Apologies to fans of West of the West Wing for a lack of postings last week. Busy week!
Last Thursday, President Obama went where no President had gone before. He hosted the White House’s first Presidential on-line question and answer session with the American people. The media were the quiet ones on the sidelines of the Roosevelt Room.
The White House solicited questions from American’s on-line and then boiled down some of the possible 100,000 questions from more than 92,000 questioners. In order to allow everyone a chance to feel they could be heard, the final cut of questions was made by an on-line vote and millions of people participated. More than 64,000 people went on-line to watch the event, live.
President Obama becomes the first President to fully embrace the power of the Internet and new media as powerful tools in his communication arsenal. The use of these new tools were honed during the 2008 Presidential Campaign and not abandoned once the White House was achieved.
The President and his team are still trying to find the best ways to employ direct communication to achieve results for their broad legislative objectives, but it is clear the President is comfortable with his ability to participate and use every means available for unfiltered and direct communication.
Presidential pioneers include President Theodore Roosevelt that fully understood and utilized print media to achieve his goals; President Franklin Roosevelt utilized broadcast radio for his messages and became the first broadcast media President. President Kennedy used television to both win the White House and used it successfully to foster his agenda. Taking that lead, Presidents Reagan and Clinton both honed the use of television as a way to successfully communicate directly with the American public. President Clinton was the first President to begin using the Internet as well.
The difference with president Obama is his ability to fully use a communication tool that is completely unfiltered. President’s can appear on television and radio in direct addresses to the public. Those broadcasts are limited due to the impact of the loss of commercial airtime to the commercial network providers of the broadcasts. Those broadcasts often include commentary by television news hosts and interviews with Congressional members or others having opposing views.
Live Presidential press conferences give Presidents the opportunity to deliver their specific messages, however it also allows reporters to question the President on any other issue and the focus can shift due to those questions and answers away from the message the President wanted to deliver.
The Internet, e-mail and other on-line events allow for an almost complete managing of the message coming from the White House directly to those watching, listening and reading. There is still a lot of refinement about how to do this best, how to measure results and how much is too much.
Regardless, a new communication frontier has been crossed and hopefully will bring a new era of citizen involvement and hopefully participation in the governing of the country.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The ‘Death’ of Newspapers: a Three Way Debate
On Wednesday of last week, The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, a 145 year-old daily newspaper quit printing. The paper is now a daily on-line news source focusing on local news, issues and events with a much reduced staff.
The Seattle daily is not alone. Newspapers throughout the nation are stopping or changing formats. Declines in advertising, classified and readership have created a national death knoll for print media.
Some newspapers will certainly survive, but many cities and towns across the nation have lost their print media outlets. The surviving outlets have severely reduced staff and coverage. Many papers are becoming “rip and read” outlets, meaning they are filling their pages with Associated Press (AP), Reuters, NY Times and other outlet wire stories.
The Los Angeles Times’ media correspondent, Jim Rainey, wrote a great column last week (March 20, 2009) titled, “Newspaper cuts open door to more political trickery.” You can read it here.
Jim Rainey’s article is interesting and it shows how the loss of print media coverage in political campaigns can provide some political consultants opportunities to manipulate coverage to their advantage with the loss of trained reporters, or just because there is minimal possible coverage. The political consultants interviewed also point out it is a double-edged sword and can also hurt a campaign, as much as it can help it.
As a political practitioner, I can see some advantage to being able to push stories or create other avenues of messaging – if you have the financial resources to do it.
On the other hand, I also see now what the loss of professional coverage can do for a candidate lacking resources to get positions or initiatives out. Emaciated newsrooms allow many issues and accusations to go unchallenged. It also prevents new initiatives and positions to get coverage - all of which could be a significant factor for the outcome of an election.
The article by Jim Rainey cites a study by Princeton University economists on the loss of a local news outlet and the decline of voter turnout in local elections in Cincinnati, Ohio. The study was posted here.
I do not think the loss of coverage is a good thing in any way, shape or form. The growth of blogging and Internet news sources is a great source of some equity for people to recoup some of the power of traditional media outlets and their influence in political campaigns and elections.
The lack of professional standards, commitment to journalistic ethics, and ability to get stories right makes this shift away from traditional media frightening and a tragic loss not just in politics.
It is hard to see how this will change in the future and the ridiculous popular phrase seems appropriate when thinking about the death of professional journalism – “It is what it is….”
Chuck Dalldorf
…and not only in the States! The threatened demise of local newspapers through the BBC’s intended local network was enough to send tails spinning at Westminster and the good ‘ol Beeb had to row back faster than a varsity boat crew!
The recognition of the importance of local print media to local communities around the country is partly a reflection of their political role: at elections they provide sustained coverage of candidate’s, their messages and their mess-ups. In between the cyclical political bun-fights local papers play a key role in supporting community cohesiveness with political campaigns on topics as wide as saving the local football club to recognising the symbolic importance of local landmarks threatened with removal or demolition.
Use of the emerging technologies is fine – isn’t it appropriate for politicians to be able to “twitter”?! – but there is something reassuring about the weekly search for the local gossip in the court column!
The third critical aspect of the local newspaper is to regularly hold local politicians to account as well as illuminate the populace on the antics of those politicians that are elected to far off places - such as Edinburgh, London or Brussels. Without this scrutiny, seen through the perspective of the local press (and often, therefore the public) our politicians would feel less connected to their local communities!
Of course, recent trends in Scotland have seen a merging of the once cherished distinction between local newspapers and the big national titles, particularly with the Johnston Group’s take-over of the Scotsman. It is too early to tell whether this particular entry in the marriage section will present opportunities for technological cross-platform innovation or whether the next we read about it will be as an obituary!
Ross Martin
The death of traditional media is unwelcome news for many reasons. Chief among them is the loss of jobs in these turbulent economic times – it’s the last thing local economies need at the moment.
Yet, does it sound the death knell for democracy by removing an effective check and balance as Ross pointed out? Open the door to the manipulation of political coverage as Chuck testifies? Or even result in a ‘tragic loss’?
I’m not sure.
Both Ross and Chuck, while not oblivious to the effectiveness of new media, present a somewhat rose-tinted view of traditional media. Aren’t newspapers already subject to manipulation by political consultants? Yes. Is the death of professional journalism a bad thing? Yes, but it died a long time ago (they are some exceptions). Do newspapers provide an objective analysis/coverage of elections that is reliable? No – check out Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. Do they support community cohesiveness? If they do they’re a whisper in a wind. Do they hold politicians to account? Hardly – the bottom line is sales; not ethics.
The growth of new media has its dangers. They exclude scores of people who as yet remain technophobic and most blogs and forums lack rigor. But isn’t this part of their charm? Remember they don’t exactly bill themselves as the bastions of objectivity.
Isn’t it time, rather than clutch longingly for a lost friend, to look to the future, seize the opportunities and frame the discussion? Isn’t it time, in other words and with tongue firmly in cheek, to call for a Universal Declaration of Blogging Ethics?
In tandem with a grass-roots campaign, Barack Obama has from day one recognized that the future is in new media. His integrated e-campaign left few western (and others) homes untouched. In the guise of Organizing for America the campaign continues and has proved remarkably successful in getting its message across and more importantly in bringing communities together.
Instead of the death of traditional media we should be focusing on the birth of a new kind of politics.
Barry McCulloch
Monday, March 23, 2009
Using all the tools
On the surface, it seems to be a rather trite moment on national television.
March in the US brings the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, a 32-team elimination tournament called, “March Madness.” The college basketball tournament is broadcast on national television and is everywhere.
There is more sports betting around March Madness tournament than any other sporting event in the US. Office pools with brackets are distributed everywhere and people that know nothing about basketball are pressured into playing to help fill out sheets (for anything from 25 cents a bracket on up) for the tournament.
This week, President Obama was featured on the popular national sports network on cable television, ESPN. The President hosted an ESPN correspondent into the White House and had an empty March Madness whiteboard set up with empty brackets, big enough to be easily read on television.
The President talked about his love of basketball (which is very true and the President throughout his campaign snuck away daily for quick choose up games for exercise and relaxation) and on live television that was shown on other networks as well, walked through his picks for which teams would advance through the tournament and why.
It was another brilliant and strategic moment demonstrating the President and his team’s media savvy in keeping the President outside of the Beltway.
As we mentioned in the last entry, the Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.
While the President only talked about the NCAA Basketball Tournament, his ESPN appearance was a reminder that the President is still “one of the guys” and is in touch with daily life – the good, the bad and the ugly as the country works through this huge economic crisis. Watching the President run through his tournament picks and talk about why he thought teams would advance or fail, was a moment where you could imagine yourself getting skunked in the office pool by the woman or man who is smarter, confident, funnier and knows the game.
The same way he is approaching the way to work through the economic crisis. Sometimes message opportunities come in strange packages.
March in the US brings the NCAA College Basketball Tournament, a 32-team elimination tournament called, “March Madness.” The college basketball tournament is broadcast on national television and is everywhere.
There is more sports betting around March Madness tournament than any other sporting event in the US. Office pools with brackets are distributed everywhere and people that know nothing about basketball are pressured into playing to help fill out sheets (for anything from 25 cents a bracket on up) for the tournament.
This week, President Obama was featured on the popular national sports network on cable television, ESPN. The President hosted an ESPN correspondent into the White House and had an empty March Madness whiteboard set up with empty brackets, big enough to be easily read on television.
The President talked about his love of basketball (which is very true and the President throughout his campaign snuck away daily for quick choose up games for exercise and relaxation) and on live television that was shown on other networks as well, walked through his picks for which teams would advance through the tournament and why.
It was another brilliant and strategic moment demonstrating the President and his team’s media savvy in keeping the President outside of the Beltway.
As we mentioned in the last entry, the Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.
While the President only talked about the NCAA Basketball Tournament, his ESPN appearance was a reminder that the President is still “one of the guys” and is in touch with daily life – the good, the bad and the ugly as the country works through this huge economic crisis. Watching the President run through his tournament picks and talk about why he thought teams would advance or fail, was a moment where you could imagine yourself getting skunked in the office pool by the woman or man who is smarter, confident, funnier and knows the game.
The same way he is approaching the way to work through the economic crisis. Sometimes message opportunities come in strange packages.
Seeing and Using Stars
President Obama has been very strategic about his ability to get his message outside of the Beltway.
The Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.
Many political initiatives are driven by the inside the Beltway mentality.
Frequently, the relativity of those thoughts, ideas and rumors often don’t stand the test and become successful once they try to move outside of the Beltway.
US Presidents have frequently jumped on Air Force One to head out into the country at different times to get out of the tightening grasp of the inside the Beltway mentality. Sometimes President’s seek comfort getting out of the Beltway when they are under fire and seek the safety of core constituencies and to be seen on TV with supporters.
President Obama has been using his trips outside of the Beltway to bring messages about his legislative and economic agendas outside of the Beltway media and away from the negative vortex of Congressional members opposed to his initiatives. The President has been doing interviews with local and regional media outlets on his trip, has been hosting town hall style forums with voters and has been seen on national TV, heard on radio and is photographed around the excitement and spectrum of a popular US President arriving in Cities across America.
The usual inside the Beltway cynicism of the President or anyone in politics delivering the message President Obama has been carrying – one of optimism, caution and acknowledging the tough economic times America faces – is replaced by people across the country looking desperately for an acknowledgement that Washington DC knows what is happening out here AND there is reason to believe this country will find a way out of these deep troubles. A message that is resonating as President Obama carries it out beyond the beltway noose of the Beltway.
The past two days found the President in Southern California. President Obama hosted his first West Coast town hall in Costa Mesa in Orange County. For California political followers, Orange County is essentially the headquarters for all things GOP in California. While it is a County with the reputation for huge wealth, synthetic bodies, an eternal sun and the heart of the state Republican party –the 2008 Presidential election saw Orange County turning out a huge new Democratic vote with newly registered immigrants and other OC residents who have never been participants in California politics.
On Thursday, the President was joined at a town hall forum on the economy with movie star and current Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governor (who many California media outlets and political followers call “The Governator”) and President both were both gracious and most laudatory of each other. Governor Schwarzenegger was an early supporter of the President’s economic stabilization efforts and the state is being rewarded with a substantial amount of economic stimulus money.
Also Thursday, the President made an appearance on the nationally broadcast “Tonight Show,” hosted by comedian Jay Leno on NBC. Many Presidential candidates, including then candidate Obama have been on the show, and several former Presidents have also been on the program. President Obama was the first sitting President to make an appearance on this hugely popular national program.
The President had some funny lines, but his appearance was mostly to deliver the message he is carrying outside the Beltway. The President was very serious in his discussion with host Leno in discussing the President’s economic stimulus efforts and why he feels optimistic about the economy while recognizing the depth of pain throughout the country. The President was right on message and delivered it way outside the Beltway.
The Beltway is the motorway surrounding the District of Columbia, and it has become both a real and symbolic circle. People doing living and doing business in DC become consumed by the insider’s view of politics, politics and government operations from being so close to the core.
Many political initiatives are driven by the inside the Beltway mentality.
Frequently, the relativity of those thoughts, ideas and rumors often don’t stand the test and become successful once they try to move outside of the Beltway.
US Presidents have frequently jumped on Air Force One to head out into the country at different times to get out of the tightening grasp of the inside the Beltway mentality. Sometimes President’s seek comfort getting out of the Beltway when they are under fire and seek the safety of core constituencies and to be seen on TV with supporters.
President Obama has been using his trips outside of the Beltway to bring messages about his legislative and economic agendas outside of the Beltway media and away from the negative vortex of Congressional members opposed to his initiatives. The President has been doing interviews with local and regional media outlets on his trip, has been hosting town hall style forums with voters and has been seen on national TV, heard on radio and is photographed around the excitement and spectrum of a popular US President arriving in Cities across America.
The usual inside the Beltway cynicism of the President or anyone in politics delivering the message President Obama has been carrying – one of optimism, caution and acknowledging the tough economic times America faces – is replaced by people across the country looking desperately for an acknowledgement that Washington DC knows what is happening out here AND there is reason to believe this country will find a way out of these deep troubles. A message that is resonating as President Obama carries it out beyond the beltway noose of the Beltway.
The past two days found the President in Southern California. President Obama hosted his first West Coast town hall in Costa Mesa in Orange County. For California political followers, Orange County is essentially the headquarters for all things GOP in California. While it is a County with the reputation for huge wealth, synthetic bodies, an eternal sun and the heart of the state Republican party –the 2008 Presidential election saw Orange County turning out a huge new Democratic vote with newly registered immigrants and other OC residents who have never been participants in California politics.
On Thursday, the President was joined at a town hall forum on the economy with movie star and current Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governor (who many California media outlets and political followers call “The Governator”) and President both were both gracious and most laudatory of each other. Governor Schwarzenegger was an early supporter of the President’s economic stabilization efforts and the state is being rewarded with a substantial amount of economic stimulus money.
Also Thursday, the President made an appearance on the nationally broadcast “Tonight Show,” hosted by comedian Jay Leno on NBC. Many Presidential candidates, including then candidate Obama have been on the show, and several former Presidents have also been on the program. President Obama was the first sitting President to make an appearance on this hugely popular national program.
The President had some funny lines, but his appearance was mostly to deliver the message he is carrying outside the Beltway. The President was very serious in his discussion with host Leno in discussing the President’s economic stimulus efforts and why he feels optimistic about the economy while recognizing the depth of pain throughout the country. The President was right on message and delivered it way outside the Beltway.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Everything You Wanted to Know About Earmarks (1)
President Obama signed a $410 billion appropriations bill into law this week, keeping the U.S. government operating until the start of the new federal Fiscal Year on 1 October. Why a mid-year appropriation of this size and magnitude is necessary is another story. The Congressional actions passing the bill and sending it to the President has renewed the unending chatter about that nasty e- word.
Earmarks.
The outcry on the Hill and also in The White House against the procedure whereby a Member of Congress (in either House) designates specific program funding in an appropriation bill has become very shrill. In part because the President, while on the campaign trail last year, demanded earmark reform as part of his call for Washington to stop “doing business as usual.”
Also adding to the media flurry of stories about earmarks this week was scrutiny on what was funded. Every media organization wants to be the first to discover the new “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark (an earmark for appropriation inserted by former US Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens). Every appropriation bill seems to have had a stinker of a program, or some bizarre initiative funded through an earmark that becomes the poster child of the continued frenzy on pork spending and those nasty earmarks.
“Do as I say, not as I do,” has always been the contradictory stance on the subject of earmarks. Congressional members of both parties are often seen on national news criticizing programs receiving earmarks, although many of the same members have also inserted funding for programs for their districts. It seems that for Congress, their constituents and many media organizations, earmarks are evil and programs considered pork spending if the programs are outside their district and state.
Members of Congress have and always will be advocates for funding on projects in their state. They are elected to represent their constituents and those members should be working to ensure fair and equitable spending of federal dollars in their districts. If Members did not do this, they would not be in office very long. This is not shocking news and is universal in all politics.
Yes, there are often insertions of earmarks that occur at the eleventh hour without scrutiny that have more to do with pure political power than they do with equitable funding. Earmarks are not the problem of any one party, ideology or Member. There are ways to affect a better process when it comes to earmarks. Both Houses can enact procedures making the earmark process fairer, more transparent and subject to evaluation and qualification. That process can be achieved internally as a matter of House rules, not requiring legislation or any painfully long process.
The sham of the show of disgust on the floor of both Houses against earmarks is ridiculous and somehow avoids getting to the solution of creating procedural process in fixing real problems. The smoke and mirror show is used when there is a desire by whatever party is in the minority to slow or derail certain appropriation bills and has seldom ever been an attempt to review the earmark process. Members have been shown complaining about earmarks in bills, while those same bills contained their own earmarks!
Yes, there are programs and projects inserted into appropriations bills that never should have been there. The authors are powerful Chairs of Committees, have favors owed and all of those standard political IOU’s that come into play in the legislative process.
So, if Members are serious they should fix the rules and move on.
The President should not get bogged down in this discussion and leave the rules of the House to Congress. The complaints about earmarks are a distraction. Many of the programs and projects funded in the bill President Obama signed this week are in keeping with the objective of jump-starting the economy and bring jobs and funding to needed federal programs.
-----------------------------------------------
1. But were afraid to ask! (Apologies to Author Woody Allen)
Earmarks.
The outcry on the Hill and also in The White House against the procedure whereby a Member of Congress (in either House) designates specific program funding in an appropriation bill has become very shrill. In part because the President, while on the campaign trail last year, demanded earmark reform as part of his call for Washington to stop “doing business as usual.”
Also adding to the media flurry of stories about earmarks this week was scrutiny on what was funded. Every media organization wants to be the first to discover the new “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark (an earmark for appropriation inserted by former US Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens). Every appropriation bill seems to have had a stinker of a program, or some bizarre initiative funded through an earmark that becomes the poster child of the continued frenzy on pork spending and those nasty earmarks.
“Do as I say, not as I do,” has always been the contradictory stance on the subject of earmarks. Congressional members of both parties are often seen on national news criticizing programs receiving earmarks, although many of the same members have also inserted funding for programs for their districts. It seems that for Congress, their constituents and many media organizations, earmarks are evil and programs considered pork spending if the programs are outside their district and state.
Members of Congress have and always will be advocates for funding on projects in their state. They are elected to represent their constituents and those members should be working to ensure fair and equitable spending of federal dollars in their districts. If Members did not do this, they would not be in office very long. This is not shocking news and is universal in all politics.
Yes, there are often insertions of earmarks that occur at the eleventh hour without scrutiny that have more to do with pure political power than they do with equitable funding. Earmarks are not the problem of any one party, ideology or Member. There are ways to affect a better process when it comes to earmarks. Both Houses can enact procedures making the earmark process fairer, more transparent and subject to evaluation and qualification. That process can be achieved internally as a matter of House rules, not requiring legislation or any painfully long process.
The sham of the show of disgust on the floor of both Houses against earmarks is ridiculous and somehow avoids getting to the solution of creating procedural process in fixing real problems. The smoke and mirror show is used when there is a desire by whatever party is in the minority to slow or derail certain appropriation bills and has seldom ever been an attempt to review the earmark process. Members have been shown complaining about earmarks in bills, while those same bills contained their own earmarks!
Yes, there are programs and projects inserted into appropriations bills that never should have been there. The authors are powerful Chairs of Committees, have favors owed and all of those standard political IOU’s that come into play in the legislative process.
So, if Members are serious they should fix the rules and move on.
The President should not get bogged down in this discussion and leave the rules of the House to Congress. The complaints about earmarks are a distraction. Many of the programs and projects funded in the bill President Obama signed this week are in keeping with the objective of jump-starting the economy and bring jobs and funding to needed federal programs.
-----------------------------------------------
1. But were afraid to ask! (Apologies to Author Woody Allen)
Monday, March 16, 2009
Distractions
President Obama has been in office just over 50 days. In this short time, several media pundits and outlets are attacking the president’s extensive legislative agenda saying it is too much, too soon. The financial pundits are blaming the President for the stock market’s unprecedented loss of value since January.
Media attacks already after 50 days in office?
Welcome to the White House, Mr. President.
During his weekly radio address on Saturday, the President made points to remind Americans the financial crisis began 18-months prior to his occupancy in the White House. West Wing aides on the national television shows Sunday all spent time reminding people of what President Obama inherited from the previous administration – the little things like a global fiscal crisis, two wars and deteriorating global relationships.
While it is good to answer critics, I am hopeful the President and his team move back to focusing on the agenda ahead. President Obama and his team have enacted more laws and Executive policy changes in the first 50 days than the previous administration did in months. Media criticism is expected and pundits egging on for a fight are standard fair.
While there is a propensity to respond back it is fraught with danger and can be a distraction many elected officials get entangled in that derails initiatives, policies and drags governments to a halt.
There is a balance in media response and being able to answer questions and make points. It is critical to do so with a big picture perspective and not get sucked into the mud. The stock market’s ability to rise or fall is far beyond what happens in the White House. The market’s reactions to unemployment and other economic indicators including reported corporate financial statements are all inputs affecting Wall Street’s daily bottom line. To blame this President for the state of the market and the national economy is ridiculous and irresponsible. Measuring what the market has does in the president’s first 50-days against any other President’s first 50 days is just silly and irrelevant.
However, the White House needs to equally not try to play this game. You can’t say the market’s drop is not a product of the President, if you try to take credit for Wall Street’s sudden climb at the end of the week. The President and his team need to keep their eye on the ball and move the President’s message forward and not backward.
The balancing act the President and all elected officials need to master is the trick in knowing when to respond to media criticism, how and even more important – when it is better to ignore it. A tough trick to pull off and one has to have a steel stomach and ego to do it.
Media attacks already after 50 days in office?
Welcome to the White House, Mr. President.
During his weekly radio address on Saturday, the President made points to remind Americans the financial crisis began 18-months prior to his occupancy in the White House. West Wing aides on the national television shows Sunday all spent time reminding people of what President Obama inherited from the previous administration – the little things like a global fiscal crisis, two wars and deteriorating global relationships.
While it is good to answer critics, I am hopeful the President and his team move back to focusing on the agenda ahead. President Obama and his team have enacted more laws and Executive policy changes in the first 50 days than the previous administration did in months. Media criticism is expected and pundits egging on for a fight are standard fair.
While there is a propensity to respond back it is fraught with danger and can be a distraction many elected officials get entangled in that derails initiatives, policies and drags governments to a halt.
There is a balance in media response and being able to answer questions and make points. It is critical to do so with a big picture perspective and not get sucked into the mud. The stock market’s ability to rise or fall is far beyond what happens in the White House. The market’s reactions to unemployment and other economic indicators including reported corporate financial statements are all inputs affecting Wall Street’s daily bottom line. To blame this President for the state of the market and the national economy is ridiculous and irresponsible. Measuring what the market has does in the president’s first 50-days against any other President’s first 50 days is just silly and irrelevant.
However, the White House needs to equally not try to play this game. You can’t say the market’s drop is not a product of the President, if you try to take credit for Wall Street’s sudden climb at the end of the week. The President and his team need to keep their eye on the ball and move the President’s message forward and not backward.
The balancing act the President and all elected officials need to master is the trick in knowing when to respond to media criticism, how and even more important – when it is better to ignore it. A tough trick to pull off and one has to have a steel stomach and ego to do it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Back in Campaign Mode
President Obama is facing a growing drumbeat of opposition to the three key policy areas he stressed in his State of the Union Address: Education, Health Care Reform and Energy (including the environment).
Regardless of the President’s efforts to include Congress in early formulation of proposals, White House summits and personal meetings, the GOP minority in Congress is increasing their strategy of publicly saying no and finding ways to criticize the President for his efforts and his initiatives.
GOP critics are saying the President is too ambitious (an amazing criticism when the majority of American voters demanded leadership and a change from the previous administration), he is distracted from focusing on the economy and he is trying to foster the creation of a socialized nation.
Additionally, the K Street Army (K Street in Washington is where the biggest lobbying firms are located) is gearing up for clients to battle though legislative proposals line-by-line to change or defeat specific portions as needed. If nothing else, critics and the lobbying corps are already showing how hard and how slow the legislative process could potentially be.
While the traditional Washington establishment readies “politics as usual,” President Obama is going back to his core plan – using the frame of his Presidential campaign and the Organization for America (let’s call it OFA) apparatus to engage Americans and get voters throughout the country to participate directly in the President’s legislative agenda.
An e-mail went out Monday afternoon to millions of Americans on the OFA e-mail list asking them to, “Take the Pledge".
OFA is directly seeking to build a cadre of people committed to making phone calls to other potential supporters, to use their experience in the three key areas to become spokespeople and organizers, and use the organizing and campaign tools to activate people committed to any or all three of the President’s core legislative areas.
The activism of American voters helps put lots of counter-pressure on Members of Congress as the lobbying corps starts to employ paid ads against specific initiatives, and sometimes against specific members of Congress, ultimately voters in Members’ districts is what counts at the end of any political day. Lobbyists making campaign donations are doing so to give Members of Congress the funding they need to run re-election campaigns in their districts. For the most part, elected officials need to raise money to find ways to get the attention of constituents and to make the case they are representing them well.
Short-circuiting this loop, if constituents are committed to issues and start telling their representatives what they expect and that they are being held accountable for their votes, well that changes everything and turns politics on its head. Turning the system inside out is actually returning the system to the way it had been envisioned to work by the Framers of the Constitution a representative democracy – where representatives actually represent the people that elected them!
If successful, the OFA effort can equalize the legislative playing field and can help guarantee the President’s initiatives have a fair shot of making it through to his desk, and sooner rather than later.
Regardless of the President’s efforts to include Congress in early formulation of proposals, White House summits and personal meetings, the GOP minority in Congress is increasing their strategy of publicly saying no and finding ways to criticize the President for his efforts and his initiatives.
GOP critics are saying the President is too ambitious (an amazing criticism when the majority of American voters demanded leadership and a change from the previous administration), he is distracted from focusing on the economy and he is trying to foster the creation of a socialized nation.
Additionally, the K Street Army (K Street in Washington is where the biggest lobbying firms are located) is gearing up for clients to battle though legislative proposals line-by-line to change or defeat specific portions as needed. If nothing else, critics and the lobbying corps are already showing how hard and how slow the legislative process could potentially be.
While the traditional Washington establishment readies “politics as usual,” President Obama is going back to his core plan – using the frame of his Presidential campaign and the Organization for America (let’s call it OFA) apparatus to engage Americans and get voters throughout the country to participate directly in the President’s legislative agenda.
An e-mail went out Monday afternoon to millions of Americans on the OFA e-mail list asking them to, “Take the Pledge".
OFA is directly seeking to build a cadre of people committed to making phone calls to other potential supporters, to use their experience in the three key areas to become spokespeople and organizers, and use the organizing and campaign tools to activate people committed to any or all three of the President’s core legislative areas.
The activism of American voters helps put lots of counter-pressure on Members of Congress as the lobbying corps starts to employ paid ads against specific initiatives, and sometimes against specific members of Congress, ultimately voters in Members’ districts is what counts at the end of any political day. Lobbyists making campaign donations are doing so to give Members of Congress the funding they need to run re-election campaigns in their districts. For the most part, elected officials need to raise money to find ways to get the attention of constituents and to make the case they are representing them well.
Short-circuiting this loop, if constituents are committed to issues and start telling their representatives what they expect and that they are being held accountable for their votes, well that changes everything and turns politics on its head. Turning the system inside out is actually returning the system to the way it had been envisioned to work by the Framers of the Constitution a representative democracy – where representatives actually represent the people that elected them!
If successful, the OFA effort can equalize the legislative playing field and can help guarantee the President’s initiatives have a fair shot of making it through to his desk, and sooner rather than later.
Rx for Rx. The Start of Health Care Reform.
One of the largest domestic policy issues President Barack Obama capitalized on during the 2008 Presidential campaign was the issue of reforming health care.
America has the most expensive health care system in the world, a system with amazing medical, biological and technological advances, systems and research. The disparity is the cost of health care in America – the rapidly growing costs create a huge number of Americans to be without any health care access.
In a 2007 study, the Commonwealth Fund found, “The cost of health care in the United States poses health risks. More than 30 percent of adults in the United States report some cost-related barrier to needed care. If the person has a chronic disease, the percentage increases to 42 percent. This is nearly five times higher than in the United Kingdom.” And, this was before the start of the current economic crisis.
Employer-provided health care has shrunk due to consistent cost increases to provide coverage. Coupled with shrinking employment and a loss of consumer confidence – more and more Americans find themselves with no health care coverage for themselves and their families.
The Clinton Administration’s 1993 attempt to begin the creation of universal coverage in the US collapsed and never made it through the legislative process. The failure of this effort came from the Clinton administration’s failure to include Congressional members on all sides of the issue in the creation of the health care reform proposal and the heavy opposition from multiple special interests including health care insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical and other business interests.
On Thursday in the White House, President Obama launched the beginning of the health care reform debate he promised during the 2008 campaign. More than 150 participants attended the President’s health care reform forum and the group included key Congressional members, business, health care, insurance and consumer organizations on all sides of the health care reform discussion.
One of the issues President Obama made clear in his comments to the attendees was his hope the creation of health care reform legislation would be open and flexible. The President acknowledged the health care proposal he had unveiled during the campaign was not what he expected at the end of this process.
The President said, “During the campaign, I put forward a plan for health care reform. I thought it was an excellent plan. But I don’t presume it was a perfect plan or that it was the best possible plan.”
Health care reform is going to be the most challenging legislative effort led by the President. The economic costs of health care to business are huge; the uncovered care costs are a massive burden to federal, state and local governments. The lack of coverage for people throughout the country is shocking and the impact to families is devastating.
At the end of the day, health care reform efforts usually boil down to an ideological one, not a policy debate on health care.
There is an ideological battle coming about any creation of a government backed health care system. Republicans hold up a nationalized health care system as the ultimate demonstration that Democrats want to socialize health care and indeed, all of American business. The battle becomes an all or none discussion about the role of government and not the intent of trying to find a way to provide some basic level of healthcare to all Americans.
What gets lost in this shrill debate is the idea that all Americans should be entitled to basic care. Interests that feel they loose out in the creation of a subsidized national health care system use media and communication to scare Americans lucky enough to have insurance coverage that they would have to give up their care and have “government tell them what doctor they can see and government will tell them what medicine they can take.”
In the midst of a national economic crisis where more and more Americans are losing access to health care, while a large wave of Baby Boomers begin entering retirement and needing more care, the discussion will be much different than it was in 1993.
To his credit, President Barack Obama is starting the debate in an open matter, giving Congress the room it is going to need to negotiate and deliver a version of health care reform that will clearly not provide all answers but might be a good building block for a foundation meeting the needs of growing, aging and uncovered population needing more health care services.
The Washington Post and The New York Times both had small mentions about the first sighting of gray hair belonging to President Obama, only after 2 months on the job! Health care reform will certainly speed the color change and I do not believe hair care color will be a covered benefit under any health care reform proposal.
America has the most expensive health care system in the world, a system with amazing medical, biological and technological advances, systems and research. The disparity is the cost of health care in America – the rapidly growing costs create a huge number of Americans to be without any health care access.
In a 2007 study, the Commonwealth Fund found, “The cost of health care in the United States poses health risks. More than 30 percent of adults in the United States report some cost-related barrier to needed care. If the person has a chronic disease, the percentage increases to 42 percent. This is nearly five times higher than in the United Kingdom.” And, this was before the start of the current economic crisis.
Employer-provided health care has shrunk due to consistent cost increases to provide coverage. Coupled with shrinking employment and a loss of consumer confidence – more and more Americans find themselves with no health care coverage for themselves and their families.
The Clinton Administration’s 1993 attempt to begin the creation of universal coverage in the US collapsed and never made it through the legislative process. The failure of this effort came from the Clinton administration’s failure to include Congressional members on all sides of the issue in the creation of the health care reform proposal and the heavy opposition from multiple special interests including health care insurers, doctors, pharmaceutical and other business interests.
On Thursday in the White House, President Obama launched the beginning of the health care reform debate he promised during the 2008 campaign. More than 150 participants attended the President’s health care reform forum and the group included key Congressional members, business, health care, insurance and consumer organizations on all sides of the health care reform discussion.
One of the issues President Obama made clear in his comments to the attendees was his hope the creation of health care reform legislation would be open and flexible. The President acknowledged the health care proposal he had unveiled during the campaign was not what he expected at the end of this process.
The President said, “During the campaign, I put forward a plan for health care reform. I thought it was an excellent plan. But I don’t presume it was a perfect plan or that it was the best possible plan.”
Health care reform is going to be the most challenging legislative effort led by the President. The economic costs of health care to business are huge; the uncovered care costs are a massive burden to federal, state and local governments. The lack of coverage for people throughout the country is shocking and the impact to families is devastating.
At the end of the day, health care reform efforts usually boil down to an ideological one, not a policy debate on health care.
There is an ideological battle coming about any creation of a government backed health care system. Republicans hold up a nationalized health care system as the ultimate demonstration that Democrats want to socialize health care and indeed, all of American business. The battle becomes an all or none discussion about the role of government and not the intent of trying to find a way to provide some basic level of healthcare to all Americans.
What gets lost in this shrill debate is the idea that all Americans should be entitled to basic care. Interests that feel they loose out in the creation of a subsidized national health care system use media and communication to scare Americans lucky enough to have insurance coverage that they would have to give up their care and have “government tell them what doctor they can see and government will tell them what medicine they can take.”
In the midst of a national economic crisis where more and more Americans are losing access to health care, while a large wave of Baby Boomers begin entering retirement and needing more care, the discussion will be much different than it was in 1993.
To his credit, President Barack Obama is starting the debate in an open matter, giving Congress the room it is going to need to negotiate and deliver a version of health care reform that will clearly not provide all answers but might be a good building block for a foundation meeting the needs of growing, aging and uncovered population needing more health care services.
The Washington Post and The New York Times both had small mentions about the first sighting of gray hair belonging to President Obama, only after 2 months on the job! Health care reform will certainly speed the color change and I do not believe hair care color will be a covered benefit under any health care reform proposal.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Our Overnight Visitor
President Barack Obama had his first Head of State visit yesterday. The first head of state to visit the new President is Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The man expected to save the world meets the man “saving the world” as Mr Brown so famously said in PMQs.
Whether the “special relationship” will be as close and intimate as Bush/Blair remains to be seen, but it will certainly remain important. There is little fun or touring on the menu. The main course is of course economy and banking regulation with a dessert of climate change and the Middle East.
In addition to the meeting with the President at The White House, the Prime Minister is addressing a joint-session of Congress. The Prime Minister is also making numerous press appearances carrying the message of tightening international banking regulations to prevent further collapse of the global financial system.
While the Prime Minister is doing exclusive interviews on national television and radio programs and media availability, he is not providing any exclusive interviews with West of the West Wing today. No visit to Sacramento, no pint at The Fox and Goose on R Street…go figure!
The Prime Minister’s interview on National Public Radio’s program, “Morning Edition” is available here.
The Prime Minister arrived on a very dismal day for the American economy with the Dow Jones closing Monday at a low of 6763.29 and the announcement this morning of a second federal bailout for the floundering financial giant, American International Group (AIG). Meanwhile, across the pond the furore over Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension continues and increasingly resembles a Salem witch hunt.
Prime Minister Brown’s visit, being the first by a visiting Head of State for President Obama, is another symbolic gesture and connection between America and its core allies. President Obama’s first international visit was to Canada and now his first visitor is from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Brown’s comments, beyond the focus of the global banking system and the need for an international approach to stabilizing it, is also on the traditional subject of the continued importance of “the special relationship” between the UK and the US.
Of course, First Minister Alex Salmond was in the US last week and I am not sure how much of his discussion with Secretary of State Clinton will be shared with the Prime Minister. The latter’s visit will certainly receive more media attention.
From this side of the Atlantic, it is hard to see how much of this visit by the Prime Minister is about his own political objectives as much as it is to advance the upcoming London Summit 2009 in April. Photo opportunities and television time with the internationally popular President can’t hurt, which is exactly the line many U.K. commentators are taking.
The comparison many are making is historical: a President Bush struggling domestically in the polls needing the backing of a popular Prime Minister Blair (in the U.S. that is). Undeniably, there’s hope of an ‘Obama bounce’.
For President Obama, it is a golden opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to diplomacy and to his international philosophy that the US should be working with the nations of the world, not dictating the needs of the US and expecting everyone to jump.
Debates, rumors and counter-rumors are in full flow. Yet the magnitude of this visit cannot be underestimated nor should it be overlooked with many perceiving this as nothing more than a unique PR opportunity.
The free-market orthodoxy that drove globalisation is over. It is clear, indeed it has been clear to many for some time, that the ‘rising tide does not lift all sailboats’ as Joseph Stiglitz so memorably put it. The ideological strait-jacket can be placed on a coat-hanger. In its place, Brown and Obama (and countless others) must begin to forge a global financial architecture that does not simply adhere to a ‘Bretton Woods’ logic.
The Prime Minister is correct – this is not a time to return to protectionism. This does not mean, however, a return to neo-liberal economics. Reminiscent to Keynes’ visit to the U.S. in 1944, Brown and Obama must begin to forge a new ‘global bargain’ that is more just, more transparent and more ecologically sound.
Chuck Dalldorf & Barry McCulloch
Monday, March 2, 2009
Juggling Operating Chain Saws
No, the circus has not come to town.
President Barack Obama unveiled his first federal budget last Thursday morning amid continued economic calamity, and a Congress torn between ideological and practical concerns about federal government bailouts, investments needed to resuscitate a tragic economy and funding the operations of the federal government for the next fiscal year.
The President might wish he had operating chain saws, as opposed to trying to achieve a plan to eliminate the massive national debt, while funding desperately needed programs and services for the growing number of Americans facing economic Armageddon.
Breaking ranks with previous Presidents, President Obama laid out a ten-year fiscal plan. Yes, he introduced his formal one-year budget but President Obama also created the ten-year strategy. He needed to find a way he could balance the need to invest money in programs and initiatives now and still show Americans he has a real strategy to reduce down America’s enormous deficit and return the country to fiscal prudence.
For his fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, the President has proposed a $3.6 trillion budget to aiming to achieve some economic stability, create needed jobs, provide critical services and fund his ambitious, long-term initiatives in energy, healthcare and education.
This is the beginning of the horrid, enormously slow death-by-a-thousand paper cut federal budget process. The sounds of howling and general gnashing of teeth could be heard immediately as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle began immediate posturing barely ahead of the army of special interest group lobbyists descend upon them.
The President’s proposed budget now heads into Congress where meetings and public committee hearings will dissect the budget - adding, subtracting and sometimes completely obliterating portions line-by-line. The hope (ah yes, we still need lots of hope) is consensus can be achieved and appropriations bills the President will sign to enact the federal budget will occur by 23:59 on Wednesday, September 30. If political battles do not lead to consensus, the Congress can either pass Continuing Resolutions to keep the federal government operating without a budget or shut the government down.
The Byzantine and enormously long opera of the federal budget process has begun. For the President, the budget process will be the ultimate challenge in achieving his policy goals and success.
It is, in fact, all the marbles.
Policy with money behind is just words.
The ability to build support, do the give and take dance of negotiations between Democratic Majority and Republican Minority Caucuses and maintain support from key political constituencies will be a true test of skill, will and thrill.
President Barack Obama unveiled his first federal budget last Thursday morning amid continued economic calamity, and a Congress torn between ideological and practical concerns about federal government bailouts, investments needed to resuscitate a tragic economy and funding the operations of the federal government for the next fiscal year.
The President might wish he had operating chain saws, as opposed to trying to achieve a plan to eliminate the massive national debt, while funding desperately needed programs and services for the growing number of Americans facing economic Armageddon.
Breaking ranks with previous Presidents, President Obama laid out a ten-year fiscal plan. Yes, he introduced his formal one-year budget but President Obama also created the ten-year strategy. He needed to find a way he could balance the need to invest money in programs and initiatives now and still show Americans he has a real strategy to reduce down America’s enormous deficit and return the country to fiscal prudence.
For his fiscal year 2009-2010 budget, the President has proposed a $3.6 trillion budget to aiming to achieve some economic stability, create needed jobs, provide critical services and fund his ambitious, long-term initiatives in energy, healthcare and education.
This is the beginning of the horrid, enormously slow death-by-a-thousand paper cut federal budget process. The sounds of howling and general gnashing of teeth could be heard immediately as members of Congress on both sides of the aisle began immediate posturing barely ahead of the army of special interest group lobbyists descend upon them.
The President’s proposed budget now heads into Congress where meetings and public committee hearings will dissect the budget - adding, subtracting and sometimes completely obliterating portions line-by-line. The hope (ah yes, we still need lots of hope) is consensus can be achieved and appropriations bills the President will sign to enact the federal budget will occur by 23:59 on Wednesday, September 30. If political battles do not lead to consensus, the Congress can either pass Continuing Resolutions to keep the federal government operating without a budget or shut the government down.
The Byzantine and enormously long opera of the federal budget process has begun. For the President, the budget process will be the ultimate challenge in achieving his policy goals and success.
It is, in fact, all the marbles.
Policy with money behind is just words.
The ability to build support, do the give and take dance of negotiations between Democratic Majority and Republican Minority Caucuses and maintain support from key political constituencies will be a true test of skill, will and thrill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
