Reviewing Romney’s Video

April 12, 2011April 11, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

Mitt Romney announced that he will form an exploratory committee yesterday. As is the custom with just about every candidate now, he made that announcement via YouTube:

As Matt Lewis notes, the video’s low-key approach helps because, frankly, this is not the last announcement we expect from Romney. Since Romney’s main criticism is that he’s an empty suit and perpetual candidate, trying to go overboard might appear fake. Between the lack of production values and the fact that the video seemed to be filmed the same day it was released, this is probably as sincere as Romney has come off in a long time.

He’s also helped by timing. This week marks the fifth anniversary of the Massachusetts health carBoringe law that served as the inspiration for the recent national health care industry overhaul. The issue will incite opposition within the Republican party no matter when he announces, but this week Democrats are poking fun at him for it, too. This at least allows Romney to claim that the other side is worried about him.

The one drawback to the subdued entry into the race, for Romney, is that it feeds into another knock on him: that he is a bland presumptive nominee incapable of matching the excitement or enthusiasm of Barack Obama. But if, as expected, there are further announcements to come from Romney, he’ll have time to be exciting later.

Whew, that was close!

April 11, 2011April 11, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

A little over a week ago, President Obama launched his relection bid the way he announced his first campaign – with a YouTube video. The video highlighted campaign volunteers in an effort to stress the grassroots nature of his campaign (which will still of course be run from the White House). This continued on the Organizing for America blog, which has done little else but highlight volunteers re-enlisting.

But while they were getting the band back together on a mission from God, Washington, D.C. was breaking out with shutdown fever. Congress and the President didn’t reach a budget deal until late into the evening on Friday, and OFA was nowhere to be found.

For Republicans, the President apparently could not have announced at a better time. With OFA focused on the re-election campaign, there was no one beating the bushes for grassroots action in the week leading up to the deadline deal. Just as Republicans have been wasting the buzz around Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity video, OFA sacrificed a chance to score major points.

As the deadline for a shutdown grew nearer, well-timed pressure on wavering GOP lawmakers might have helped the Democrats come out of the first budget battle a bit stronger than they did. As the Obama 2012 campaign kicked off, OFA lost focus.

The Republicans should be prepared to fight a little harder during the next budget battle, because chances OFA won’t miss the opportunity again..

The Budget Battle’s Missing Links

April 8, 2011April 8, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ 2 Comments

Paul Ryan fired an opening salvo in the budget battle last week – but will anyone be there to back him up?

Against the backdrop of a federal budget dispute, the predictable refrain has started: Ryan’s proposal to slash federal spending is “cruel” and “unfair.” Groups like Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS will provide some support by reinforcing the dire debt situation and the need to take action.

That line of response is necessary and true – but misses a major point. It buries the best line in Ryan’s excellent explanatory video – and the best line that any Republican has had in about 30 years:

Washington has not been telling you the truth.

For the last 80 years (give or take) politicians have been running for (and winning) office based on the idea that they’d take care of you. Washington, they explained, could feed the hungry, enrich the poor, employ the jobless, and most recently heal the sick.

What we’ve found out is that government sucks at all those things. It’s not a matter of intention but a matter of aptitude. Despite Washington’s promises – made, incidentally, by both parties and even Ryan himself – are still poor people, there are still elderly who don’t have enough money for retirement, there are still sick people who can’t pay for health care, there are still parents who can’t afford to feed their children.

It didn’t work, and it doesn’t work. “Washington has not been telling you the truth.”

So who is being cruel? Is it Ryan for cutting federal programs and reining in federal spending? Or, are the advocates for the status quo – those who would ignore the spending crisis because paying attention to it is “cruel” – selling the public a vision of government doomed to fail when they need it most?

The safety net is fraying. Business as usual will make it sag heavier until the ropes give way. The GOP plan will help. Regardless of its implications on the debate over the proper size of government, Ryan’s plan is the humane and just thing to do.

That important message isn’t the only thing that’s missing. So far, I have not seen the important, grassroots organizing that has to be done to turn a good idea into a movement. What about the internet? What about the people searching “Ryan Budget” on Google right now who should be seeing sites that tell them, “Look, we need to do a better, more responsible job of taking care of people”? What about the folks who could be organizing college campuses and calling for a better, more efficient government so that they can retire in 50 or 60 years? What about building a movement – or, more accurately, mobilizing the tea party movement that already exists to take effective action in support of this new vision for America.

Voters don’t want or need platitudes about spending or missives about the size of government. They want and need a simple vision to organize around, a vision for a better America that we can participate in – and a way to share a common victory.

There are questions being posed that have to be answered.Can our nation opt to depend on the power of the individual over the power of government? Can we be more imaginative in our solutions to social problems than relying on the lazy crutch of government programs? Can we do better for the people who need it most?

Someone needs to make sure that these questions are answered. And the answer cannot come from television or radio ads, by celebrity spokespersons or politicians. As with any movement, citizen activists are the only ones capable of responding to these questions, perhaps with a positive, uplifting, appropriate (albeit plagiarized) answer: “Yes We Can.”

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.

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.

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:

Results don’t lie

March 16, 2011March 15, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

My latest post over at Pundit League talks about the Obama White House’s attempt to shift the focus on budget debates from the money to the benefits. This month, they’re talking about education as a sacred cow; future budget battles are sure to treat other programs similarly. As difficult as budgets are, it’s still a tough sell to cut back on government programs everyone is used to.

But what if those programs, for lack of a better-refined and focus-group-tested term, suck? That reality may be the best arrow in any small government Robin Hood’s quiver.

The Heritage Foundation points out that a boom in education spending has not bought higher performance in America’s public schools. Thomas Sowell made a similar point this week, when he wrote about the allegedly ecologically friendly policies of urban liberals in San Francisco pricing low- and middle-class blacks out of the city. Private unions – who represent workers who actually have to worry about their jobs – are concerned that the EPA would cause layoffs from companies forced to spend extra complying with extraneous regulations.

For each of these programs and others like them, there’s always talk about the benefits. But as Speaker Boehner said this week, “Talk is cheap.”

Getting O’Keefed is more than just a camera trick

March 11, 2011March 11, 2011 ~ Jim Eltringham ~ Leave a comment

James O’Keefe will be lauded on the right this week for forcing the resignation of NPR’s CEO; you’ll hear talk about how creative and bold he is to go undercover with hidden cameras to expose left-wing organizations in their own words. It actually isn’t that simple, though: O’Keefe does more than simple hide cameras and wait for people to say dumb things. This week, for example, O’Keefe released his initial video on Tuesday – the one where a former NPR staffer demonstrates outright hostility toward tea partiers and the conservative movement. It appeared to be a basic case of organizational media bias, though it could have been explained away as a donor relations executive saying whatever he could to raise a donation.

Then came the second video yesterday – where another NPR official discusses ways to “hide” donations from a fictional Muslim Brotherhood front group. This is much more damning; and combined with the other one creates the perception of a trend. At the very least, it kept a one-day story going for multiple days.

Erstwhile CEO Vivian Schiller didn’t make it to the second video; in the 48 hours between the releases she resigned. Jon Stewart couldn’t believe NPR didn’t fight back. But maybe NPR had been paying attention to O’Keefe’s history of takedowns.

ACORN didn’t collapse under the weight of a single video; O’Keefe released several over time to keep the issue alive through several news cycles. The same happened with his expose of the teachers unions in New Jersey and other work his organization, Project Veritas, have undertaken.

Rather than try to bash O’Keefe’s reporting, NPR allies have been quick to decry the comments heard on the tapes. That’s significant – not only do they recognize what what was said was bad, they know that there may be even more to come.