Month: June 2007

The Republican Scare: A Branding Nightmare

Posted by on June 3, 2007 at 2:29 am. 2 Comments :

In 1982, potassium cyanide laced pain relievers killed 7 people in Chicago and led to the collapse of a popular consumer medication. The Tylenol Scare resulted in a market share drop from 35% to 8%. In the aftermath of this tragedy, a new standard for packaging was adopted to prevent product tampering. But Tylenol still needed to persuade the public that their product was safe to purchase and use. In pursuit of that goal, they embarked on an unprecedented marketing campaign to confront what may have been the most daunting public relations challenge in history.

This is precisely the position that the Republican Party finds itself in today. After six years of a toxic administration whose policies have led to a poisoning of public discourse; with corruption infecting Capital Hill, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the White House; and a president whose market share is dipping into historic lows; Republicans have concluded that they need to persuade the American people that their brand of politics is safe for our families and our country. In pursuit of that goal, the Republican Leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, has embarked on a marketing campaign to repair the party’s brand.

GOP congressmen and lobbyists are holding meetings to gussy up a product that has lost the confidence of consumers. One participant, Rep. John Carter, views the initiative as an exercise in new age self-reflection:

“We’re trying to look into our conscience and define ourselves, and as we define ourselves, decide how we can best communicate that to the rest of the world.”

More accurately, they are trying to design new packaging without enhancing product safety or purpose. While some of them recognize that it will take more than a fresh coat of varnish to restore their credibility, many are convinced that they can improve their image in the eyes of the public if they can just spin some more wool to pull over said eyes. In that regard they may have an ally in the press. The Washington Post’s coverage of these meetings unfolds under the title, “Boehner Leads Effort to Polish GOP ‘Brand’,” and quotes Rep. Jeb Hensarling expressing support for such leadership:

“I would hope Leader Boehner lets his voice be heard loud and clear.”

At least for the moment, Hensarling’s hopes will go unfulfilled because, the story’s title notwithstanding, Boehner’s voice is nowhere to be heard in the article; not a single quote or attribution.

This nicely illustrates how Republicans plan to mount their comeback – with a shallow facade and a dearth of substance. It is a profoundly superficial approach that addresses only the PR aspects of the problem and does nothing to cleanse the party of contaminants or seal it to prevent further calamity. This is analogous to what would have occurred if Tylenol had launched their PR effort while leaving millions of bottles of possibly tainted medicine on the shelves of the nation’s pharmacies. Their rehabilitation would not have been particularly effective if new victims kept showing up in the morgue.

The Republican Party doesn’t appear to be concerned about the production of more victims. The practical result of their strategy insures that the deceptions that led to the war in Iraq, and the war itself, are going to persist into an indefinite future. The incompetent and compromised Alberto Gonzales will continue to lead the Travesty of Justice Department. Bribery and extortion will remain the keystones of legislative business in Washington. And secrecy and deceit will gain momentum as a means to conceal the scars on the body of American Democracy.

The Tylenol Scare was a sad milestone in our nation’s commercial history that devastated a handful of innocent families. The Republican Scare has proven far more destructive leaving thousands of families, in the U. S. and Iraq, forever ruined. And all they have to say for themselves is that they’re polishing their brand. Unfortunately for them, the Republican Scare is their brand now. Due to their incessant promotion of fear in pursuit of power, they are wedded to this new identity whether they like it or not. Even if they could stuff that genie back into the bottle, by today’s standards that would constitute product tampering and you can’t sell those sort of fouled wares in this country anymore…..I hope.

Media Gangs Up On John Edwards

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm. 2 Comments :

In the past couple of weeks, the press has taken a decidedly negative turn on John Edwards. The ferocity of the attacks and the diversity of their origin is curious, to say the least. Their obsession with housing and haircuts and speaking fees has become all-consuming. This media phenomenon was apparent to media critic and author Jeff Cohen who wrote:

“The focus on these topics tells us two things about corporate media. One we’ve long known – that they elevate personal stuff above issues. The other is now becoming clear – that they have a special animosity toward Edwards.”

Edwards is receiving treatment that is generally reserved for front-runners like Clinton, Obama, or Giuliani. Here is a sampling of the assault:

Jonah Goldberg: “[Edwards] gives new meaning to the term “poverty pimp.”

USA Today: “Edwards, most prominently, has undermined his passionate advocacy for ordinary Americans by seeming to be anything but ordinary himself. Expensive haircuts reinforce the elitist image of a wealthy trial lawyer…”

Sean Hannity: “[Edwards isn’t] up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that’s being waged against us.”

Jim Cramer (on Hardball): “[Edwards is] public enemy #1.”

Bill O’Reilly: “The former vice presidential candidate has sold his soul to far left interests […] Edwards is running a preposterous campaign. He lives like a sultan in a 30,000 foot North Carolina house […] Talking Points tries to respect all of those who want to serve their country, but Edwards is an exception. I have no respect for him. He’s a phony and is in the tank for special interests to damage this country.”

As an added bonus, O’Reilly offers swag for sale at his web site about which he says, “remember, when you buy anything on BillOReilly.com, a good portion of what you spend goes to charities, send a lot of kids, poor kids to camp this summer.”

Is O’Reilly a hypocrite as well because he is a multi-millionaire advocating help for poor kids? I might have a little more sympathy for these arguments if any of Edwards’ critics placed even a fraction of the effort on behalf of America’s poor that Edwards does. Edwards himself posed this question in response to these criticisms:

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

This whole line of attack seems preposterous to me. First of all it is implying that you cannot be wealthy and concerned about the poor at the same time. If that’s true, it exempts about 90% of Congress and every presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, except for Dennis Kucinich. Secondly, it is a rejection of the American Dream that holds that everyone can share in this nation’s prosperity; everyone except John Edwards, who is to be pilloried for the audacity of being born poor but achieving great wealth through hard work and determination.

You have to wonder why Edwards is getting hit so hard from so many directions. Jeff Cohen believes it has something to do with Edwards’ criticism of corporate-driven trade policies. Certainly that position would anger the captains of industry that wield so much influence in American government. And remember, many of those captains are at the helm of media conglomerates. It was probably not lost on those folks that Edwards was the first Democrat to refuse to participate in the Fox debate.

But I think that just brushes the surface of their objections. I think it goes much deeper into the matter of the class distinctions raised by Edwards’ “Two Americas” campaign. They are ultimately afraid that the populist appeal of a movement that truly seeks to bring economic opportunity to every citizen, instead of just the elite, could catch on. That’s why it has to be strangled in the cradle of a candidate who is running third in national polls. The risk extends beyond Edwards himself. If voters responded positively to the issue, the other candidates would adopt it. So even if Edwards does not become a contender, the issue stays on the table. This fear has already been articulated by Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine to Brit Hume on Fox:

“Well, I think the most interesting thing about these speeches was the extent to which both candidates borrowed from the No. 2 candidate we saw there, John Edwards […] to me it’s like they’re all joined at the hip on domestic policy”

It isn’t Edwards that they are all afraid of. It is economic populism, fair trade, and, in the end, the American Dream. That’s what the media and their mouthpieces in politics and punditry are trying to kill.

CIA Won’t Play Fair Game With Plame

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 1:55 am. NO Comments :

The CIA is refusing to permit publication of a book by former covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Ms. Wilson’s cover was blown by Bush administration officials in retaliation for critical comments made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, regarding trumped up evidence for the invasion of Iraq. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby has already been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for giving false testimony in the investigation of this affair.

The agency is claiming that information in the book, “Fair Game,” is classified and prohibited from publication. That would seem to be a reasonable position had the Agency not already sent unclassified versions of the data to Wilson which was subsequently published in the Congressional Record. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, are now suing the Agency to secure permission to publish her memoir.

This is a blatant example of prior restraint and a violation of free speech rights. The notion that data that has previously been publicly disclosed can be forced back into obscurity is absurd, especially in this Internet age when information is widely dispersed and recorded. The data in question regards Wilson’s dates of employment with the Agency, and those dates are even published in the newspaper accounts of this litigation. It’s not exactly top secret.

We need to remember that we are dealing with the most secrecy obsessed administration in history; an administration that has been busily RE-classifying thousands of documents that were previously de-classified, and taking many more steps to inhibit open government and free access to materials of interest to the public.

It is particularly ironic that the White House that cavalierly outed Wilson as part of a political vendetta is now pretending to be concerned about operational security. A spokesman for the CIA gave this explanation for why they were refusing Wilson’s request to publish:

“Official acknowledgment of certain matters could cause some on whom we rely to think that we do not take protecting sensitive equity seriously, or cause them to think twice about assisting us in the future, and that could have serious ramifications.”

If they were truly concerned about the ramifications of not protecting sensitive equity, maybe they shouldn’t have unveiled Wilson’s identity in the first place. And while they are now calling it a “mistake” to have released her dates of employment, there has still been no acknowledgement that blowing her cover might also have been an error. This hypocrisy only affirms that the obvious intent of the CIA, and their bosses in the White House, is to frustrate Wilson’s efforts to tell her story because it might embarrass a corrupt and dishonest administration. Let’s hope that the courts demonstrate more integrity and rule to uphold the First Amendment.