Where are they learning this stuff? Oh…

April 6, 2011April 6, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

It’s a story that deals with higher taxes, government largess, and an agency that broke it’s promises.

Is it the current budget battle? The raging debate over Obamacare? The rallying cry for state public sector unions? No, it’s Spring Concert at my alma mater, UMass. This year, for the first time ever, students will have to pay to attend.

In light of the current debate over the size and scope of government spending, this tale is sort of interesting.

Some background: UMass’s annual Spring Concert dates back to at least the 1960s. It used to be an outdoor event on the vast expanse of space right in the middle of campus; since 1999 it has been held in the Mullins Center (which also hosts basketball, hockey, and other concerts). The money to put on the concert comes from the student activities fund, which is charged along with tuition and other fees to each student on their bill each semester – essentially, a tax that funds student government activities. The article points out that the fee is now $94 (it was in the $70 range when I was there) and includes a good description of the funding process and the way the Spring Concert is put together.

Controversy and disappointment are nothing new for the Spring Concert; the 1998 show (during my freshman year on campus) was scrapped because the agency in charge couldn’t scrape together enough funds after running other concerts throughout the year. This year, the problem is that the $200,000 special fund that was set aside specifically for the concert (an outgrowth from the ’98 cancellation) isn’t enough to cover the talent and other costs.

In other words, a government agency is having trouble paying its bills, and is looking for taxpayers to make up the difference.

Especially telling is explanation offered by the advisor for University Productions and Concerts, the group in charge of the event:

“One of the problems is that we are a very spoiled campus,” said Lloyd Henley, associate director of the Center for Student Development and faculty advisor to the UPC. “We are used to such top-caliber artists, and so one of the things I said to UPC and the SGA is, ‘Something’s got to break.’”

Met with the dilemma of the high costs of talent and a budget which sounds big but probably goes quick when running an event of this size, Henley’s advice was apparently to charge more on top of what people were already paying – because the students/taxpayers are “spoiled” and the Spring Concert has to be a great show rather than a good free concert. It’s not surprising; despite the “faculty” advisor moniker Henley’s position within the office that oversees campus activities gives him away as an administrative/bureaucratic figure. In fact, some folks are calling for increases in student activities fees so that the shortfall doesn’t happen again in future year. Because why shouldn’t a state school raise its fees to accommodate a really big concert?

It’s both sad and fortunate that the voice of reason comes from a student:

This past year, fees did not increase and, according to Josh Davidson, chairman of the SGA’s Ways and Mean Committee, they should stay the same until the budget process is modified.

“I really feel that we can spend the money a whole lot better,” he said. “The way that we allocate money to groups can be much more effective. I would like to see those things happen before we raise the fees.”

That’s a good philosophy, no matter what level of government you’re in.

Obama announces; Pawlenty fires back

April 4, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Since it was no secret that President Obama would run for re-election, Republican opponents had no reason to be slow in their response. Tim Pawlenty took the first crack today with his newest video, “A New Direction“:

Pawlenty’s immediate, polished, and pithy video response shows keen preparation and intelligence. The fact that he was the only Republican challenger in a position to make a video like this is one more reason one more reason he was smart to form his exploratory committee when he did.

Check out the contrast in style between Pawlenty’s video and the Obama announcement:

Pawlenty’s response mimics his previous trailers/videos, with thunderous background music and a serious tone. Recognized voices of the left (like Paul Krugman) are skillfully used to point to the flaws in Obama’s policies, and the candidate (or candidate-to-be, officially) is the star. Since the knock on T-Paw has been that he’s too bland and “Minnesota Nice” to rile up and motivate voters, the stirring rallying cry is his way of making the election seem like the fulcrum on which the lever of history will turn (or something like that) and positioning himself as the Man Our Times Cry Out For.

Meanwhile, Obama’s laid back video focuses on volunteers. The criticism that Obama is self-centered and self-aggrandized is counterbalanced with the low-key collection of individuals talking about what they can do to re-elect the President. If fact, Obama doesn’t even appear in the video, though he did “send” the email to supporters that announced the video. Significantly, the first three supporters hail from North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada – three traditionally red states that Obama carried in 2008.

The different styles reflect two different audiences. Obama and his campaign handlers know that his announcement video is going to make the evening news, whether it’s a thoughtful call to supporting the policies of the last two years or the President delivering an autotuned address about the wonders of Friday. (Actually, that second option would probably get an awful lot more press, but in a not-as-good kind of way.) So his video is directed at the people who put him in office: the ones who made phone calls, knocked on doors and urged friends and neighbors to schlep out to polling places. The video attempts to frame his re-election as every bit the grassroots movement as his 2008 election, despite the vast advantages of incumbency.

(Also worth noting is how one Obama supporter, Ed from North Carolina, echoes an old George W. Bush talking point from 2004: “I don’t agree with Obama on everything. But I respect him and I trust him.”)

Pawlenty’s team also knew that the President’s announcement would be guaranteed coverage. So his video is built to take advantage of that press exposure – and earn coverage of his own to help lift his name recognition numbers.

Dueling ads about Planned Parenthood

March 31, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

On his Daily Caller blog, AOL/Huffington Post ‘fugee Matt Lewis talks about why a recent ad taking on Planned Parenthood works – noting that the inclusion of a former Planned Parenthood staffer helps strike an authoritative blow to the abortion provider’s claim to be about more than abortion.

In contrast, here’s one of the ads Planned Parenthood has been running on local Washington stations, most likely to scare the Congressional staff who live in the area:

This ad is effective, too – at least to a degree: it highlights a personal story and diverts the attention from their core business of pregnancy termination, which is a political loser. Unlike the ad referenced by Lewis, this ad (and other Planned Parenthood ads) have used a male voiceover. At first blush, that seems like a bad mistake; after all, isn’t Planned Parenthood trying to position itself as the voice for women’s health? But there might be a method to the madness: the male voice allows Planned Parenthood to convey a sense of urgency and anger without allowing a listener to dismiss and stereotype the message as “angry feminist” rhetoric.

It also might have been a budgetary consideration; the ad itself looks like it was made cheaply and quickly. And that might be a bit of strategy, too: after all, if you are paying for ads that say you need a handout, the ads probably shouldn’t look too slick.

Obama’s Libya speech and 2012 vulnerability

March 29, 2011March 29, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In his speech Monday night, President Obama set out to answer questions about the kinetic military actions in Libya, over a week after air strikes started. The President has been nearly universally criticized for this delay. More troubling for his political operation is the fact that the speech had to answer questions, rather than frame the need for the mission.

The American public is used to a certain script for military actions, even if they aren’t warned in advance. Just after the initial strike, the President appears on television, sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. He reassures, he provides reasons for the action, he presents both strength and a desire for peace. Though subordinates give further updates in the ensuing days, weeks, or months, the President makes the initial announcement. Obama did none of this, in what seems like an attempt to downplay the current conflict. Instead, it looks like he cribbed his messaging strategy from a young Kevin Bacon:

You can’t nonchalantly drop bombs on other countries. That’s the type of thing people talk about – and without the President’s authoritative explanation, the conversation could go in any direction. Polls show that America is ready to get behind their President and support the Libyan mission – but the public is also understandably wary about taking on too much responsibility. A five minute speech at the outset could have answered many questions before they were even asked.

Taken with some other patterns that have developed within his presidency, though, this may prove troubling for Obama’s reelection.

Flippant remarks – from Slurpees to salmon – have a way of eclipsing the content of his speeches. His rhetoric on regulations and Iraq have a way of mimicking his opponents. Tasking Congress to construct legislative packages from health care to financial reform previously looked like a strategy that allowed the President to set a broad policy direction without having to answer for the peculiarities of the specific legislation. Many of these seemed like great strategies at the time. In light of Libya, was the President getting too much credit?

“Looking Presidential” should be a major advantage to an incumbent. Distraction from major issues in favor of likability isn’t usually bad, either. But distractions can cross the line and the President loses control of his image and his agenda.

The mishandled messaging of the Libyan situation may be an isolated incident, but it may be a harbinger for a very disappointing 2012 for the Obama camp.

Sunday Funnies: Why They Fought

March 27, 2011March 26, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na BACHMANN!

March 25, 2011March 25, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

It’s shaping up to be a big week for Minnesotans running for President, with Michelle Bachmann yesterday suggesting that there might be a future announcement about preparing to make an announcement that she would consider heavily running for President. (That’s an official FEC designation, as I understand it.)

For 2012, it’s tough to see where Bachmann will draw support. She has made plenty of inroads with tea partiers, but her operation may be short on organizational infrastructure – a polite way of saying that the usual top-level consultants who know how a Presidential race is run may not want to touch her with a 40 foot pole. (And what candidate would you touch with a 40 foot pole? But that’s a question for another blog.) Perhaps sensing vulnerability and indecision from Palin – or with inside knowledge that she won’t run – Bachmann sees the potential for a candidate straight out of central casting for the strong, suburban soccer mom demographic like herself to fill the gap.

Or maybe Bachmann is, despite all the criticism, pretty smart about the nature of political movements. Some pundits might advise she bide her time, run for Governor or Senate, and table her White House ambitions until 2016, 2020, or even 2024. But while the tea party movement where her support is based is very relevant now, the reality is that its influence may have already crested with the 2010 election. If it could carry her through Iowa and possibly South Carolina early on, she could at least score a pretty good speaking slot at the Republican Convention. It would be a long shot, but it also might be her best shot.

Urban Renewal

March 24, 2011March 24, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Last night, Centric played the first two episodes of In Living Color from way back in 1990. This sketch was on the second episode:

If you had flipped over to the local DC news during the ensuing commercial break, you might have seen that Mayor Vincent Gray is rapidly losing public approval thanks to – you guessed it – a scandal. More than two decades later, DC residents still suffer corruption from city hall. They have company in other urban centers like Detroit. In most cases, corrupt urban centers are run by Democrats. In fact, that’s probably why they’re corrupt; without another political party ready to exploit scandal for political gain, politicians get sloppy and party leaders are less diligent about kiboshing candidates with skeletons in the closet.

In places like DC, the Republican party apparatus is almost non-existent – even if it’s well organized, national party committees and donors aren’t likely to funnel money into urban regions where wins are unlikely. But short term losses may net long-term gains, and the Gray scandal offers a prime opportunity for the DC GOP – or other, like-minded groups – to make a very plain case to the District’s voters.

You’ve tried it their way, the pitch could go, now give us a chance. You’ve tried big government, and it attracts corruption like a flame attracts moths. Maybe we can do better by doing less.

Again, the DC GOP (nor any counterparts in other cities) likely doesn’t have the extensive resources it would take for this kind of hand-to-hand combat. But if I was a wealthy Republican donor, I’d be interested to see what kind of traction a good, aggressive, forward thinking campaign could accomplish.

After all, Vincent Gray got elected, and he might as well have stepped out of this:

Too Much Madness?

March 18, 2011March 17, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

The NCAA tournament is America’s favorite championship because, more than any other sports league, NCAA Division I basketball lets armchair point guards be a part of the action.

Forget that I can’t make a three pointer without a running start. Being a part of March Madness is as simple as filling out a bracket and spending the first two weekends of the tournament following the action, rooting for underdogs, and enjoying (or bemoaning) the upsets. Most brackets are destroyed by the time the Sweet Sixteen rolls around, but it never seems to matter. We still want to participate.

This is the appeal of the NCAA Tournament, and it is exactly why the new 68-team format is so dangerous.

The all-important Tournament Bracket has been the basis for office pools and friendly wagers for years. For the three days after Selection Sunday leading up to the tournament, NCAA basketball owned the water cooler, and bracket advice ruled ESPN and the sports talk radio airwaves. Even the addition of the single play-in game for one of the just-happy-to-be-here 16 seeds didn’t affect the format too much.

Creating play-in games for the 16 seeds in each brackets might have been a passable way to get to 68 teams. The problem comes from where the play-in games are in the bracket, this year deciding two 16 seeds, an 11 seed and a 12 seed. The 12 seeds are famously ripe ground for upsets, but that depends on the matchup. By sprinkling the play-ins throughout the seeds, the NCAA made it very difficult to fill out a bracket before Wednesday or Thursday, when the final field of 64 was determined and most brackets were due.

People now have less time to put together a bracket. More important, there’s less time to organize an office pool, distribute brackets, and harass participants for entry fees.

Cynics will say the NCAA’s Tournament expansion is all about money – charging tickets and television fees for extra games on top of an already lucrative month-long event – as well as bringing more teams into the fold. Capping the number of teams, even at the comically large number of 64 or 65, would seem to be a purist’s argument about retaining the integrity of competition.

But let’s make it cynical anyway. If the appeal of March Madness lies in the participation of filling out brackets, why adopt a format which puts up barriers of entry to that? If a 68-team tournament fails to generate the same appeal as a 64-team tournament, then the extra teams aren’t creating more money after all. Even in college basketball, there’s a law of diminishing returns.

The shrinking relevance of power centers

March 16, 2011March 16, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

In a guest post on Social Times, entrepreneur Elle Cachette talks about her experience moving her business out of Silicon Valley. The business has since thrived, to the surprise of those who advised her that technology companies could not exist in the outside world.

In hindsight, Cachette finds the Valley overrated:

Stop digging. What you see is what you get – there is no gold in ‘them waters. Silicon Valley is the Hollywood of tech, where every waiter is an entrepreneur and every app is the next blockbuster… When you are in Silicon Valley, everything in the media environment confirms that you are indeed in the center of the universe. But similar to a communist North Korean regime, Silicon Valley drinks much of its own Kool-Aid.

First, it is ironic that in the geographic region that created so much of the technology that Americans now use to telecommute and communicate across great spaces there exists a culture that highly values proximity to a geographic region.

Second, the success of companies beyond places like Silicon Valley is another demonstration of the new realities of work – that almost any job can be done anywhere.

Third, if you substitute “Politics” for “Tech” and “Washington, D.C.” for Silicon Valley, the post would still make a lot of sense.