What are we talking about?
The discussion focuses around the January decision by the Supreme Court to render parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- a.k.a. “The McCain-Feingold” law -- unconstitutional.
What was the ruling?
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that there should be no restrictions on corporations spending money out of their general treasury on political advertising.
It’s important to understand that this is not about corporations donating money directly to campaigns. This is about corporations and unions spending their own money on their own political ads.
“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”
In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.
It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court upheld (8-1) the part of McCain-Feingold that says that corporate disclosure is still required. In other words, the company spending the money has to identify itself in the ad.
Here’s the catch – In bell-weather state Michigan – The Chamber wanted to know whether it could now form a political action committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures for “express advocacy” ads that directly endorse a candidate, whether it could solicit funds from others to pay for those ads, and whether it would have to disclose which companies or individuals had contributed to the new committee.
In a final ruling on the Chamber’s question issued May 21, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land said that the Chamber can spend any amount it wishes on independent expenditures for express advocacy, but it cannot collect money from other groups for the purpose of funding these ads.
“A corporation’s political speech,” Land wrote, “must be funded exclusively by that corporation.”
In practical terms, what does this mean?
This ruling means that if Coca-Cola wants spend $12-million on spots that say “Coke supports gay marriage” or “Coke encourages you to vote for Rand Paul,” they have the constitutional right to do so.
They have to spend their own money doing it AND they can’t raise money to do so (in other words, they can’t solicit donations for the express purpose of supporting their political advertising).
So what’s the hubbub?
If you’ll recall pundits (including me) said that this will mean that we will see more money than ever being poured into elections – And as you know from talking to me, I believe money is the great evil in elections AND that when you all elect me to be president, I will propose that we do away with all political advertising (since presumably, I won’t be running an branding and advertising agency anymore so I won’t need the work ☺)
How much of this is HYPE?
When it comes to companies like Coca-Cola or Ford, all of this is just hype.
Corporations like these are not going to spend any of their money advocating for candidates or issue.
The free market is more than powerful enough to curb free speech!
Here’s why:
Anytime a company that sells stuff to the masses takes a political stand or chooses a side, it alienates all those potential customers/clients that disagree with them. There aren’t too many companies of size that are willing pay that much and take that big of a chance.
I can’t imagine a political candidate that is so attractive that I would advise one of my clients to openly piss off half of their potential customers.
In fact, we go out of our way to make sure our clients (and the people who are easily recognized as working for them) stay apolitical at all cost.
This is a bit different when you’re talking about unions and associations, groups like the NEA and the NRA. But these guys already spend gazillions of dollars on political ads – now they will just try to spend a little more.
So what’s the real solution?
Well, I alluded to this in many reports on Sirius/XM's POTUS channel – the real solution is the voters.
There’re things that the people who consume ads should understand as we get closer to election time:
1. Nobody is really going to make political advertising illegal (even though I think they should)
2. AND – there is substantial evidence to suggest political advertising works – it rallies the loyalists and persuades those on the fence to vote.
3. This means that candidates and political issues folk will always try to find a way to get MORE advertising on the air (in other words, politicians of one political party will always want to encourage an environment that allows more their party to run more ads while ensuring that their opponents can’t run as many.
NOW HERE ARE THE BIGGIES
4. Political advertising is considered a form of “political speech”. That means that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of “Truth In Advertising” laws.
5. Next to ad time, candidates spend a ton of money on polling – they do this so that they know what you – the voter – want to hear them say. They then use this polling data to craft their commercials (I know, my company works very closely with polling companies for political spots).
6. The result of this is that candidates can and will say whatever it is they believe you want them to say in order to get you to vote for them.
Basically political ads are one of the few places candidates can outright lie about themselves and their opponents – unchallenged and uninterrupted for the duration of that commercial.
In that commercial, however, the voter has the responsibility to research the claims as to what is factual and not (go hang out at politifact.com).
The voter should also understand the messaging and the branding of the spot to understand what the candidate is trying to make them think – and more importantly – feel.
There is going to be a lot of money spent to try to get you to vote one way or the other. (I will be receiving some of that money and my job is going to be to get you to vote one way or the other.) Trust me. I’m good at my job – so are all the other guys.
Wanna avoid having some guy like me shape your opinion? Do your research. As things heat up, tap into non-biased resources to help.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Branding Immigration
The day the healthcare bill was signed into law, another event was taking place on the grounds of the National Mall.
More than 200,000 people came to Washington DC to demonstrate for comprehensive immigration reform.
Obviously, that story was buried in the signing of healthcare, but it resurfaced in a big way weeks later after the signing of the Arizona immigration law.
All cards on the table, my company – The M Network – is the company that’s did all the ads for the Washington DC rally as well the other immigration demonstrations that have been happening all over the country recently. (“si no es ahora… cuando?”)
Because of that work, we might have a little different view of all of this than the traditional pundits.
The real issue here – the one that nobody is talking about – is the fact that we need illegal immigrants.
This is not about the rights of any person within our borders or the pain and suffering going on in the countries where most of these people are coming from or even the Democrats importing voters. It’s not about any of the things you’ve heard recently on cable news channels or talk radio.
The reason we need illegal immigrants is for very practical, financial reasons.
One good one is that in illegal immigrants, we have a workforce that actually pays into government programs like social security without ever having any chance of getting money out of those same government programs.
If it weren’t for illegals, those programs would go broke much faster.
Another reason why we need illegal immigrants is this: If all the working illegal aliens in this country became legal, imagine what that would do to the cost of labor. They would all have to be paid minimum wage. More expensive still is that they would also have the ability to unionize.
Imagine what that would do to the price of strawberries!
From a branding standpoint, however, you can’t open those cans of worms.
For those who are for the kind of immigration reform being bandied about at these rallies, it’s important to paint amnesty as something noble and righteous and necessary to help those less fortunate.
For those who are against this kind of immigration reform, it’s important to paint amnesty as an affront to our laws and a threat to our safety.
So let’s talk about immigration!
Let’s talk about immigration! That way we won’t have to talk about the fact that, by law, we must pay our legal employees exponentially higher than the rest of the world pays their employees. As a result we have no ability to compete with them on price for basic manufacturing goods and, therefore, are pigeonholed into exporting high priced jobs and/or importing illegal, low priced laborers.
Let’s talk about immigration! That way we can hide —at least for a little while longer – the fact that the government puts out far more on government programs (like social security) than it could ever possibly bring in.
The big problem, of course, is that you can’t logically talk about immigration without first addressing these other issues.
But that won’t ever happen – because the immigration debate isn’t about reform, it’s about branding… and it’s about the worst kind of branding, branding without substance.
More than 200,000 people came to Washington DC to demonstrate for comprehensive immigration reform.
Obviously, that story was buried in the signing of healthcare, but it resurfaced in a big way weeks later after the signing of the Arizona immigration law.
All cards on the table, my company – The M Network – is the company that’s did all the ads for the Washington DC rally as well the other immigration demonstrations that have been happening all over the country recently. (“si no es ahora… cuando?”)
Because of that work, we might have a little different view of all of this than the traditional pundits.
The real issue here – the one that nobody is talking about – is the fact that we need illegal immigrants.
This is not about the rights of any person within our borders or the pain and suffering going on in the countries where most of these people are coming from or even the Democrats importing voters. It’s not about any of the things you’ve heard recently on cable news channels or talk radio.
The reason we need illegal immigrants is for very practical, financial reasons.
One good one is that in illegal immigrants, we have a workforce that actually pays into government programs like social security without ever having any chance of getting money out of those same government programs.
If it weren’t for illegals, those programs would go broke much faster.
Another reason why we need illegal immigrants is this: If all the working illegal aliens in this country became legal, imagine what that would do to the cost of labor. They would all have to be paid minimum wage. More expensive still is that they would also have the ability to unionize.
Imagine what that would do to the price of strawberries!
From a branding standpoint, however, you can’t open those cans of worms.
For those who are for the kind of immigration reform being bandied about at these rallies, it’s important to paint amnesty as something noble and righteous and necessary to help those less fortunate.
For those who are against this kind of immigration reform, it’s important to paint amnesty as an affront to our laws and a threat to our safety.
So let’s talk about immigration!
Let’s talk about immigration! That way we won’t have to talk about the fact that, by law, we must pay our legal employees exponentially higher than the rest of the world pays their employees. As a result we have no ability to compete with them on price for basic manufacturing goods and, therefore, are pigeonholed into exporting high priced jobs and/or importing illegal, low priced laborers.
Let’s talk about immigration! That way we can hide —at least for a little while longer – the fact that the government puts out far more on government programs (like social security) than it could ever possibly bring in.
The big problem, of course, is that you can’t logically talk about immigration without first addressing these other issues.
But that won’t ever happen – because the immigration debate isn’t about reform, it’s about branding… and it’s about the worst kind of branding, branding without substance.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Massachusetts Message
When Barak Obama campaigned on a message of “change” and “hope,” America jumped on the bandwagon. The message resonated because America believed a fundamental “change” in the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd would bring “hope” to the American economy, security and overall standing in the world.
After one year of rushed legislation, bulldozer diplomacy, back-door deals and ill-conceived publicity stunts, it’s become apparent to many that what Barak Obama really meant by his messages of “change” and “hope” were exactly the opposite – that a fundamental “change” in America would bring “hope” to the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd.
And that is what America is pissed off at.
This disconnect with how the target audience defined the new administration’s brand is why, in my opinion, we’ve seen political upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and now in Massachusetts.
At least from my branding vantage point, these upsets are not a repudiation of the Obama agenda, as right-wing pundits would want us to believe.
Similarly, this is not a function of some “deep discontent with the pace of change” as communications from the Obama administration and pundits from the left are suggesting.
Instead, the anger and frustration coming from the American voter seems to me to be about HOW things are getting done in Washington as opposed to WHAT things are getting done.
America, in general, wants health care reform. They just don’t want a government takeover filled with politically motivated “deals” and a very, very big price tag to drive up taxes and eliminate personal choice.
America, in general, wants Banks and Wall Street to be held accountable for screwing with the economy, tanking people’s retirement funds and selling people mortgages they could never afford. They don’t, however, want the government to take over our banking industry and create intrusive mandates on how private business concerns are to be run.
Most importantly, though, American voters want a seat at the table. The country does not want people they do not trust making decisions that will heavily impact their lives and the lives of their children. They especially don’t want these decisions to be made behind closed doors. And they definitely don’t want these decisions to be politicized in any way.
As the Democrats and Republicans in congress continue to feud between themselves – deploying strategies and setting policy seemingly solely as a means of partisan sparring – the American voter has felt increasingly left out of the process.
The beauty of the system we have in place, though, is that it always allows the voter to eventually speak. And speak they did - in New Jersey, in Virginia and now in Massachusetts.
Did you hear what they said?
Our “hope” will come with a fundamental “change” in how Washington plays politics.
Longtime incumbents beware.
After one year of rushed legislation, bulldozer diplomacy, back-door deals and ill-conceived publicity stunts, it’s become apparent to many that what Barak Obama really meant by his messages of “change” and “hope” were exactly the opposite – that a fundamental “change” in America would bring “hope” to the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd.
And that is what America is pissed off at.
This disconnect with how the target audience defined the new administration’s brand is why, in my opinion, we’ve seen political upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and now in Massachusetts.
At least from my branding vantage point, these upsets are not a repudiation of the Obama agenda, as right-wing pundits would want us to believe.
Similarly, this is not a function of some “deep discontent with the pace of change” as communications from the Obama administration and pundits from the left are suggesting.
Instead, the anger and frustration coming from the American voter seems to me to be about HOW things are getting done in Washington as opposed to WHAT things are getting done.
America, in general, wants health care reform. They just don’t want a government takeover filled with politically motivated “deals” and a very, very big price tag to drive up taxes and eliminate personal choice.
America, in general, wants Banks and Wall Street to be held accountable for screwing with the economy, tanking people’s retirement funds and selling people mortgages they could never afford. They don’t, however, want the government to take over our banking industry and create intrusive mandates on how private business concerns are to be run.
Most importantly, though, American voters want a seat at the table. The country does not want people they do not trust making decisions that will heavily impact their lives and the lives of their children. They especially don’t want these decisions to be made behind closed doors. And they definitely don’t want these decisions to be politicized in any way.
As the Democrats and Republicans in congress continue to feud between themselves – deploying strategies and setting policy seemingly solely as a means of partisan sparring – the American voter has felt increasingly left out of the process.
The beauty of the system we have in place, though, is that it always allows the voter to eventually speak. And speak they did - in New Jersey, in Virginia and now in Massachusetts.
Did you hear what they said?
Our “hope” will come with a fundamental “change” in how Washington plays politics.
Longtime incumbents beware.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
National Write Your Congressman
I have been a member of "National Write Your Congressman" for some time now.
For those of you who have never heard of "National Write Your Congressman" you should go visit www.nwyc.com.
For me, this has been one of the best tools I've run across to help look over the bills that congress is voting on and read opinions from both sides of the issue.
National Write Your Congressman has helped me stay on top of the news stories that I am often called on to render commentary on.
Now, you might be wondering why the big plug for NWYC -- and this is the reason.
Things with healthcare reform have transformed me from merely a pithy analyst who talks about branding and Godfather references into the kind of guy who actually writes his representatives.
Exactly -- I am now that kind of crazy person. Except I no longer think it's crazy. (Of course most crazy people don't think they are crazy -- we can examine that issue later).
When I look at the disconnect between the public polling numbers and the actions of our government (over the course of the last decade or more) I can't help think that people simply have to get more involved.
Since my wife would shoot me if I actually ran for office, writing congress is the next best thing.
Do I think my Congresspersons - Representative Kendrick Meek, Senator George LeMieux or Senator Bill Nelson - every actually read this stuff?
Probably not. But I'm fairly sure some staffer does (at least the first line or two). I also think that if enough people wrote their congressperson on a regular basis, these folks might just start reading their own mail.
Anyway -- Here's the letter I sent out using National Write Your Congressman.
December 22, 2009
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
Below are my thoughts regarding the Senate health care bill.
No, I am not in favor of the Senate health care measure.
You guys on Capital Hill have given the 24/7 news folks (like me) the best Christmas
present they could have asked for - fodder for the machine.
Sadly, however, just about everything that most Americans know about the
bill is what comes from those same news folk.
Honestly. What is in this bill and why are you all on this fast moving
train to pass it?
We've waited 50-years for healthcare reform. We can wait another couple of
months (or years) in order to make sure it's right. (For the record, I'm
not sure you can have actual healthcare reform without having some sort of
tort reform as well - but let's save that for another letter).
The polls are pretty clear. The faster you move, the more divided you are,
the less confidence we have that you all are serving our best interest.
And that, in a nutshell, is the BIG problem.
The urgent problem is not healthcare!
The urgent problem is that the American people (your constituents in
particular) do not trust you anymore.
We think that the political process is broken.
We look at the process by which this bill is being moved forward and we
say amongst ourselves, "you people have no clue."
That stated I'm not writing to just to criticize.
I would like nothing better than to see this trend reversed.
The only way that is going to happen, however, is if you take the lead.
If you truly want to help voters gain back their trust in you, now is the
time and healthcare reform is the issue.
Consider these 6 easy steps:
1. Vote NO on this bill.
2. Remind the President and your peers of the President's own Transparency
and Open Government directive - you can see that directive at this link
---
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
3. Suggest that the senate publish to the Internet a "finished" version of
their healthcare reform bill (Keeping with the spirit of this directive,
the published version of the bill should be one that is translated from
"Lawyerese" to a language that at least 90% of your constituents can
actually read and understand).
4. Put out a non-politicized TV PSA reminding people to read the bill and
post comments.
5. Wait 90 Days to let your constituents react to it (and pay attention to
how they react).
6. Vote your conscience.
I recognize that this is probably a ridiculous request given the political
climate in Washington right now. I understand the pressure you must all be
under (Democrats to pass this thing - Republicans to defeat it).
The bottom line, though, is that healthcare reform can wait. Voters,
however, are quickly losing patience with how you all are conducting
yourselves.
Please vote NO on this bill and demonstrate to the electorate you truly
understand that this government was built to be "by the people, for the
people".
A proud member of National Write Your Congressman.
Sincerely,
Thom Mozloom
President
The M Network
For those of you who have never heard of "National Write Your Congressman" you should go visit www.nwyc.com.
For me, this has been one of the best tools I've run across to help look over the bills that congress is voting on and read opinions from both sides of the issue.
National Write Your Congressman has helped me stay on top of the news stories that I am often called on to render commentary on.
Now, you might be wondering why the big plug for NWYC -- and this is the reason.
Things with healthcare reform have transformed me from merely a pithy analyst who talks about branding and Godfather references into the kind of guy who actually writes his representatives.
Exactly -- I am now that kind of crazy person. Except I no longer think it's crazy. (Of course most crazy people don't think they are crazy -- we can examine that issue later).
When I look at the disconnect between the public polling numbers and the actions of our government (over the course of the last decade or more) I can't help think that people simply have to get more involved.
Since my wife would shoot me if I actually ran for office, writing congress is the next best thing.
Do I think my Congresspersons - Representative Kendrick Meek, Senator George LeMieux or Senator Bill Nelson - every actually read this stuff?
Probably not. But I'm fairly sure some staffer does (at least the first line or two). I also think that if enough people wrote their congressperson on a regular basis, these folks might just start reading their own mail.
Anyway -- Here's the letter I sent out using National Write Your Congressman.
December 22, 2009
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
Below are my thoughts regarding the Senate health care bill.
No, I am not in favor of the Senate health care measure.
You guys on Capital Hill have given the 24/7 news folks (like me) the best Christmas
present they could have asked for - fodder for the machine.
Sadly, however, just about everything that most Americans know about the
bill is what comes from those same news folk.
Honestly. What is in this bill and why are you all on this fast moving
train to pass it?
We've waited 50-years for healthcare reform. We can wait another couple of
months (or years) in order to make sure it's right. (For the record, I'm
not sure you can have actual healthcare reform without having some sort of
tort reform as well - but let's save that for another letter).
The polls are pretty clear. The faster you move, the more divided you are,
the less confidence we have that you all are serving our best interest.
And that, in a nutshell, is the BIG problem.
The urgent problem is not healthcare!
The urgent problem is that the American people (your constituents in
particular) do not trust you anymore.
We think that the political process is broken.
We look at the process by which this bill is being moved forward and we
say amongst ourselves, "you people have no clue."
That stated I'm not writing to just to criticize.
I would like nothing better than to see this trend reversed.
The only way that is going to happen, however, is if you take the lead.
If you truly want to help voters gain back their trust in you, now is the
time and healthcare reform is the issue.
Consider these 6 easy steps:
1. Vote NO on this bill.
2. Remind the President and your peers of the President's own Transparency
and Open Government directive - you can see that directive at this link
---
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
3. Suggest that the senate publish to the Internet a "finished" version of
their healthcare reform bill (Keeping with the spirit of this directive,
the published version of the bill should be one that is translated from
"Lawyerese" to a language that at least 90% of your constituents can
actually read and understand).
4. Put out a non-politicized TV PSA reminding people to read the bill and
post comments.
5. Wait 90 Days to let your constituents react to it (and pay attention to
how they react).
6. Vote your conscience.
I recognize that this is probably a ridiculous request given the political
climate in Washington right now. I understand the pressure you must all be
under (Democrats to pass this thing - Republicans to defeat it).
The bottom line, though, is that healthcare reform can wait. Voters,
however, are quickly losing patience with how you all are conducting
yourselves.
Please vote NO on this bill and demonstrate to the electorate you truly
understand that this government was built to be "by the people, for the
people".
A proud member of National Write Your Congressman.
Sincerely,
Thom Mozloom
President
The M Network
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Healthcare Reform??
Two things about the continuing healthcare reform circus.
First -- now that the Democrats have conceded a public option AND have given up on the expanded Medicade proposal -- their is a HUGE branding question on the table:
What is this thing?
The idea that every person in America would have access to quality, affordable healthcare was an easy message to digest -- easily brand-able - and a lot of people bought into the notion.
Now that this thing has morphed into what many people are viewing as nothing more than an ideological debate (as opposed to real reform) it's done two things --
1. Bled away a lot of support both from the right AND the left
2. Demonstrated clearly to voters how screwed up Washington is.
Prior to this - public polling indicated a waning approval for this legislation anyway -- that was mostly spurred by the "big government is taking over" crowd and an overall lack of trust in the federal governments ability to actually create and manage a system of any worth. Now that the most well "branded" aspects of the plan have been blown up, we're starting to see erosion in support from voters on the left as well.
I don't see that public support coming back anytime soon because there simply isn't enough time to explain to the public why this bill is a good thing if it's not going to do what it was originally intended to do -- provide healthcare to every American.
Now don't get me wrong -- I don't actually believe that the bill needs public support to pass -- and that brings us to the second part of this line of thinking:
If a bill passes that does not provide healthcare to all Americans --- and is not even understood by most Americans --- then:
- Voters on the right will feel that they were railroaded by a liberal congress into a bad bill that increases the size of government -- it's a government takeover of 1/3 of the economy.
- Voters on the left will feel that they were railroaded by a weak congress that was bullied around by the far right minority. This bill isn't real reform but rather a watered down version of change that amounts to little more than politics as usual -- protecting the massive health insurance lobby and the donation dollars that go along with it.
In other words -- this bill is now a political (at least a political marketing) albatross.
No good can come from it.
First -- now that the Democrats have conceded a public option AND have given up on the expanded Medicade proposal -- their is a HUGE branding question on the table:
What is this thing?
The idea that every person in America would have access to quality, affordable healthcare was an easy message to digest -- easily brand-able - and a lot of people bought into the notion.
Now that this thing has morphed into what many people are viewing as nothing more than an ideological debate (as opposed to real reform) it's done two things --
1. Bled away a lot of support both from the right AND the left
2. Demonstrated clearly to voters how screwed up Washington is.
Prior to this - public polling indicated a waning approval for this legislation anyway -- that was mostly spurred by the "big government is taking over" crowd and an overall lack of trust in the federal governments ability to actually create and manage a system of any worth. Now that the most well "branded" aspects of the plan have been blown up, we're starting to see erosion in support from voters on the left as well.
I don't see that public support coming back anytime soon because there simply isn't enough time to explain to the public why this bill is a good thing if it's not going to do what it was originally intended to do -- provide healthcare to every American.
Now don't get me wrong -- I don't actually believe that the bill needs public support to pass -- and that brings us to the second part of this line of thinking:
If a bill passes that does not provide healthcare to all Americans --- and is not even understood by most Americans --- then:
- Voters on the right will feel that they were railroaded by a liberal congress into a bad bill that increases the size of government -- it's a government takeover of 1/3 of the economy.
- Voters on the left will feel that they were railroaded by a weak congress that was bullied around by the far right minority. This bill isn't real reform but rather a watered down version of change that amounts to little more than politics as usual -- protecting the massive health insurance lobby and the donation dollars that go along with it.
In other words -- this bill is now a political (at least a political marketing) albatross.
No good can come from it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Nobel Standards For President
I can completely understand when conservatives decry the fact that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
After all, they are conservatives.
They lost the election.
Their policies have been watered down.
They don’t seem to have a clear agenda.
Their job, then, is to criticize the winner for the next four years. That’s what partisanship is all about – and I’m cool with that.
I have, however, also heard from quite a number of my Democrat friends who have stated how much of a “joke” or “embarrassment” they believe it is that the Nobel Prize was awarded to President Obama.
“What has he done,” they cry.
“You can’t award him the Nobel Peace Prize based on what you hope he will do,” they whine.
There’s a certain level irony – or at least hypocrisy - when people who voted for a freshman senator with virtually no experience to be our president complain that he hasn’t actually achieved enough to be awarded the Nobel Prize.
I would dare say that the responsibilities of the leader of the free world are substantially greater than the responsibilities of a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
As President, the decisions Obama will make will have far greater impact than the decisions he makes as Nobel laureate.
Detractors to this logic will say that we vote for president based on what we believe that person WILL do, but the Nobel Prize is given to people based on what they HAVE done.
To them I say, “That’s the problem, isn’t it?”
After all, they are conservatives.
They lost the election.
Their policies have been watered down.
They don’t seem to have a clear agenda.
Their job, then, is to criticize the winner for the next four years. That’s what partisanship is all about – and I’m cool with that.
I have, however, also heard from quite a number of my Democrat friends who have stated how much of a “joke” or “embarrassment” they believe it is that the Nobel Prize was awarded to President Obama.
“What has he done,” they cry.
“You can’t award him the Nobel Peace Prize based on what you hope he will do,” they whine.
There’s a certain level irony – or at least hypocrisy - when people who voted for a freshman senator with virtually no experience to be our president complain that he hasn’t actually achieved enough to be awarded the Nobel Prize.
I would dare say that the responsibilities of the leader of the free world are substantially greater than the responsibilities of a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
As President, the decisions Obama will make will have far greater impact than the decisions he makes as Nobel laureate.
Detractors to this logic will say that we vote for president based on what we believe that person WILL do, but the Nobel Prize is given to people based on what they HAVE done.
To them I say, “That’s the problem, isn’t it?”
Monday, August 24, 2009
Breakfast Cereal And Box Tops For All
It’s been a fascinating respite from blogging, reporting and doing various commentaries… one prompted by the birth of my third child (my second daughter).
Prior to Tessa’s arrival, I was on someone’s air, website or pages about every other week or so. With the self-imposed downtime following Tessa’s birth I had the opportunity to:
➢ Act like a husband and father.
➢ Give my day job some TLC (running The M Network)
➢ Take a two-week family vacation (driving a 35 foot RV up and down the East Coast – which I will write about at a later post)
➢ Review some of my past commentaries.
In tackling the last bullet point, I discovered a rather large error in what I’ve been yapping about for the past couple years.
Ok… maybe error is a little strong --- omission is probably the best way to put it. Nevertheless, I’d like to take this opportunity to correct that omission.
You see - I’ve always approached my role in giving political commentary as being limited to the branding and marketing aspects. But in watching the events of the past few months unfold - without having the obligation to create new and pithy commentary around them - I believe I’ve hit upon something I’ve never said before.
There is no such thing as political marketing. – It’s a redundant statement. Politics IS marketing.
The idea behind marketing/branding has always been to understand the emotional connection that a target audience already has with a product, service, issue or other human being and then massage (or manipulate) that emotional connection in a specific and desired direction (try my product – vote for me).
As I watch the administration (henceforth to be known as Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show) trying to sell healthcare, automobiles and the desire to kill more Afghanis than Iraqis -- and the conservative opposition to each of these issues --- it dawned on me that I was not watching a heated political battle in which lives and ideas hang in the balance – I was watching Bud-Light vs. Miller Lite.
Our beer has fewer calories.
Well our beer has less carbs.
Their beer costs more
Well their beer comes in a can.
Such and such celebrity drinks our beer
Hot chicks dig guys who drink ours.
And while some of those statements may actually be true, none of them have anything at all to do with the customers’ best interest. It’s beer after all – and even the “drink responsibly” genre of commercials are carefully scripted to achieve the beer company’s main objective: Selling more beer – or, getting more votes – ya know – same thing.
(My sincere apologies to Adlai Stevenson).
Prior to Tessa’s arrival, I was on someone’s air, website or pages about every other week or so. With the self-imposed downtime following Tessa’s birth I had the opportunity to:
➢ Act like a husband and father.
➢ Give my day job some TLC (running The M Network)
➢ Take a two-week family vacation (driving a 35 foot RV up and down the East Coast – which I will write about at a later post)
➢ Review some of my past commentaries.
In tackling the last bullet point, I discovered a rather large error in what I’ve been yapping about for the past couple years.
Ok… maybe error is a little strong --- omission is probably the best way to put it. Nevertheless, I’d like to take this opportunity to correct that omission.
You see - I’ve always approached my role in giving political commentary as being limited to the branding and marketing aspects. But in watching the events of the past few months unfold - without having the obligation to create new and pithy commentary around them - I believe I’ve hit upon something I’ve never said before.
There is no such thing as political marketing. – It’s a redundant statement. Politics IS marketing.
The idea behind marketing/branding has always been to understand the emotional connection that a target audience already has with a product, service, issue or other human being and then massage (or manipulate) that emotional connection in a specific and desired direction (try my product – vote for me).
As I watch the administration (henceforth to be known as Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show) trying to sell healthcare, automobiles and the desire to kill more Afghanis than Iraqis -- and the conservative opposition to each of these issues --- it dawned on me that I was not watching a heated political battle in which lives and ideas hang in the balance – I was watching Bud-Light vs. Miller Lite.
Our beer has fewer calories.
Well our beer has less carbs.
Their beer costs more
Well their beer comes in a can.
Such and such celebrity drinks our beer
Hot chicks dig guys who drink ours.
And while some of those statements may actually be true, none of them have anything at all to do with the customers’ best interest. It’s beer after all – and even the “drink responsibly” genre of commercials are carefully scripted to achieve the beer company’s main objective: Selling more beer – or, getting more votes – ya know – same thing.
(My sincere apologies to Adlai Stevenson).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
