manipulating the online community – just ask Ron Paul. However, there has to be more to fully communicating one’s campaign. Otherwise it will eventually be exposed as the empty exercise it is – just ask Ron Paul.

No Comments »

2008 Primaries, Messaging, Views on News • June 19th, 2008

Feingold still hearts McCain

by Chris Lato

He’s backing off considerably, and falling into line like a good Democrat, but it’s clear Russ Feingold still thinks John McCain is a force to be reckoned with this fall.

This has to be giving Democrats heartburn. It wouldn’t be the first time Wisconsin’s senator has said things that get the DNC’s teeth gnashing, but in a charged and competitive election year, Feingold’s continued words of praise for McCain as a colleague and candidate have to sting. They should also be admired by any reasonable person who’s not on the extreme fringes of either party – which represents a good chunk of Wisconsin voters.

Feingold’s intelligence and political instincts deserve respect. That said, his comments about McCain should give pause to those who think Barack Obama is simply going to have his way with McCain this November. It’s just not shaping up to be that easy, and Feingold can read the tea leaves as well as anyone.

McCain and Feingold have both positioned themselves as ‘mavericks,’ but while they can articulate the decisions and stances they take in a well-reasoned manner, they are also political animals who understand when they can take a calculated risk by stepping away from their parties.

McCain is paying the price for that this year, however. His already strained relationship with conservatives means they have been slow to embrace him. At the same time, as Feingold understands, the current political climate favors someone like McCain, who holds appeal beyond the established base. It’s a tricky balance McCain has to strike, but it can be done. Beating the ‘McSame’ drumbeat is disingenuous and won’t fly – and Feingold has to know that.

The connection between McCain and Feingold is striking. It’s a combination of political savvy and native intelligence that makes them spiritual blood-brothers. They are both very good at navigating shark-infested waters.

It must be tough being a communications manager for either one – the endless challenges and headaches would be enough to write a book. But the way McCain and Feingold operate, on policy and in public, works for them. John McCain and Russ Feingold are their own best PR managers.

No Comments »

Views on News • June 18th, 2008

Flood water, and questions, linger

by Chris Lato

I have been wondering how people feel about the coverage of recent flooding in Wisconsin – how the news has handled things, and how state and local government has been handling the messaging and dissemination.

My sense is that folks are generally satisfied with the way the press has dealt with these trying times. Milwaukee TV stations are often raked over the coals for overdoing the hype surrounding weather events, but this was an historic natural disaster. This time around, the level of coverage has so far felt just right. In addition, broadcast news has a federal obligation to provide severe weather information, and from what I saw they did an outstanding job of keeping people informed.

The press seems to have risen to the occasion and done their jobs exceptionally well. We have seen some extraordinary things happen in Wisconsin over the past week and a half, thanks to members of the press who worked hard and put in long hours at their jobs. As a former reporter, I understand the rush of a huge, breaking story like this bringing out the best in reporters and editors, and we’ve seen a lot of that recently.

So how about local and state government? I’m sure folks in different communities have their own stories to tell about how the situation has been managed, or mismanaged…but what prompted me to write on this topic today was the news that the Department of Transportation has decided to build emergency crossover lanes to deal with the westbound closures on I-94 that starts in Waukesha County.

It’s a huge hardship that affects countless folks in Wisconsin. I live in Jefferson County and work in Waukesha County, so my trip home requires a different route that takes more time. Many, many others who make the trip to Madison regularly are really feeling the pain. There is no doubt this is an emergency that needed a rapid response.

How has the DOT handled this? This article in the State Journal hints at some fair questions that will keep popping up regarding this project:

When did planning actually begin?

Could planning have started sooner?

Who arrived at this as the best solution? What is the rationale?

How is this going to be paid for?

Why was this a no-bid contract? (It will be interesting to see the final price tag, since the estimated cost of $896,000 can rise or fall depending on a number of factors.)

Do you believe this project will come in on budget?

I bring up these questions because the DOT has to manage its messaging here and get out in front of this whole project. DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi appeared on Wisconsin’s Morning News with Jagler and Mueller this morning in what appears to be an attempt to do just that.

No one doubts the need for something to be done on I-94, and second-guessing always happens after the fact. But the questions surrounding the government’s handling of this project and the other flooding problems will linger, and the state will have to step up and provide even more than has been offered thus far to sustain positive perceptions with constituents.

No Comments »

Branding Politix, Views on News • June 17th, 2008

MoveOn sounds off

by Chris Lato

What do you think of this ad, from the always-reasonable MoveOn.org?

There are two ways to look at this one, I suppose. One way is to consider it a powerful argument for how the Iraq war threatens to bog America down in a quagmire for decades to come.

On the other hand, I’ve watched it a few times and come to the conclusion that it’s a shameless play for the heartstrings that oversimplifies the content and intent of John McCain’s comments to the point that it’s laughable. It is the ultimate example of taking one brief comment out of context, twisting the meaning beyond recognition and attempting to build a campaign around it.

Will anyone, other than those who are in the tank for MoveOn’s extreme and distorted way of viewing things, actually buy into this one? Maybe I’m naïve - and I’m not above giving MoveOn props when they do something effective (the recent John Cusack propaganda piece is one example), but this smacks of manipulative desperation. And it’s only June.

When in doubt, bring in a baby and suggest that John McCain is a bloodthirsty monster looking to take away America’s babies for a hundred-year war in Iraq. Really, it’s a deeply silly and obnoxiously smug ad.

Besides, what if little Alex grows up and wants to join the Army, if for no other reason than to MoveOn from that domineering mommy of his?

The ad does have some discussion value: is it OK to use kids and babies in campaign ads? Is it a wise thing to do, or simply a cheap and revolting ploy? Some might say, whatever works is fair game. Consider ‘Daisy’ from 1964…

This ad must have scared the bejesus out of millions of Americans when it aired. It is undeniably riveting and unsettling. Who knows how many people it swayed?

Nuclear war: the ultimate negative ad. But the idea of John McCain taking America’s babies to turn them into cannon fodder isn’t very far behind.

On a related topic, the man credited with creating the infamous ‘Daisy’ ad, Tony Schwartz, has died. He is also credited, or blamed depending on your point of view, for ushering the era of the ‘negative’ political ad. Since then, many have happily taken the baton and run with it, but Schwartz is undeniably a pioneer.

Comment (1) »

Views on News, wispundits • June 16th, 2008

The long goodbye

by Chris Lato

This angle on the Tim Russert story is getting traction – the idea that the coverage has gone overboard.

Russert was a skilled TV news interviewer, very smart and routinely credited as being tough but fair and an overall good guy. His death was sudden and shocking. It’s not like anybody expected this, and that definitely contributed to the outpouring of news coverage.

Also, it is not at all surprising to see NBC and its offshoot stations go all-out. That is to be expected – after all, Russert was their guy.

But was there too much coverage overall? One is reminded of the old Chevy Chase/’Saturday Night Live’ routine – “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!”

One theory going is that since Russert leaned Democrat, all his friends in the liberal press tripped over themselves covering the story. Nah, that’s not it. Believe it or not, newsrooms don’t generally, consciously think that way. The real answer is more complicated.

Consider this - the same news gatekeepers who decide what gets covered, and by how much, were in charge of covering the untimely death of one of their own. In this case a journalist became the story. It can be argued that the coverage was simply overdone because of the bond they feel to Russert as comrades in arms.

Can it also be tied to television journalists’ inflated sense of self-importance? Do they believe what they do is critical, and that the sudden death of one of their colleagues is major news that deserves huge coverage? The case could be made.

Also, deciding a news agenda is a very fluid thing – stories get the boot in favor of ‘breaking news’ that in retrospect, really wasn’t all that important. And don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Russert’s death wasn’t a newsworthy story. However, in the heat of newsroom decision-making, it oftentimes goes down to moving immediately on a story and worrying later if it was actually worthy of coverage.

It can also be a pack mentality – if the other guy is covering it, you don’t want to miss it. If you don’t cover the story enough, then you’re criticized for not paying enough attention…the old ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ quandary.

Another factor to consider is that in an era in which the comings and goings of Lindsay Lohan, Angelina Jolie and OJ Simpson are scrutinized like the Zapruder film, when celebrity ‘news’ has become a media obsession, is the Tim Russert coverage really all that surprising? He was a celebrity, after all.

Are we reaching a tipping point with this type of coverage? Probably not. That’s the great thing about the internet: we can choose our own news agenda. We’re not bound by the schedule set for us by NBC or any other TV network. You can find as much, or as little, Tim Russert news as you want.

The long and short of it: the amount of coverage, either too much, just right or not enough, is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single reason for why Russert’s death received the attention it did. American television journalism suffered a real loss with the death of Tim Russert, and all the bickering over how much is too much coverage doesn’t obscure that fact.

No Comments »