It’s been years — but what better opportunity than this moment for an expert with experience in holding people to saying what they mean? Stay tuned….
In the last week of the presidential campaign President Obama has trimmed his message to just a few basic points, one of which is that while his opponent is some kind of shape-shifter, the American people already know who he is. He says you can trust him to do what he says he will do — even if you don’t always agree with him.
“The President is someone who says what he means and does what he says,” Obama campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer confirmed and reiterated.
Another campaign staffer told a reporter that the President “says what he believes and does what he says.”
Here’s the President, in his own words: “The things I say, I mean.”
Pretty close to MilWrite Communications’ famous tagline: We Say What You Mean.
You’re welcome, Mr. President.
At the end of an interview recently granted to Rolling Stone contributing writer Douglas Brinkley, President Obama off-handedly referred to Governor Romney as a “bullshitter.”
Given the nature and state of the Twittersphere — and the rest of the raging Internet — the remark did not go unnoticed. There was a decent amount of complaint by Republicans, and fulmination among the farther-right, but it didn’t even trend on Twitter, nor did it pick up much steam elsewhere. One could almost feel the collective shrug. That, after all, is what the president has been going around saying about Romney on the stump in nearly every swing state these last couple of weeks. He’s been saying that what “salesman” Mitt Romney has been selling is “kind of a sketchy deal.” The language printed in Rolling Stone was more blunt, but only to a degree.
At least as interesting as the relative lack of online interest is that neither Romney, nor his campaign, have officially objected — or even responded in any direct way — to the Presiden’t assertion. While many a right-wing (and even a few left-wing) pundits have objected to Obama’s use of the term, the closest I’ve come to finding an “official” Romney campaign response was the following in examiner.com:
“The Romney campaign says it’s the president who has broken promises.”
But that’s not the same thing, is it? Obama’s not accusing Romney of breaking promises. He’s accusing him of lying. Many of us find we’re unable to keep our promises — sometimes through no fault of our own. When you lie, it’s always your fault. President Obama would have liked to have kept all of his promises — who wouldn’t? — and he even admits he hasn’t been able to do so. So the Romney rejoinder is not only a non-sequitor, it’s old news — if it’s news at all.
Why hasn’t Romney pushed back harder against against Obama’s disrespectful slam? If someone called me a bullshitter, I’d fight back. I’d demand an apology. Unless, of course, I knew it was true.
Anger and outrage toward George Zimmerman — prejudged or not — is understandable. Trayvon Martin, an apparently innocent 14-year-old kid, is dead, and Zimmerman killed him. But whatever responsibility Zimmerman has (and will be judged to have had) for that death, he is not also responsible for the actions of the local authorities who dealt with the aftermath of that death. So for those in the media and elsewhere who appear to be blaming Zimmerman for not being held or charged at the time of the incident, your emotions are misplaced. Zimmerman’s not to blame for still being free.
Save the hue and cry concerning the defandant for the upcoming trial, whenever that might occur. The investigation by the Sanford police department — and whichever other judges or politicians might have been involved in deciding whether Zimmerman should have immediately faced charges — was apparently faulty from the start. Because beyond the issues relating to detaining and charging, Zimmerman reportedly was allowed to keep his gun (which allegedly was neither examined nor tested), and the same is true of the clothing he was wearing at the time of the shooting. He was never drug tested — though it has been reported that Trayvon Martin, the victim, was. These basic evidence-gathering mistakes will be impediments to successfully trying the defendant, no doubt, but the motives behind what the authorities did — and did not do — in the hours following the killing must be called into serious question.
Because don’t forget this: It also has been reported that the police did not call Trayvon’s girlfriend, or parents, or any of the other numbers in Trayvon’s cell phone, for two whole days — 48 hours! — following Trayvon’s death. They just let the young black teenager lie on a slab in a morgue, or wherever else, as if he were simply less than. And none of that was George Zimmerman’s fault. So who will pay for it?
“It’s a great pleasure, in this week when the entire political world is hanging on the Supreme Court’s health care ruling, to welcome so many liberals to a cause dear to my heart: The crusade for judicial restraint.”
So begins a recent column by The New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat, whose normally temperate manner is replaced in this case with sarcasm — not to mention uninformed judicial analysis.
Douthat’s not a lawyer, so his lack of depth on this subject is understandable. The man clearly cares deeply about this issue, so even his semi-vitriol is excusable. Passion is pardonable. But what can never be pardoned is duplicity.
Douthat’s theory is that judicial deference originally was the province of social conservatives and right-wing populists, and that this “changed gradually [only] as the influence of Republican appointees inevitably tilted the court rightward.” Now, as the “Obamacare” decision looms, Douthat says that “liberals [believe] … the Court has become a purely ideological actor, a rogue body unmoored from any cause save partisanship….” He tries to debunk any such concerns with statistics about the relative number of precedents invalidated and the average number of laws overturned under the Warren, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts, but while the numbers are relatively similar, what is vastly different are the types of laws and precedents that are being cast aside — and that’s the only difference that really matters.
So it’s not a matter of “liberalism’s conversion to the cause of judicial restraint,” as Douthat sarcastically suggests. And there’s still no real consensus “that judicial modesty is one of the best possible qualifications for a position that offers so much untrammeled power and brings so much temptation along with it.” Because what still matters most, to either side of the political spectrum, is what that justice is being “modest” about it.
As for what appears to be Douthat’s primary point that liberals want more “judicial restraint” only because cases might now be going against them: no kidding. The very idea that there ever has been any truth to whether any particular justice is likely to be a “strict constructionist” or someone who “legislates from the bench” always has been — and always will be — a distinction without a difference. It’s always been nothing more than a convenient canard for either side to hide behind to avoid having to say, “I want someone who will strike down all the things I don’t like and allow to stand those I do.”
Geraldo Rivera — whom I once admired; I was an impressionable teen when he burst on the scene in the 1970s and ’80s as a mod hipster truth-teller (or so it seemed) — has been roundly and justifiably criticized in most quarters for his odd comment about the culpable role that Trayvon Martin’s hoodie played in the young man’s death. I don’t want to repeat the comment, so I’ll show it instead:
Geraldo Rivera Blames Trayvon Martin (Or His Parents) For Wearing Hoodie
It’s odd because whereas Geraldo actually correctly identifies the problem – straight-up prejudice based on appearance – he seems to thinks the solution is to somehow make yourself look acceptable to those who might kill you based solely on the way you look. I don’t know if he said what he meant to say, but he certainly seemed to mean what he said. (It’s earnest advice he gives to his son, no less.) Geraldo Rivera’s been on a downward slide since the O.J. Simpson trial, so this may merely be a desperate attempt to recapture some attention. Mission accomplished…in a bad way.
What transpired last week in the South Carolina Republican Primary was a cllinic in misdirection, obfuscation, and ironic expression.
Steven Colbert–the comedian and (fake) TV talk show host–bases his act on winking hyperbole. His bloviating pundit doesn’t really believe–or mean–what he says, right? How could he possibly?
But recently the fake Steven Colbert has become a real (if joking, as well as instructive and cautionary-tale-type) presidential candidate. Others, on Colbert’s behalf, have legally formed and funded a Super PAC, over which he has absolutely no (wink-wink) control–even though he also was able to legally transfer the fund to his partner in comedy and what-should-be-a-crime, Jon Stewart–who promptly changed its name and helped to produce ads that ran on television in many South Carolina media markets during the week leading up to the vote.
So (fake or otherwise) Steven Colbert, who’s not really a candidate (we all know that, right?), is nonetheless able to associate with a Super PAC, which is running political ads on his behalf in South Carolina, even though Colbert filed too late under South Carolina election laws to even get himself on the South Carolina ballot–and even though the law also prohibits write-ins. (If a South Carolinian wrote in Colbert’s name, as I’m sure one did, that effort didn’t count and the ballot was discarded. Talk about thwarting the will of the voter.)
But none of this deterred the “truthiness”-seeking Colbert. It wasn’t enough for him to reveal the absurdity of the Super PAC laws by lampooning them from afar. Instead he exposed them utterly merely by employing them. And now Colbert also was thwarting the balloting laws, this time by using (likely as his unwitting accomplice, given his astonishing lack of self-awareness) a real (though former) presidential candidate who should have been fake: Herman Cain.
Though Cain had “suspended” his campaign a few weeks prior to the South Carolina primary because (oh, never mind why), he still was on the SC ballot because–well, because when Cain had been a candidate he had timely filed the appropriate papers. Presumably with Cain’s permission (or possibly not; it’s likely not even legally required), Colbert’s Super PAC TV ads solicited votes on behalf of “Herman Cain,” but whenever Cain’s name was mentioned, Colbert’s likeness appeared.
So to whom do Cain’s South Carolina votes belong? Don’t ask any lawyers or politicians to explain it to you.
I love what Detroit Lions’ head coach Jim Schwartz has accomplished since taking over the team three years ago. Making steady progress almost from the start, he’s quickly transformed the team from longtime joke and near-term catastrophe to one of the most relevant and intriguing teams in the NFL. As a lifelong fan of the Lions, I could hardly ask for more, and I consider this season a great success. There’s no shame ending the season by losing to the Saints, whom many believe will win the Super Bowl next month. The Saints beat the Lions because they’re the better team.
Still, it might have been different.
Schwartz said immediately following the game that he takes no comfort in his team playing well and having a lead against perhaps the best team in the NFL for more than a half. When asked if he cared to elaborate on early season comments about never settling for anything less than winning — if he’d be willing, in other words, to put the Lions’ season in perspective — he said, “No,” and walked away.
Schwartz will meet the media again tomorrow afternoon in his last formal press conference of the 2011-2012 season and he may well be willing to elaborate and even say a nice thing or two after he’s had a good (or horrible) night’s sleep. But if he’s not willing to accept anything less than excellence from his team he also must apply that standard to himself. And Schwartz made a crucial mistake in what may well have been the game’s utltimate turning point.
I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes stories so I’d never criticize the way Schwartz prepared his team, and I don’t know enough about football in general to even comment on his game plan — though I’d venture that on both fronts he was solid if not stellar. His team came ready to play, it was competitive until the game got out of hand late due to desperation, and it was beaten by a few of its own mistakes and a handful of big plays made by the better team.
While Schwartz’s pre-game performance may be difficult to judge, it’s not hard to admire. His in-game performance, on the other hand, is both easier to assess and much easier to criticize. Midway through the third quarter, the Saints were ahead 17-14 after scoring a quick and unanswered touchdown on their first drive of the second half. A stalled Lions drive later and they were on the move again but still on their own side of mid-field when a Lion defender seemed to stand a Saint up well short of the first down marker on a third down play. But the refs allowed a generous spot and quickly signalled a first down.
I’m not blaming the referees for making a bad call — though I believe the replays clearly showed the spot was erroneous. Refs make bad calls (among the vast majority of often amazingly accurate calls). But the rules allow each coach to challenge two calls per game — so I blame Schwartz for not challenging this one.
This is even easier to assess in hindsight, though I was yelling out loud at the time for Schwartz to throw his own flag before the Saints snapped the ball again. He didn’t — and a handful of plays later the Saints had scored another touchdown to make it 24-14, which put the Lions in a hole from which they never recovered.
Some might say this type of call is most difficult to overrule, and that with still more than 20 minutes left in the game Schwartz was right to keep his two challenges in his pocket to use when the game’s on the line. But by game’s end, Schwartz still owned a challenge per pocket. Others will say it might not have got overturned — but we’ll never know because he didn’t try. When callers on talk radio in the last day have complained about the refs, local hosts have been quick to scold: the refs didn’t lose this game for the Lions. And of course they’re right. But Schwartz had an arsenal of weapons he never used in the biggest game of the season. So it’s impossible to say he went all out.
Schwartz’s team should be proud of the job they’ve done — and aware of the mistakes they’ve made. And so should Schwartz. He’s often almost comically tough and curt with the media, though he’s also relatively young for a man in his position, with eclectic tastes in music and pop culture and a wry sense of humor he occasionally allows to seep charmingly through. He says he keeps his criticisms of players between him and the team private — and perhaps he keeps his own counsel about self-criticisms as well. So it’ll be interesting to see if the media questions Schwartz about this decision, and if they do, how he responds.
Newt Gingrich says as President he’d require judges—including Supreme Court Justices—to “explain their rulings” at Congressional hearings. Asked which rulings would be the subject of this cumbersome (not to mention unconstitutional) scrutiny, he admitted that he’d start only with those that were “extreme.”
Under the heading of saying what you mean—or of this blog’s narrower line of inquiry, which is deciding whether public speakers have said what they’ve meant to say—let us examine Newt’s nonsense.
First, under what power might President Gingrich summon Antonin Scalia (okay, Ruth Bader Ginsberg)? The President of the United States has no subpoena power of any kind—and even if such a power existed, is it even imaginable that it would extend to the use of the floor of the House or the well of the Senate? And why must they “explain their rulings?” Isn’t that precisely what judges and justices likely would already have accomplished in their often lengthy — if “extreme” — written opinions?
And that, of course, is the crux of it. “Extreme” to whom? Newt has pointed vaguely to a series of rulings that he claims have systematically stripped religion from public life, but he didn’t even mention the arguably most extreme recent case of Citizens United, which trampled nearly a century of case law to declare a corporation the equivalent of a person in terms of its right to political speech. But that’s extreme, presumably, only to those on the political left. Not Newt’s peeps.
So did Gingrich say what he meant to say? I suppose, unfortunately, that he did. He was pandering to that portion of his political base that fervently abhors “activist judges,” and to those on the religious right. And calling judges to account for their heathenish ways is precisely what’s due, I imagine, according to that crowd—no matter how nutty Newt’s cure.
Politicians appear increasingly motivated only by what helps them to keep their jobs. Many run for office following often long and sometimes lucrative careers so money may not be a major motivator, but power‘s a known stimulant. Once you’ve been a U.S. Senator or Representative, it’s easy to find follow-on employment — often in the private sector, at many multiples of a civil servant’s salary (see, Newt Gingrich). And neither public shame nor outright disgrace — even for those going straight from federal office to federal prison — prohibits a gainful living.
But what about those of us in the private sector? Do we want merely to keep our jobs, or are we motivated by more? Most want to accomplish, not place-hold. But inertia — and the not uncommon need merely to feed a family — forces many to settle for less, and then to cling to that. We want to climb, and sometimes do, if only through sheer seniority. But showing up (with apologies to Woody Allen) is not just not enough — it’s out of fashion. Unless you’re a member of Congress.
Holding firm — to long-held if not outdated positions — is rewarded by some voters, as is pandering, which is why both endure. Colleagues are prized not for their lawmaking but their head-counting or deal-making or power-brokering. But if you’re out of a job, perhaps your elected representative should be, too.
When President Obama released his birth certificate, Donald Trump was rendered useless but not mute. The Donald thumped his chest and declared himself “proud to have accomplished something nobody else has been able to accomplish.” And then he did sit mute as the President gave Trump a public beat-down at the White House Correspondence dinner on the night — and mere hours — before the Commander in Chief cooly pulled the trigger on Osama Bin Laden.
Later Trump confirmed what everyone else knew: he would not be running for President of the United States. “After considerable deliberation and reflection,” he said, as if capable of either, “I have decided not to pursue the presidency.” No kidding. Thank you. Goodbye.
Yet the man who had long teased, “You’ll be surprised at what my announcement is,” also said this: “Business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.” Trump chose money over country; no surprise there.
Trump should be old news — and perhaps he is in many quarters — but TV hosts still invite him to speak, though nearly always by phone. Recently, when he hinted he may yet run, one host probed for more. But Trump would only say that people would be “surprised” (again) about his next moves.
But what surprises me is that anyone would take this man seriously. When he first officially opted out of the race in May, the congenital braggart concluded: “I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and, ultimately, the general election.”
Anyone who truly believes he is capable of winning the presidency but decides against running is either lazy or a fool. Never believe what a delusional man says.
Before I upgraded, just last week, to a Droid x2, I was hanging on to my trusty old Blackberry — the very first World edition, according to the snickering but helpful Verizon employee who sold me the new phone. The old one died, which is what had to happen to force me to swap it for something everybody had been telling me would be better. And perhaps I’ll agree once I learn how to use it — or how to use it for functions my old phone could not perform, even on its best day. I know I’m not yet overtaxing my new Droid (I do not like that name, by the way). And I admit that by the end I had abused my old phone, thereby hastening its mechanical breakdown. (When the ball ain’t working, it’s time to move on.)
But there’s one piece of information the Blackberry provided that the Droid does not. While using my Blackberry’s Short Message Service, or SMS — when “texting,” in other words, as it is commonly known — the phone’s read-out would inform me that my message had been sent. And then, some seconds later, with the sudden addition of a tiny check mark, my phone would further comfort me: my pithy 140-character missive had been delivered. The Droid — whose set-up is not only more readable but also more entertaining, with strings of texted correspondence displayed within the kinds of crudely formed bubbles one finds in comic books and graphic novels — also confirms that my message is sent. But it offers no definitive confirmation of delivery until or unless my recipient favors me with a reply. This may not be a deal-breaker, but my former circumstances seem preferable to the guessing and waiting game I now must endure.
Yet even the Blackberry had left me with a philosophical — if not existential — question to ponder. I felt confident that my message had been sent. And I believed it when I was informed that it had been delivered. But had it been received? I still never really knew. I mean, they got my message — but did they get it? That’s the ever-present potential gap I try to bridge in my business-writing business, and with each blog post. It’s trickier when communications are limited to 140 characters, and even more so if you have an aversion to emoticons.
I’m worried, if not for our country’s actual ability to meet its obligations then certainly about the messages our lawmakers are sending — to Wall Street, to U.S. bondholders, and to investors and policy makers around the world — regarding our continued willingness to do so. Our stubborn and perpetually warring political parties are as far apart as ever on the conditions precedent to raising the debt ceiling, which is necesary merely to pay the bills we’ve already incurred. Congress proved its lust for deadline-baiting during the last budget battle that threatened to shut down the government, and it seems even more willing this time to engage in risky brinksmanship.
But this particular impasse holds even greater potential for harm. And the last possible moment could come sooner than many of these seemingly oblivious lawmakers may think. There is the very real possibility that the mere perception of deadlock as the deadline nears will disastrously roil the markets — which react, and over-react, on a daily and significant basis, often on information that doesn’t even come close to qualifying as news anywhere outside of Wall Street. The specter of the world’s leading economy defaulting on its debt obligations, on the other hand, is newsworthy everywhere, and it dwarfs by a significant margin the first failed vote on the 2010 budget. It even potentialy surpasses the harm caused by the initial failure in late 2008 to authorize TARP, which caused a record 777 point one-day downturn in the Dow. Yet these same lawmakers — along with too many clueless first-timers — appear to be relishing their roles in the fiasco-to-come.
The stage has been set not by facts but by messages. Consider the ominous blurts by a leading senator from each side of the aisle on last Sunday’s Meet the Press:
Republican McConnell: “I’m confident that unless we do something really significant [including passing major elements of Rep. Ryan’s budget and Medicare plan] about debt and deficit, [the debt ceiling] is not going to be raised. It’s not going to get my vote….”
Democrat Schumer: “[T]he only way we’re going to come to an agreement on the budget and the debt ceiling is if Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues take the Ryan plan off the table, and take it off now….”
Against this backdrop, last night’s up-or-down vote on a “clean” debt ceiling bill, which was resoundingly defeated, was acknowledged by both sides — in a rare moment of agreement — as pure political theater. Republicans, who brought the measure to the House floor, urged its defeat, while Democrats — who would like nothing more than to pass this very bill — accused Republicans of staging a political “stunt,” since they knew full well it wouldn’t pass. So Wall Street ignored last night’s vote; this morning’s downturn is being attributed to a disappointing new jobs report, not to results of the vote, which Republican leaders reportedly assured business executives had been staged to make the point to President Obama that an increase cannot pass absent his agreement to rein in domestic spending.
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce representative said “Wall Street was in on the joke” of last night’s vote. But there’s nothing funny about what’s being said by those most responsible for steering our economy from disaster. And the real vote — whenever that comes — will be a deadly serious matter.
All that New York Times reporter Mark Bittman knew about Detroit was what he had heard and read. And none of it was good. But then he visited:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/imagining-detroit/?hp
So there’s a simple communications lesson here, right? Do your own homework. Never base your opinions on what others say or write. First-hand knowledge is the best evidence. Had Bittman visited Detroit and arrived at the same negative conclusions, I would have been disappointed but I wouldn’t have had much ammunition for rebuttal. When someone bad-mouths Detroit, I simply ask, “Have you been there?” — or, perhaps more importantly, “have you been there lately?”
As Bittman discovered, the city is not continuing its downward slide. It is on its way up — if the will and passion and inventiveness of its citizens are any indication. And seeing for yourself is believing.
A picture may be worth 1000 words, but how many messages does it send?
Somebody looks pretty damn focused on his target. And speaking of the target: what purpose would be served — and what message would be sent — by a photo of Osama Bin Laden in whatever condition he may have been left following the U.S. assault on his compound? Those are the questions President Obama and his team considered before deciding — at least for now — that no such photo would be forthcoming. While some critics of this decision have asserted the need for “evidence,” nobody can reasonably doubt the U.S.’s claim — especially now that Al Qaeda itself has confirmed the death. Sustained demands come now only from those who will not be satisfied. And a photo expresses nothing new.
Paul Krugman argues in The New York Times that President Obama’s message is muted or missing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB
Do you know what causes President Obama stands for? Do you know what he will stand up for?
I don’t care about this. But everybody’s talking about it so I have to care at least enough to weigh in with some sort of opinion when it invariably comes up as a topic of discussion at the office, on the street, or over a cocktail. (Plus it does technically fall within the Message Delivery Analysis parameters of the MilWrite Blog.)
Charlie says he’s winning but it’s difficult to know if this is true without knowing which game he’s playing. The initial rant that gained him such acclaim did not appear to be premeditated, whereas all of those that followed have lacked the same spontaneity. His success, therefore, in winning the attention if not the admiration of the media-consuming public, was inadvertent. But his act still has legs, and if all he seeks is airtime then his rants have been effective. But he seems to want more. He wants money, certainly. He says he no longer wants drugs but he still wants women — and more than one at a time. But doesn’t he also want respect? He denies this, but he’s human so he must. No one yearns to be shunned.
We’ll see how long this lasts before he finally bores — or disgusts — his audience. In the meantime, I may as well try, along with so many others, to win some portion of Sheen’s expanding exposure by tagging this post with today’s most effective internet traffic magnets: Charlie Sheen, Winning.
Get Free Updates
Get the latest and the greatest news delivered for free to your reader or your inbox:
RSS Feed Email UpdatesHigh-Profile Executive Messages MilWrite Communications Ann Arbor Mich +1 734.995.1969 rmilgrom@milwrite.com ©2011
