360DigitalInfluence

It took all of about 45 seconds for the finger pointing to start.  Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced last week that the Senate would not take up a comprehensive climate change bill this year, the accusations have been flying fast, furious and often over the top (see Paul Krugman’s diatribe in the New York Times this morning).

For a quick read on the post-game analysis, Politico has a good article that outlines five different reasons why the bill failed:

1. The environmental movement was ineffective (the administration’s point of view).

2. The Obama administration didn’t give the issue enough attention or show enough leadership (the environmentalists’ point of view)

3. Key Senate Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.),  Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) changed their minds after the 2008 election and didn’t work with Democrats to get to a bill that would get 60 votes.

4. Key moderate Senate Democrats, such as Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), were never enthusiastic about the bill and didn’t engage.

5. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) misplayed their hand by insisting on a economy-wide solution that couldn’t get 60 votes until it was too late.

In the end, all are correct.  No one group was responsible for the end of the legislation.  But, it has been interesting to note some of the reactions from some leading bloggers on the topic.

On The New Republic’s environment blog, The Vine, Bradford Plummer asks four “what ifs?” that outline how the climate debate could have been different.  After examining these four scenarios, Plummer comes to the conclusion that, in the end, the Democrats in the Senate pursued the wrong strategy and should have more quickly changed course and embraced a more limited bill.

Plummer points to a story in Rolling Stone as a good example as any as to the arguments environmental groups are making (all of which coalesce around the  point Politico made above regarding the failure of the Obama administration to push sufficiently hard for the bill).  While Plummer thinks think that getting the Senate to 60 votes may have never been something President Obama could have made happen, he does believe that the criticisms being lobbed against the administration have merit.

In fact, the Rolling Stone article places the blame at the feet of both the Senate Democratic leadership, especially Majority Leader Reid, and the Obama administration.  It argues that both played into opponents’ hands by inviting business to sit at the backroom negotiating table and not pushing hard enough.  One key paragraph:

Indeed, the president has made no concrete demands of the Senate, preferring to let Majority Leader Harry Reid direct the bill – a hands-off approach that is unlikely to produce a measure of any substance. “You have two camps right now in the Senate,” says a top congressional source. “One is the camp of ‘Let’s put something together, put it out there, whip it really hard and get to 60.’ And then you have the Harry Reid model, which is ‘Let’s wait until we know we have 60 votes.’ ” Climate advocates are furious at the least-common-denominator approach, saying it takes victory off the table. “You can’t run up the white flag,” Sen. Jeff Merkeley of Oregon said in June, “until you have the fight.”

And another…

But the Obama administration let the opportunity [the BP oil spill] slip away. On June 15th, the president – a communicator whom even top Republican operatives rank above Reagan – sat at his desk to deliver his first address to the nation from the Oval Office. It was a terrible, teachable moment, one in which he could have connected the dots between the oil spewing into the Gulf and the planet-killing CO2 we spew every day into the atmosphere. But Obama never even mentioned the words “carbon” or “emissions” or “greenhouse” – not even the word “pollution.” The president’s sole mention of “climate” came in a glancing description of the “comprehensive energy and climate bill” that the House passed. In a moment that cried out for direction-setting from the nation’s chief executive, Obama brought no concrete ideas to the table. Restating the need to break our addiction to fossil fuels, he stared at the camera and confessed that “we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there.” He didn’t challenge Americans to examine their own energy habits. He didn’t rally his fellow Democrats into a fight with the Republican Party of “Smokey” Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who later apologized to BP. Far from offering a clarion call for action, Obama said, meekly, that he would listen to give senators from both parties a “fair hearing in the months ahead.” Then he asked us to pray.

Finally, it is interesting to look at the comments of Tom Friedman’s favorite climate blogger, Joe Romm at Climate Progress (that’s not a slam, more professional jealousy).  Romm, in his July 23 post  title “The White House lamely blames environmentalists for climate bill failure,” lays the blame at the feat of moderate Democrats (separate from the leadership) and the Obama administration. His two key paragraphs:

On the  political front, the White House  deserves most of the blame for not getting Republicans.  Why?  Because  the White House never tried to keep moderate Democrats in line, never made  it clear that there was definitely gonna be a vote on this bill and the moderates should figure out what they needed to support the bill (as in the case of healthcare reform).

The WH thus enabled  nonstop public (and private) criticism and bitching about the bill from  a core group of moderate Democrats, which  not only became a self-fulfilling prophecy — that  getting the Democratic votes needed was impossible — it convinced Republicans that there was no possibility of getting anywhere near 60 and thus  no reason for them to stick their necks out.  That is,  it was always going to be harder for even a moderate Republican to support this bill than it was  for even relatively conservative Democrats.

To be sure, Romm does not believe that it was all the Democrats’ or environmentalists’ fault.  In an earlier post titled “The Failed Presidency of Barack Obama, Part 1,” he blames them for about 10 percent of the problem.  Of the remaining 90 percent of the blame, he gives 60 percent to Republicans and their industry allies and 30 percent to the media for giving them a platform.

So, who was to blame?  If I were a environmentalist, I’d put more of the blame at the feet of Harry Reid than the administration.  His strategy gave opponents of climate change legislation of plenty of room to operate.  However, they can’t blame him too much since they need him to win in November.

This is not the end of the debate.  Next up will likely be new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency to move on the issue now that the Senate has failed to move.  However, this being Washington, those regulations are likely going to be challenged in court by industry or a legal group acting on behalf of industry.  Given the reputation of the court that will hear the case, there is a good change they will be thrown out.

This debate is far from over.  Stay tuned.

Sure, if you talk about any subject in a clumsy fashion you will turn people off — just look at how Obama and major progressive politicians managed to turn a winning political issue, health care reform, into an unpopular one!

Yes, much of the climate language that gets tested is truly lame.  But the fact that poor messaging fails is not an argument for not doing messaging on the subject at all!

What is especially lame I think is that many (but not all) progressives and environmentalists have stopped even talking about any of the basic environmental benefits of clean energy.  Here’s a simple message (to go with the energy independence and clean energy jobs pitch):   Strong action to reduce carbon pollution is crucial to preserving and improving clean air, clean water, and a livable climate for our children [emphasis his].  If you can’t even utter that basic sentence or something like it, you simply aren’t serious about explaining to the public why they need to put a price on carbon pollution.  “Global warming pollution” can also be interchanged with “carbon pollution.”  I tend to use both.  “Carbon” happens to be shorter and punchier, but then I devote a significant fraction of my talks to global warming.

Cross Posted on The Huffington Post.

Again some recent items from the week past…

U.S. News‘ “Washington Whispers” notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the Pentagon’s Iraq PR campaign to reach out to former military officials “did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.”  The GAO report, which was released back on July 21, received minimal media attention.  A Google News search only found articles from the Associated Press and The Hill, along with pieces in some smaller trade publications.

In regard to the program, U.S. News further reports,

The GAO report, signed by Acting General Counsel Daniel Gordon, was requested by House and Senate Democrats who were concerned that the Pentagon was violating a law that prohibits using appropriations for propaganda. The GAO said that, unlike propaganda, the retired officers program was about helping pundits tell the straight story about the wars. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to inform the public about their activities and programs, explain their policies, and disseminate information in defense of those policies or an administration’s point of view,” the report said.

That said, the GAO did make one recommendation…

While DOD understandably values its ties with retired military officers, we believe that, before undertaking anything along the lines of the now-terminated program at issue in this decision, DOD should consider whether it needs to have additional policies and procedures in place to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, its public affairs efforts and to ensure the transparency of its public relations activities.

The program created a huge brouhaha when David Barstow of The New York Times originally reported it in April 2008 and the reporting won a Pulitzer Prize.  I have to admit that I am cynical by nature, but I have to admit was I underwhelmed by the story (its follow-up that focused on Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s business dealings, which was also addressed in the GAO report, was much more interesting).  As one whose firm does government public relations work and as one who has a government client, I’ve always felt that much of the criticism of the government’s use of traditional public relations tactics and public relations firms was misplaced.  Sure, there have been times when the line between public relations and propaganda has been crossed, but in vast majority of cases I find it sour grapes when groups complain that the government uses traditional public relations tactics or firms to make its case.

As I mentioned on my earlier Twitter post, it will be interesting to see how Congress reacts to this report.  According to The Hill, Sen. Russ Feingold’s office had no immediate statement on it and, as of this morning, no statement appears on the Senator’s home page.

…

The Times had a fascinating front pager yesterday in regard to the apparent cease fire between Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.  The hosts’ bosses at  General Electric and News Corporation agreed to have the hosts of their respective 8 PM cable news shows stop taking swipes at each other (or, in the case of O’Reilly, General Electric).

For those who have not been following the feud, here is a short recap.  Olbermann, the ratings underdog, began by regularly challenging statements that O’Reilly made on his program.  O’Reilly then retaliated by going after NBC News’ objectivity and, more importantly, General Electric’s business practices (although not usually referring to Olbermann by name).  This led to a scene earlier this year when MSNBC critics (with an O’Reilly producer present) brought up many of O’Reilly’s complaints at a General Electric stock holders’ meeting.  Those questions stopped when General Electric turned off the microphones.

I think first and foremost, the thing to remember is the the key word here is “apparent.”  As Olbermann told the Times, he was not a party to the deal.  Moreover, should a deal exist, it has not stopped other Fox hosts going after NBC and General Electric and other MSNBC hosts from going after Fox hosts, such as Glen Beck.  Nor should they.

Moreover, the deal doesn’t seem to cover other corporate entities — the New York Post recently went after MSNBC’s David Shuster over an alleged tantrum.   In short, both networks have had their share of cringe inducing moments and even if they aren’t brought up between 8-9 PM ET, they get coverage elsewhere.

In the end, I don’t see many of the big journalistic crises that others, such as Aaron Barnhart of the Kansas City Star, Salon’s Glen Greenwald and the team at Mediaite (run by MSNBC contributor Dan Abrams), do.

Would I like to have seen the feud continue.? Not really.  It has long since become tiresome, especially on Olbermann’s part.

Does it reinforce some of the talking points that Greenwald and others make about “corporate media?”  Yeah.  But there is nothing stopping others, including others at MSNBC, from picking up Olbermann’s mantle (assuming he agrees to the terms of the deal).

Is there a winner here? Yes. Fox. The story makes it seem like General Electric sued for peace which means O’Reilly’s tactic of going after Olbermann’s employer worked.  It also puts Olbermann, MSNBC’s most popular host, in a pickle.  If he abides by the deal, he looks like he was muzzled and it hurts his credibility with his  fan base.  If he doesn’t, then he gives O’Reilly an excuse to go back after General Electric.

FWIW, Barnhart also links to Olbermann’s ratings over the past year click here.  In short, Olbermann is back to about where he was this time last year.

…

In his question of the day, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic asks if the White House can turn around the health case debate in the next three weeks.

With the House having gone home for August recess and the Senate scheduled to do so at the end of the week, look for the war over health care to continue back in the states.  I think the President and the Democrats have a lot of work to do to repair the damage that has been done to their position, as evidenced by the polls.  But I wouldn’t count them out.  Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, look for a lot of Democrats to go after insurance companies.

As Politico reported this morning, expect the insurance companies to push back (emphasis in the original)…

EXCLUSIVE — FOOD FIGHT AT THE TABLE — THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY, LONELY IN THE LEGISLATIVE CROSSHAIRS, IS STARTING TO PUSH BACK, ACCUSING DEMOCRATS OF USING INSURERS AS A SCAPEGOAT — America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP — the national association representing nearly 1,300 member companies providing health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans) is urging the industry’s hundreds of thousands of employees to GO TO TOWN MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN AUGUST TO CONFRONT THEM on House Democrats’ top recess message — that health-reform legislation is “health insurance reform to hold insurance companies accountable.” The association’s positive TV ad will continue into this week, but look for the spots to toughen up soon.

AHIP’s director of strategic communications, Robert Zirkelbach, tells Playbook: “The American people want Washington to focus on solutions, not the same old divisive political rhetoric that hasn’t worked in the past. Our industry has offered to completely transform how health insurance is provided today. We have stepped up to do our part to make health-care reform a reality. That’s an INCONVENIENT FACT that some people have chosen to ignore. These attacks are politically motivated, and they ignore the significant commitment that our industry has made to the health-reform process. WE’RE GOING TO BE VERY ACTIVE. We have people on the ground in more than 30 states. There are thousands of industry employees WHO HAVE NOW HAD THEIR INTEGRITY CALLED INTO QUESTION. They want to have their voices heard as part of this.”

…

While much of the attention has been paid to how the Democrats fight back on health care, I think the more interesting battle to watch is whether the Democrats start an internal civil war with the liberal wing of the party going after the more centrist wing (not just the House Blue Dogs).  Last week alone, Sen. Tom Harkin suggested that the Senate Democrats vote on committee chairmanships by secret battle, a not not-to-subtle threat to Sen. Max Baucus, who helped broker the Senate Finance Committee’s reported deal.  In the House, Rep. Maxine Waters suggested that the liberal wing of the party run liberal candidates in the upcoming Democratic primaries in an effort to elect candidates who are, well, more liberal.

This threat is not new, although much of the attention was paid in recent elections when conservative Republicans ran a similar campaign against moderate Republicans (see Lincoln Chaffee, Wayne Gilchrest and, most recently, Arlen Specter).  In 2008, the liberal wing of the Democratic party unseated Rep. Al Wynn of Maryland and threatened to go after other Democrats who were not viewed as sufficiently anti-war.  A recent cover story in National Journal noted that the elements in the party were working on a campaign to repeat the Wynn case in 2010 as part of an overall attempt to reduce the influence of the moderate wing of the party (including trying to undercut the legacy of the Clinton administration).

This strategy did not work well for Republicans.  It will be interesting to see if the Democrats follow a similar path.

…

The first NFL preseason game is next Sunday night — not a moment too soon.  Yes, I AM ready for some football.

…

For daily thoughts that are 140 characters or less, check me out on Twitter @gregstanko

Next up: Some random items that either reflect on previous posts or I haven’t thought of a way to blow out into a full blog post….

Jonathan Chait of The New Republic has an interesting blog post on the politics and press coverage of health care reform.    As he notes, as long as the story focuses on process (and to an equal extent, cost), the Obama administration and the Democrats will be put on the defensive. 

Reuters ran a similar report.  Buried at the end of the story is an important shift in language that the Obama administration trotted out recently (and largely lost in the Gates flap).  It is now talking about “health insurance reform” as opposed to “health care reform.”  If the administration is successful in this rhetorical shift, it could be important as it could calm the fears of people with health insurance who are now hearing that what they currently have could be pared back.  These are the folks who have been showing up in polls as increasingly opposing the administration’s effort.  Since the Senate (at least) will not act on a bill until after Labor Day, that gives the administration about six weeks for its new argument to gain traction.  The ultimate question is, with Americans traditionally tuning out politics in August and the president sinking in the polls (and viewership of his press conferences dropping), can he turn the debate around or is he too late?

…

The second quarter GDP report comes out this Friday.  According to Bloomberg, the consensus is that the economy shrunk 1.5% in the previous quarter.  Reuters concurs.  Not good, but certainly better than previous and apparently better than it was thought to be several weeks ago.  Look for the administration to trumpet the numbers as a sign the stimulus is working.

…

On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how the administration spins the revision of the budget deficit number.  The number, which Lou Dobbs continually reminds us is overdue (no surprise — given precedent from administrations), may be a harder number to spin if the deficit climbs significantly.  As Jeanne Cummings reported recently in the Politico,  the general consensus is that the administration’s initial estimates were too optimistic regarding growth moving forward.  Any significant revisions could lead to significant increases in the deficit projections.  (For example, if the administration predicts that growth in 2012 is 2%, instead of the projected 4%, that would add another $700 billion to the deficit.)  This could significantly crimp the some of the administration’s plans moving forward (along with its promises to cut the deficit).

…

Following up on an earlier post regarding the WNBA, ESPN.com did a series of stories last week looking at the business of women’s sports.  In addition to an overview column, there are pieces on the WNBA, the LPGA, the WTA, the NPSL, and WPS (that’s the softball and soccer leagues if you are unfamiliar with the last two).

For those who are wondering how this relates to the public relations industry, there is a simple answer — corporate America provides the sponsorship dollars that these leagues rely upon for their survival.  Lack of corporate sponsorship is what doomed the LPGA’s former commissioner and what may be helping to keep some WNBA franchises alive.  Obviously retrenchment in the economy has hurt all sports. However, it seems that, to the extent that companies are still putting their marketing dollars into sports, they think they are seeing better returns elsewhere.  It also means that for companies that target women and are beginning to see a rebound, there are a lot of opportunities out there.

…

If you thought California politics were already expensive, 2010 could be mind boggling.  Not only will you have an expensive governor’s race with the likes of Gavin Newsom, Meg Whitman, Jerry Brown and Steve Poizner  either able to self-finance or raise buckets of cash, but at least one recent poll shows that California’s junior senator, Barbara Boxer, might be vulnerable to the right challenge.  Like the gubernatorial candidates, Boxer is a good fundraiser, but if the Republicans’ dream candidate, Carly Fiorina, enters the raise, this could be a competitive race.  Yes, I know that businessmen of both parties have a history of crashing an burning in statewide elections, but I think 2010 could be the year you can throw out past precedent in the increasingly tarnished Golden State.

…

In a sure sign that the Twitter has jumped the shark, I have signed up and started twittering (tweating? whatever…).  My online handle is gregstanko.  I’m trying to tweat at least once a day with something I find interesting or noteworthy at the intersection of public relations and issues management.   I’ll also try to blow out some additional thoughts here on the blog.  Let me know what you think.

This is a time of unprecedented activity in the national security space.  The country is in the midst of two wars and in a global pursuit of terrorists.  At the same time, President Obama and Secretary Gates are increasing emphasis on hybrid military options and softer power national security options.  And, the Quadrennial Defense Review, a top-down review of military strategy, is underway.

This coming Tuesday, June 30, Ogilvy PR will hold its second lecture in the National Security Lecture series.  We’ll post some of the hightlights on this blog following the event so stay tuned.

Two articles from last week continue the ongoing debate between two key Democratic constituencies — industrial state Democratic governors and enviros — about the stimulus bill.  This debate pits infrastructure versus tax credits as the best way to get the economy going quickly.  The Politico has the details.

Part of the reason this debate will be so important is that will set the tone for the Obama Administration and the political debate for at least the next two years.  From an admitedely conservative perspective, James Pethokoukis of U.S. News & World Report (Jimmy P. to CNBC watchers) outlines what the stakes are and why these actions could affect the 2010 and 2012 elections.

In the current edition of National Journal, Rausch makes a compelling case that reviving the global trade talks and rebuilding the consensus that trade is good may be the key to long-term global economic growth. His suggestion for Team Obama:

First, Obama would publicly announce that concluding the Doha Round is a goal for his first term (though not for his first year, when too much else is going on). “The deal is a do-able deal,” says Rod Hunter, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and a former trade adviser in the Bush White House. “The question is whether Obama can marshal the political impetus for it.”

Second, the president would make clear that the United States remains committed to trade liberalization at home and abroad, putting an end to his seeming ambivalence, much as Clinton did in embracing balanced-budget orthodoxy in 1993.

Third, he would couple trade liberalization, which conservatives want, with improvements in the safety net, which liberals want. And he would argue the case in tandem, integrating his domestic and international economic agendas as no previous president has quite managed to do.

As I’ve argued before, building that consensus will be very difficult, especially in tough economic times.  That said, it is still a challenge that is worth undertaking. This starts with getting congressional leaders on board.

Many social media mavens have declared that Twitter is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon - a communications force that simply can’t be ignored.  Twitter was receiving such grandious claims that I had to be somewhat skeptical of its usefulness - particularly with respect to impacting public policy.  No communication tool could possibly live up to such hype, right?

While Twitter may eventually fade away as an ice cream cone on a hot July day, it is alive and well today.  The Wall Street Journal has even stated that “Twitter Goes Mainstream” and it has been reported that Rep. John Culberson is working to allow members of Congress to freely tweet.  Indeed, I’ve learned that Rep. Culberson is using his Twitter account to “help him stay in touch with his constituents,” which I heard on National Public Radio as I was zooming in-and-out of the typically abominable Washington traffic.

So given what I do every day, a couple of questions come to mind.  Should constituents tweet their member of Congress during votes (at least those with Twitter accounts)?  And, how will members of Congress respond to those tweets?  Will “twittering” Senators and Representatives monitor their Blackberry during the role call vote?  Could a vote be decided by the final tweet?

Hmmm.  Looks like I may just have to start considering ”the tweet factor” in future campaign plans.

I was in Minneapolis last week for the Sustainable Forestry Initiative conference.  While the Twins’ run to the MLB play-offs was great theater and dominated the headlines and newscasts, ultimately the Twins didn’t make it to the play-offs (even if I got to sit in on a meaningful game btw. the Twins and the ChiSox at the Metrodome).

The other REALLY big thing on TV was the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.  The ads were everywhere.  Franken’s ads (his and the DNSC funded ads) went after Coleman for his role in his initial support for the Iraq War (which the candidate has backed away from). The DNSC is relying on ads featuring the parents of a dead Iraq War veteran whose mom lays the blame for her son’s death at the senator’s feet and a dad who says “Norm’s gotta go” and a less effective testimonial from a Minnesotan businessman who attacks Coleman over high gas prices. 

Unfortunately, the first ad sound like a bad parody of “Fargo” (which puts Minnesotans on the defensive when you point that out) more than anything else. The Coleman and NRSC ads focus on Franken’s temperament and Franken’s record as a sometimes blue comedian and talk show host (lots of bleeps).  There is also a mostly positive ad that focuses on (bipartisan) solutions that benefited the state. My take: advantage Coleman. Although there are 1.5 pro-Franken ads on the air for every pro-Coleman ad, the Minnesotans I spoke to said Franken’s temperament was a defining issue.

Advantage Wall Street…

The U.S. House of Representatives held its first hearing today on the Wall Street collapse of Lehman Brothers.  Watching the hearing today on CNBC, I have to say it was a PR disaster for Rep. Henry Waxman and the Democratic-controlled Committee (not that some Republicans asked equally stupid questions).  That is because a lot of the coverage focused on what Waxman said in his first round of questioning.

That rightfully angered (perhaps too polite a word) many on Wall Street and other places because the questions had less to do with what went on and had more to do with class issues of how much Richard Fuld made over the past 15 years and what he did with the money he made (earned is still subject to some debate). Given Lehman didn’t lose money until last year, see this clip from CNBC of this example of Wall Street outrage — forward to about 4 minutes in where Sue Harrera talks to reporter Matt Nesto.  It is here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=879793181&play=1

(Unfortunately, the clip only works if you are using IE and the latest Mister Softy plug ins.)

My take: Go Matt, Go.

Senor Independent (previously known as CNN’s Lou Dobbs) also had a field day at Waxman’s expense on his show tonight. Alas, CNN has not put up a clip as of now.

Long story short,  I want to quote “The West Wing’s” White House Press Secretary C.J. Craig.  When asked how to short circuit a legitimate investigation, she answered, “This is a job for the House of Representatives.”

At the time, the barb was directed at the Republicans who controlled the House.  But now it shows that the House Democrats are equally (if not more) stupid.