Latest Entries »

“You can’t always get what you want; but if you try sometimes; well you just might find; you get what you need.” – Jagger, Richards

Great tune, but does it work as an uplifting campaign-theme song?

The author of Almost DailyBrett used to snicker at the thought of a blushing bride choosing this song for the first dance with her new groom: You can’t always get what you want (in grooms) … (but hopefully) you get what you need.trumpstones

For the same reason, one must wonder why the Donald Trump campaign chose “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” as one of the musical closers of the quadrennial Republican National Convention last July in Cleveland?

The first song following The Donald’s dystopian acceptance speech was “All Right Now” by The Free, which makes sense. That is not the case with the next song, the Rolling Stones classic, “You Can’t Get What You Want.”

After dispatching 17 other Republican presidential aspirants in the primaries and caucuses was Donald Trump all the GOP needed?

The same applies to using the very same Rolling Stones song immediately following President-elect Donald Trump’s victory tour speech last week in Cincinnati.

Mick and Keith are not happy and have shared their displeasure with the Trump campaign and the media, only to be told that the Stones must accept not getting any satisfaction on this one.micktrump

The music has been purchased and is being played in a public place, so the Trump campaign does not owe the Stones a shekel for their song and is offering zero apologies.

Okay now that we have that dispute (un)settled, let’s access from a public relations standpoint how songs can or cannot serve as metaphors for advocacy.

Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

Some campaigns have trouble coming up with consistent themes. If identifying an appropriate mantra is a problem (and that was the case for Hillary Clinton), then finding a related song which resonates with the public and the times is doubly tough.

One of the most successful efforts was the use of “Happy Days Are Here Again” by FDR at the Democratic convention during the height of the Depression in 1932.

Sixty years later, Arkansas Governor (and Hillary’s hubby) played Fleetwood Mac’s futuristic “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” to offer a dramatic contrast to President George H.W. Bush’s tired administration.billclintonsax

Eight years later, the campaign of Texas Governor George W. Bush employed Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” and The Who’s anthem “Won’t Get Fooled Again” in direct defiance to the Clinton-Gore machine.

Even though the appropriateness of songs is not the most serious subject ever pondered by Almost DailyBrett, they still must be consistent with the overall thrust of a presidential campaign.

Even though this author scratches his follicly challenged scalp when contemplating Trump using a song that expresses the frustration of blowing an amplifier fuse, the real issue is whether Republicans are saying to the nation that you can’t get what you want, but Trump is what you need?

For some reason, the song is working at least among those in the hinterlands who have been searching for a champion and not finding her or him in Washington, D.C.

Can any of these “poorly educated” folks as Trump lovingly described them, name any of the four members of the Rolling Stones, much less identify with the lyrics of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”?

Does it matter?

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1840981_1840998_1840923,00.html

http://www.tmz.com/2016/07/22/donald-trump-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/10/12/mick-jagger-on-trump-using-stones-songs-i-can-t-stop-him.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victorious-donald-trump-mocks-rolling-9224213

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHU3oAhM4tU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFORx8uO8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Right_Now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TytGVo1O3_w

 

 

 

 

“The media was all in this narrative. Everyone was marching lock-step. Clinton is going to win. Clinton is going to win.” – “Morning Joe” Scarborough, MSNBC, November 9

“The press takes him (Trump) literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, not literally.” — Salena Zito, The Atlantic

hillaryloses

Public Relations pros – flacks or spin doctors, if you wish – have long been accused of way-too-many times of happily drinking their own bathwater. Translated: They believe their own take on reality and what they are told by their superiors, and sometimes they are flat-out wrong (see Enron debacle).

Could it be the Washington, D.C. crowd – journalists, editors, correspondents, anchors, pollsters, demographers, pundits and other forms of political proctologists – could be equally guilty of falling madly in love with their own cleverness and even the very sounds of their own voices?

If you don’t believe in their infinite wisdom and how they tower over the great unwashed, just ask them. They will gladly tell you.

Most of all, they use Twitter in particular and other Internet tools to silently collude with each other, virtually ignoring all other voices, particularly those poor souls outside the Beltway or west of the Hudson. Algorithms über alles.

The political class told us mere mortals repeatedly about the seemingly impregnable “Blue Wall,” which stood the test of time during the past six presidential elections (e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania serve as perfect examples). No one really mattered in these spots on the map, except for their electoral votes.

electoralcollege2016

Yes, these poor, uneducated sops are suffering. F-Them! Throw some money at them. And forget them … until the next election.

The media and political class defined the gender gap as to only mean the Democratic lead among women. And indeed according to exit polls Hillary Clinton won by 12 percent among the fairer gender (54-42 percent). What the media did not assess or discuss is the flip-side, the fact that Donald Trump won among men by an equivalent 12 percentage points (53-41 percent).

Ahhh … Is there really a “gender gap,” when only the fairer one matters?

Donald Trump declared his love affair for the “poorly educated” and instantly drew the scorn of what Wall Street Journal columnist and former presidential speech writer Peggy Noonan once described as the “Harvard Heads.” Looking back, it may have been one the politically smartest things he said during the campaign – albeit we did not know it at the time.

A Choice Not a Referendum

“So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people, who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.” former President Bill Clinton, October 3, 2016

According to the political class, only Hillary Clinton had a path to the presidency. Donald Trump was unsuitable. The “Blue Wall” (similar to die Berliner Mauer) was impregnable, until it wasn’t. For the first time in 32 years, the GOP nominee won Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania or a grand total of 52 electoral votes. Suddenly, it was Hillary who was up a deep creek without a paddle.

Why did the media, the pundits and the experts miss this political earthquake so badly?

  1. They treated the election as a “referendum” on Trump, not a choice between Hillary (e.g., status quo) and Trump (e.g., change, in a change year).
  2. The email issue had “legs” – a subject that simply would not go away for the Clinton campaign, even before FBI director James Comey became a household name.
  3. The “Deplorables” came back to bite Hillary. As Almost DailyBrett stated earlier, it is never a good idea to insult in one swoop literally millions of Americans with “fightin’ words.” Ask “47 percent” Mitt to verify.
  4. Hillary’s fidelity to “The craziest thing in the world” and average Obamacare 20 percent increases in premiums and deductibles two weeks before the election, signified that America would not change under her stewardship.
  5. Hillary did not have a message about the future (e.g., New Frontiers, Shining City on the Hill). Her rhetoric was all about The Donald as if Americans were participating in a referendum on his misconduct. In reality, a presidential election is once-and-for all, a choice.

The real question: Will the media and the highly educated political class wipe the egg off their collective faces and actually learn something from this humbling experience?

msnbcelection

Something tells Almost DailyBrett that arrogance will soon return and will once again reign supreme by those who provide their Agenda Setting judgments and interpretations to a grateful nation.

Almost DailyBrett note: Proper credit for the term, “Political Proctologists,” needs to be afforded to the late Mike Royko of the Chicago Sun-Times. May he rest in peace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/take-trump-seriously-and-literally/2016/11/16/cbdcf2c8-ac25-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.92bd5ef68e0e

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/podcasts/election-analysis-run-up.html?_r=0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP6Ym806J18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgYphOJ7qiw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-8EPmM8Ijk

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-06/how-the-media-blew-the-2016-campaign

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/watch-trump-brag-about-uneducated-voters-the-hispanics-20160224

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-brexit-austria-french-presidential-election-national-front-525281

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/the-revenge-of-the-deplorables/

 

“There’s a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation. I’m not sure what else one would do. That’s what I think would happen.” – Tesla and SpaceX Founder Elon Musk

“It is the working man who is the happy man. It is the idle man who is the miserable man.” – Benjamin Franklin

“To be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent.” — Buddharobots2

As a small-time shareholder in Tesla, the author of Almost DailyBrett is reconsidering his investment.

Have I’ve been foolish?

Should I be more diligent to be wise?

Don’t get this blog wrong. These posts have always supported and admired entrepreneurs (e.g., Musk) as job creators, dreamers of great new products, and economic forces for good (e.g., reducing dependence on fossil fuels).

Nonetheless it’s shocking to note that Musk’s (i.e. PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX) answer to the prospect of increased robotics/automated services (i.e., check-out machines, ATMs, robotic assembly lines) is too simply put all of these future displaced employees – maybe even millions of workers – on a politically acceptable dole (at least to some): Universal Basic Income or UBI.

Elon Musk, CEO of US automotive and energy storage company Tesla, presents his outlook on climate change at the Paris-Sorbonne University in Paris on December 2, 2015. / AFP / ERIC PIERMONT (Photo credit should read ERIC PIERMONT/AFP/Getty Images)

Elon Musk, CEO of US automotive and energy storage company Tesla, presents his outlook on climate change at the Paris-Sorbonne University in Paris on December 2, 2015. / AFP / ERIC PIERMONT (Photo credit should read ERIC PIERMONT/AFP/Getty Images)

Let’s face it: The shrinking middle class during the past 30 years is a major cause of serious political disruptions with populist causes taking hold on both sides of the Pond.

Pew Research revealed that 62 percent of Americans were categorized as middle class in 1970, falling to 43 percent in 2014.

Conversely, 29 percent of Americans were upper class in 1970, rising to 49 percent in 2014.

Lower class was essentially flat from 10 percent to 9 percent during these 44 years.

Almost DailyBrett is concerned that aggressive moves toward ever higher minimum wages may entice even more potential employers to seriously explore using even more machines, which don’t require the payment of benefits (e.g., medical, vision and dental), and don’t demand days off.robots1

And who would be most impacted by displacement by machines and robots? The middle class? The lower class? Both?

Under the failed Universal Basic Income (UBI) plebiscite in Switzerland earlier this year, displaced workers would have received an annual salary of $30,660 for a single, $61,320 for a couple and $76,728 for a family of four … placing them in the higher echelons of middle-income America … but without exerting any effort.

How does UBI square with the Protestant Work Ethic?

Funding A New Leisure Class

“People will have time to do other things and more complex things, more interesting things. [They will] certainly have more leisure time.” – Elon Musk

“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” – President John F. Kennedy

“Given the crisis that we are in and the hardships that so many people are going through, we can’t allow any idle hands. Everybody has to get involved, everybody has to pitch in and I think the American people are ready to do that” – President Barack Obama

Earlier, Almost DailyBrett wrote about the record number of working-age men (e.g., 20-54), who are voluntarily not seeking a job … any job. Instead, they are averaging 5.5 hours per day playing video games, accessing streaming video and watching HDTV. That’s a shocking loss of brainpower and manpower, the type that President Kennedy said could be in service to the country.

Would UBI exacerbate this unacceptable trend, essentially making it politically acceptable to displace able workers with even smarter machines? The net result would be even more wards of the state with little or nothing to do. Idle hands will indeed rule.

The question still persists: Should millions of able-bodied people be paid to do nothing? Will they earn their paychecks? How will UBI be funded, if America becomes a donut with a huge whole in the middle — little or zero middle class?

Will the majority of these recipients ultimately become miserable on the certain road to death?

If all one is doing is running out the clock (e.g., playing video games and checking out social media) until that inevitable day arrives, then what is the purpose of life?

Maybe UBI is not so smart after all? Whattyathink Mr. Musk?

http://mashable.com/2016/11/05/elon-musk-universal-basic-income/#dmtbn21mkmq8

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/universal-right-to-a-paycheck/

http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-01-20-voa6-68822097/413577.html

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/idle.html

http://fortune.com/video/2016/11/07/elon-musk-wants-universal-basic-income/

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/millions-of-active-women-supporting-millions-of-idle-men/

 

 

 

 

 

“ … You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘Basket of Deplorables’. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.” – Hillary Clinton, Speaking at a Democratic-oriented fundraiser, Sept. 9, 2016hillarydeplorables

“ … “There are 47 percent who are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it … And so my job is not to worry about those people.” – Mitt Romney, Speaking at a Republican-oriented fundraiser, Sept. 18, 2012

A gaffe is a gaffe is a gaffe … You name it! … Uttered by two electoral losers and separated by four years, plus a week or two.

It is never a good idea to insult literally millions of potential voters with a series of unfortunate and intemperate fighting words. So why engage in name calling just because the immediate audience is friendly and having a great time at the expense of others?

As Nancy Reagan would say: “Just say no.”

In our digital age, the microphones are more sensitive and effective than ever. The tiny cameras and video recorders are disguised as smart phones, and they’re first rate. They are always ‘on,’ which means the candidates too must be always ‘on.’

Almost DailyBrett has repeatedly and consistently counseled that it is always wise to be offensive without being offensive. Advance and advocate your point of view, but always be respectful of all voters. They are more than mere demographics to be hunted down with search engines guided by algorithms.

There are many shaking their heads and washing their hands wondering why Hillary Clinton is not forming an administration today. The same was true, questioning why Mitt Romney was not preparing his inaugural address four years ago.romney47

The simple answer is both were seriously flawed candidates, who twice embarked upon a presidential campaign odyssey (Hillary, 2008 and 2016; Mitt, 2008 and 2012) and came up short.

Breaking the Blue Wall

“Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard-working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!” – President-elect Donald Trump Tweet about Hillary’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ comment

There were so many political experts who wondered out loud for weeks whether The Donald had a realistic Electoral College road-map to the Presidency. They used Poker analogies to suggest that Trump had to run an unlikely, inside-straight to win.

Pundit thinking and conventional wisdom revolved around the conjecture that all of the Barack Obama states from 2008 and 2012 were safely tucked away behind the Blue (State) Wall (e.g., Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa).bluewall

As it turned out, Trump did not have a perfect poker hand as he lost Virginia and Colorado, but did manage to hold Florida, North Carolina and Ohio. The real damage occurred as die blaue Mauer crumbled, overturning the Keystone, Wolverine, Dairy and Hawkeye States and their collective 52 electoral votes and placing them into Trump’s red column.

As the ballots are still being counted, Trump won more than 60 million votes. How many of these people were offended about being pigeonholed as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic Deplorables? The fundraising audience laughed at her description and answered affirmatively to Hillary’s question, “Right?”

To be fair, Almost DailyBrett must point out that Hillary subsequently apologized for this unfortunate stereotype, but the toothpaste was already out of the tube, the bell had already been wrung, the bullet was already out of the chamber …

Was the ‘Deplorables’ remark the only reason that Hillary lost the presidency to a seriously flawed alternative? The answer is obviously negative, and all of the post-mortems will point to a litany of reasons, some valid, some not.

This blog on several occasions (e.g., Outrageous Al Smith Memorial Dinner remarks) scored Trump for time-after-time failing to demonstrate political discipline.

As it turns out he was not the only one, who strayed off script and may have caused a wall to crumble and for a new era to begin.

One must wonder whether Hillary is waking up in the middle of the night and thinking: ‘What could have been …?’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/09/clinton-half-of-trumps-supporters-fit-in-basket-of-deplorables/

https://newrepublic.com/article/138615/deplorables-got-last-laugh

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

 

 

For the first time in the planet’s history, women are poised to serve as heads of state for three-of-the-five largest economies of the world: Angela Merkel, Kanzerlin of Germany; Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Hillary Clinton, President of the United States.hillarytheresaangela

And let’s not forget the head of the U.S. Bank is Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

It’s great news for women as yet more glass ceilings are finally being broken on both sides of the pond … but the question needs to be asked: What’s not-happening with far too many men?

Is the rising tide for women raising all boats? The answer is far too men are up a creek without a paddle or at least that would seem to be the case.

Do these men even care?

Should they care?

What’s to become of this now troubled gender demographic?

The author of Almost DailyBrett grew up during the Pleistocene fully anticipating that he would support his spouse and assist in the raising of a family.normanrockwell

As a GEICO ad suggests, “It’s what you do.”

Or should we now say, “It’s what many of us used to do?”

Columnist and über-brain George Will recently wrote about the “quiet catastrophe” of one-third of working-age American men who are by choice “economically inactive.” The vast majority of these underachievers are idly sitting around day-in and day-out watching a daily average of 5.5 hours of TV, playing video games, and checking out digitally streamed movies.

In the meantime, the so-called “little woman” is out there working not to just “Stand By Your Man” as Tammy Wynette would suggest, but to fully support her idle spouse and her family too.

Almost DailyBrett was downright surprised to hear about women justifiably complaining about being required to support not only their children, but their lay-about husbands/boyfriends as well. According to the OECD, the United States leads all industrialized nations in inactive 25-54 men with the exception of Italy (Le Dolce Vida).malevideogames

The official Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics first-Friday-of-the-month “jobs report” released for October 2016 reported a 4.9 percent unemployment rate, 4.6 percent for adult men and 4.3 percent for adult women.

These somewhat-positive numbers are unfortunately deceptive, unintentionally painting a rosier picture particularly for men. These results reflect only those who are actively participating in the labor force (e.g., employed, underemployed or out looking for a job) … and those numbers are declining.

Since 1948, the proportion of men 20-and-older without paid work has doubled to nearly 32 percent or one-out-of-every-three-working-age-males.

How many men aged 25-54 are not pounding the pavement? What’s their future? Are they merely running out the clock until the Grim Reaper arrives?

What’s on Netflix anyway?

“Economically Inactive”

“In America today, compared with 50 years ago, three times as many working-age men are completely outside the work force … Feeling superfluous is a blow to the human spirit. It leads to social isolation and emotional pain, and creates the conditions for negative emotions to take root.” — The Dalai Lama and Arthur C. Brooks

“Donald Trump is perhaps perverse evidence that some of his army of angry men are at least healthily unhappy about the loss of meaning, self-esteem and masculinity that is a consequence of chosen and protracted idleness.” – Washington Post Columnist George Will

Nicholas Eberstadt’s new monograph “Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis” points to Social Security Administration stats that revealed one disabled non-worker for every 134 workers in 1960. Fast forward five decades and the number falls to one disabled non-worker for every 16 workers in 2010.couch-potato

Worse, in just seven years the number of those on disability has risen from 7.4 million in 2009 to a record 8.9 million now, a 20 percent increase. As a result of government assistance and support by other family members (e.g., women), Eberstadt said these non-working men between 25-54 years of age “appear to be better off than tens of millions of other Americans today, including millions of single mothers who are either working or seeking work.”

Almost DailyBrett does not want to be charged with merely stating the problem without offering a solution. The first point in developing a strategy to entice these males to get off their derrieres lies with the fact that the world does not value brute strength, ignorance and testosterone as it once did. Get over it.

The second is the service-driven economy is technology driven. If women can learn software and hardware, so can men.

The third is that men have been known to be competitors. It’s time to take a step back … yes, a step back and pick up the skills they need to succeed in this changing world.

As a college professor, the author of Almost DailyBrett arrives each morning and is greeted by women majority classrooms. They have rightfully chosen to compete and engage in lifelong learning. There is no reason why men can’t pull themselves away from the TV or video game console and do the same.

It’s no longer a “Man’s World,” but that should not mean the Battle of the Sexes has been won by one side at the expense of the other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-quiet-catastrophe-millions-of-idle-men/2016/10/05/cd01b750-8a57-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html?utm_term=.d5320fbd3c83&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/social-security-disability-depleted/2013/12/17/id/542390/

https://www.tammywynette.com/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jobless-by-choice–or-pain/2016/11/27/7075c720-b189-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.7abf606ef0ef&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

 

 

 

 

Never thought the author of Almost DailyBrett would ever see the day.

Guess there is a first time for everything.

Yes I did it. I wrote-in my choice for President of the United States: Speaker Paul Ryan.

Today, I submitted my ballot. The deed is done.ballot

Some may contend that I threw my vote away.

Some may warn that my write-in vote will not be counted.

Some may scold that I helped put a Clinton back in the White House.

Personally, I have to live with myself.

Voting for big-legalized drugs/Snowden-pardon supporter Gary Johnson is a non-starter.

Jill Stein? Please.

Back in the 1990s, I never voted for a Clinton for president. There is zero chance I would do that now.

The prospect of putting the country’s nuclear arsenal in the hands of the most politically undisciplined party nominee in the history of the Republic (understatement), Donald Trump, is a bet I am not willing to make.

To little ole me, not voting is irresponsible and quite frankly, not an option.

By writing this blog post I am not seeking a medal or some kind of accolade, but sharing my personal journey as I contemplated for weeks and months literally the worst presidential choice ever … and the polls bear out this point.120811014459-romney-ryan-vp-2-horizontal-gallery

My reasoning: I voted for Paul Ryan to serve as Mitt Romney’s vice president four years ago. I am very comfortable with the prospect of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the White House.

The Shining City on the Hill

“Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will report that I appeal to your best hopes not your worst fears … “—Former President Ronald Reagan, 1992

Even though Almost DailyBrett for seven-plus years attempted to be as even-handed as it can be and avoid partisan screed, your author is mortal and has a definitive political view.

Politically, I cut my teeth covering as a 20-something reporter the 1978 Proposition 13 tax revolt in California. Because of crippling 15-18 percent annual inflation and related-skyrocketing property tax bills, people were being asked to choose between their homes and essential services. They chose their residences.

Four years later, I served as the press director for the (George) Deukmejian Campaign Committee. One year after surviving an assassination attempt, Reagan campaigned for us. Even at 71-years-young, he looked like a million bucks to a young, impressionable media aide. From that day forward, I am proud to describe myself as a Reaganite.reaganduke

My outlook is realistic, but always positive. My beliefs include controlling the debt, stimulating full-time private sector jobs with the complete array of benefits, fostering a robust export-driven economy, and protecting our exceptional country from all adversaries … foreign and domestic.

The dystopian, inward approach to the world preached by one Donald J. Trump is not Reaganesque, and it is not Republican.

Did I listen carefully to all of the candidates during the lengthy primary season? Absolutely. I was hoping a true-Reagan conservative would emerge from the pack. That result did not happen.

There was a time, and Almost DailyBrett cannot pinpoint a date, but it became evident that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee of the Democrat Party and Donald Trump would serve as the standard bearer of the Republican Party.

This choice was unpalatable then and it is totally unacceptable now.

As a result, I wrote in Speaker Ryan. Regardless of who prevails next Tuesday, I am confident Paul Ryan will be serving as a living example of the checks and balances our Founding Fathers envisioned.

I will sleep better knowing he is on the job.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-john-mccain-endorsement/index.html

http://www.speaker.gov/

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/nancy-reagan-death-donald-trump-2016-213709

 

 

“ … Hillary believes that it’s vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private. … For example, here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.” – Donald Trump drawing boos at the Al Smith charity dinner

trumphillarysmith

 

Ronald Reagan turned over in his grave with that nasty remark.

Putting partisan politics to the side (if that’s still possible), The Great Communicator clearly understood and practiced the discipline of knowing, appreciating and respecting your audience.

In many ways the answer is just so simple: The Five W’s and One H of Journalism:

What does the audience expect?

When is the event?

Where is the venue?

Who is attending?

Why is the occasion important?

How will you appreciate and respect your audience?

There was Reagan’s solemn 1984 speech at the cliffs of Normandy on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of D-Day.

There was his 1987 “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall” address in the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate.

There was “There you go again” quip to Jimmy Carter in the most watched presidential debate (up-to-this-year) in American history in 1980.

And there was his farewell address to the nation as he was departing the White House in 1989.

The Normandy and Farewell speeches were not overtly political. It would have been wrong in both cases to write and deliver a stem-winder in either of these venues. The media and pundit reaction would be justifiably critical, if The Gipper had misused these settings and occasions.

The Berlin Wall speech and the Cleveland debate were both political in nature. They both offered the opportunity to score political points at the expense of the leader of the Soviet Union and the 39th president of the United States.

As Harry Truman once said: “If you need a friend in Washington, D.C., get a dog.”

As Mary Matalin once said: “Politics is a contact sport.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan Serving As Referee

Al Smith was the first Roman Catholic to earn a presidential nomination, losing to Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928. Since 1945, the New York Archdiocese has sponsored an annual white-tie dinner at the stately Waldorf Astoria in his honor and to benefit Catholic charities.

Even though the two parties’ respective nominees have attended this fundraising dinner since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, the audience expects and wants satirical/self-deprecating humor from the candidates. That tradition remained intact until this past Thursday night.

Less than 24 hours after the two combatants refused to shake hands twice at the final Clinton vs. Trump debate, Cardinal Dolan knew that he would have to serve as a buffer sitting in between Hillary and The Donald, who quite obviously loathe each other.

Nonetheless, the expectations for the speeches from the two candidates were still there. The public relations/reputation management task for each nominee and their respective staffers was to prepare and deliver remarks that demonstrate knowledge, appreciation and respect for the audience.trumpsmith

Sadly that discipline was not there, particularly for Donald Trump.

Why did he think even for a nanosecond that stating that Hillary was “so corrupt” before a mixed-audience was going to meet the standards of the evening?

Worse The Donald’s remarks about Hillary pretending to not hate Catholics in a room in which literally dozens had been schooled with the Baltimore Catechism drew the boos and catcalls they deserved.

Among the litany of problems associated with Trump’s campaign, one of the most basic is a total lack of political discipline. He obviously does not listen to his advisors, who know political campaigns and how to set and respond to audience expectations.

Two GOP standard bearers could not be more different: Ronald Reagan was a model of political discipline and simplicity of message. Donald Trump cannot and will not maintain political discipline, and Hillary knows it.

More importantly, the nation knows The Donald does not have the temperament to deliver audience-specific remarks, let alone be trusted with access to our nuclear codes.

The expectations are that Hillary will become the 45th chief executive of the United States and the first president who happens to be a woman, when the polls in California, Oregon and Washington close at 11 pm EST. 8 pm PST on November 8.

Almost DailyBrett will boldly predict: Hillary will be elected one hour earlier when Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona … and maybe even Utah (gasp) are recorded in the blue column … if not sooner. This is a wave election in which Hillary will receive the better part of 400 electoral votes, if not more.

Will The Donald wake up on November 9 and realize that he did not even attempt for a nanosecond during the past 17 months to know, appreciate and respect his audiences?

Forget it. He didn’t listen to any wisdom when it mattered. And he certainly won’t accept any guidance when it doesn’t matter anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/al-smith-dinner-clinton-trump.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/al-smith-catholic-dinner-memorable-lines-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/20/the-very-bad-jokes-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-told-at-the-al-smith-dinner/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Smith_Memorial_Foundation_Dinner

 

 

“With best wishes to Kevin who understands what this is all about” – Jody Powell

“When the news seemed to me then and now, to be wrong, unsupportable, and unfair.” – President Jimmy Carter’s press secretary Jody Powellpowellsignature

One of my most cherished possessions is a personally signed copy of Jody Powell’s 1984 book about presidential public relations and the media, “The Other Side of the Story.”

Powell passed way-too-young (65) of an apparent heart attack seven years ago, making my copy of this hardbound book irreplaceable.

Today, the author of Almost DailyBrett assigns new PR students Powell’s remembrances of his brain-fart disclosure to the media of Jimmy Carter smacking a “the killer rabbit” with a canoe oar, “A Grave Mistake,” and more importantly do PR pros in extreme circumstances have “The Right to Lie”?powellbriefing

Powell is seen through the lens of history as one of the very best to serve as the chief spokesman and communications strategist for the leader of the free world. Without a doubt that will be Jody’s lasting legacy. Alas, he served a president who was besieged with 52 Americans held hostage in Iran, out-of-control inflation and economic malaise.

Despite Powell’s best efforts, Carter was excused from the presidency in 1980, winning only six states + DC or 49 electoral votes. Powell eventually shook off the loss, and provided wisdom to all PR pros with his “The Other Side of the Story.”

This simple title also should serve as a reminder to us all that with all issues, there is indeed another side to the story.

To my horror, your author remembers being told there is no other side of the story when it comes to a major criminal justice issue. My training as a political/business public relations professional is there are indeed two sides to every story, and you are simply not doing your job if you don’t comprehend the opposing argument.

How can you fashion a winning rebuttal?

Getting Out of Our Filter Bubbles

One of the tenets of public relations theory (don’t glaze over) is Cognitive Dissonance or the practice of re-examining a hard-felt position upon the presence of compelling new information. John F. Kennedy through his charm and conviction was able to gain support from Republicans despite setbacks (e.g., Bay of Pigs). Conversely, Ronald Reagan’s success and communication skills led to the formation of a new-at-the-time political force, The Reagan Democrats.

Does Cognitive Dissonance still apply today in our woefully divided, gridlocked society?

Looking into my crystal ball, will President Hillary Clinton be “primaried” (new verb) in 2020 by Bernie-Sanders-progressives, if she works with Speaker Paul Ryan? There is zero doubt that Clinton and Ryan see the world differently, but at the same time it is their job to work together for the benefit of the country.powellbook

 

In order to do just that, both sides need to appreciate there is indeed The Other Side of the Story. Even more germane, is this notion is at the heart of the Marketplace of Ideas.

For example, many decry the fact that an estimated 2 million are incarcerated in American jails and prisons, a disproportionate number hail from minority communities. Is that the only side of the story that matters?

As press secretary to former California Governor George Deukmejian, our administration doubled the size of the state’s prison system, which was a godsend considering the massive overcrowding issue the Golden State faces to this day.

Were we being mean, hateful and vindictive or were we responding to the public who did not want criminals in their neighborhoods and in the streets?

Are there indeed two sides (mass incarceration and public safety) to this criminal justice issue?

In a more intense sense, there is a reason why ISIS is so evil, so angry and so violent? Is there a side to their story we should try to comprehend? Yes. At the same time, we need to respond to their attacks on soft targets in the United States, Western Europe and the Middle East. We have our side of the story as well.

Almost DailyBrett knows instinctively that Donald Trump will soon and thankfully fade from the airwaves and digital screens. The ensuring period of global Schadenfreude will pass as well.

Will we reach a point in which we respect there really are two sides to virtually every story? When and if we do, we will become a much more civil society.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/us/politics/15powell.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091402738.html

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/the-right-to-lie/

 

 

Sometimes we are too quick to fast-forward, skip, turn-down or mute the sound when inevitable ads intrude into our lives.

We have all seen way-too-many-times-to-count the AFLAC Duck, Flo for Progressive, the Sprint dude and/or the AT&T dudette. We could almost scream.

fitzgeraldbachelor

And then every blue moon there is that one special ad, which makes us sit up, think deeply and maybe even brings a tear to the eye. And that very same ad may change the way we think about a given firm or a marketed product.

The University of Phoenix has major PR problems. The online college only graduates 17.5 percent of its enrollees. It charges an eye-opening $9,812 in tuition. Way too many former students have zero degrees, but they are saddled in thousands of dollars of debt (estimated $493 million total). Some CEOs believe that for-profit colleges are simply selling degrees, and their diplomas are not worth the fancy paper in which they are printed.

These are tough charges and allegations. And there lies the origin of perceived and real public relations issues for the University of Phoenix.

University of Phoenix stadium, site of this years Super Bowl.

University of Phoenix Stadium.

The University of Phoenix has the resources to have its name adorned on the stadium of the Arizona Cardinals in Glendale, Arizona. Which brings us to wide receiver Larry Darnell Fitzgerald, Jr., #11 of the Cardinals.

There is also no doubt that Fitzgerald will be enshrined in Canton. In his 12 years with the Arizona Cardinals, he has caught more than 1,000 passes for more than 13,000 yards and 101 touchdowns. The team came one eyelash from winning Super Bowl XLIII in 2009.

Bachelor of Science in Communication, 2016

And yet there is more to the Larry Fitzgerald story, much more. It concerns a promise to his mom. His mother, Carol, passed away from breast cancer in 2003. The two were not speaking to each other, which he now regrets.

Nonetheless, he remembered his promise. He opted for the NFL draft after only two seasons with the Pittsburgh Panthers. Despite all the fame and the reported $20 million contract, something was missing in his life, a college degree.

namathgrad

Maybe knowing it or not, he was following in the footsteps of some very famous “non-traditional” students: Joe Namath (Alabama), Isiah Thomas (Indiana) and Shaquille O’Neal (LSU) … and just this year, Larry Fitzgerald.

Namath finished his degree 42 years after leaving Tuscaloosa. Thomas fulfilled his commitment made in a legal contract drawn up by his mother, Mary, attaining his college degree from Indiana University. It was nearly a quarter-of-a-century between Shaquille departing LSU and receiving his degree.

What fascinates Almost DailyBrett is the drive that still exists for a few celebrity athletes, who have reached the top of their game and attained the enviable position of being financially set for life, who realize something is missing in their life – the satisfaction of a college degree.

Your author teaches at Central Washington University, which will never be confused with Harvard and Stanford. Having said that, it is exciting to realize how many of our students will be the first in their family to graduate with a bachelor’s degree and how many are “non-traditional” – beyond, sometimes way beyond, the traditional 18-24-year age range for most college students.fitzgerald

Larry Fitzgerald is a non-traditional student. Maybe the fact that University of Phoenix is primarily online made going back to college a little bit easier from an awkwardness standpoint. Something tells Almost DailyBrett that Fitzgerald is very comfortable in his own skin. Still he needed to fulfill his promise to his deceased mom.

Fitzgerald dials his mom’s landline and hears her voicemail greeting. He wants to appreciate her voice yet again. He then tells his mom he kept his promise, he graduated (the University of Phoenix diploma hangs on the wall). He loves her.

The fact that he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in communication brings a smile to the face of the author of Almost DailyBrett. The simple-and-effective “We Rise” tagline works from a marketing and branding standpoint.

There is no doubt that Larry Fitzgerald rose above the inclination to eternally procrastinate, to settle into a comfortable life, and to not fulfill his promise.

Thank you University of Phoenix and Larry Fitzgerald for telling this wonderful story. Hopefully, more than 29 percent of our population will be inspired to attain their bachelor’s degrees or even more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWLmf1O8oQ

http://www.larryfitzgerald.com/

http://www.phoenix.edu/

http://www.phoenix.edu/partners/larry-fitzgerald.html?intcid=mktg-home-page:hero:banner:top

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/11/sports/thomas-keeps-promise-to-mom.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/15/football-great-joe-namath-earns-college-degree-42-years-later.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100078&page=1

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/online-college-not-good-enough-for-pr/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/07/09/these-20-schools-are-responsible-for-a-fifth-of-all-graduate-school-debt/?tid=sm_fb 

 

“Good moments can be more important than good arguments.” – Former Presidential Campaign Manager Karl Rove

“Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” – Former U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen to former Senator Dan Quayle

“There you go again.” – Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter

President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, shake hands Tuesday night, October 28, 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio, before debating before a nationwide television audience. (AP Photo/stf)

President Jimmy Carter, left, and Republican Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, shake hands Tuesday night, October 28, 1980, in Cleveland, Ohio … (AP Photo/stf)

It was Reagan who walked over to shake Carter’s hand after their sole debate, not the other way around. Courtesy matters.

What will be THE moment that transforms Monday’s watershed presidential debate — maybe 100 million viewers — between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and business mogul Donald Trump?

What will be the indelible image (i.e., George H.W. Bush looking at his watch; Al Gore moving aggressively toward George W. Bush; aftershave dripping off the face of a haggard Richard Nixon; Mitt Romney’s ‘Big Bird’ remark), which will instantly go viral on literally millions of mobile devices and other second screens?

Remember when mom repeatedly and maddenly told you: “It’s not what you say, but how you say it”?

Temperament and persona matters in a presidential debate, not the ability to recite wonkish policy and stats.

The author of Almost DailyBrett was privileged to attend one debate, the second encounter between then Vice President George W. Bush and former Massachusetts Michael Dukakis. The debate will be forever remembered for Bernard Shaw’s (CNN) opening question to Dukakis and the governor’s response:

Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

DUKAKIS: “No, I don’t, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent …”dukakisdebate

It was not your command of criminal justice issues, governor … the question pertained to your wife being brutally raped and murdered. Shaw’s question was woefully unfair. Where was your revulsion? Didn’t you have any concern for the horrific image of Kitty being raped and murdered?

Instead, “I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent …” Were you a robot that night, governor? Where was the pathos?

Divorce Court?

The nationwide and swing-state polls are only snapshots in time at this particular moment. They will change after Monday.

Hillary has a lead in the horse race and most importantly in the Electoral College. The race is her’s to lose and she is doing her best to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

When it comes to boring wonkish detail (prose), no one can beat her. Monday’s debate is not a spelling bee. Will Hillary pile on Trump and his “basket of deplorables”? Will she offer more status quo or a vision of the future?

Conversely, which Donald Trump is going to show up? There are three debates, each lasting 90-minutes. Can Trump exhibit presidential discipline for four-and-one-half hours? Almost DailyBrett is taking the ‘under.’

The elite media of course will collectively declare a winner, most likely even as the debate is taking place, forcing one side to face the difficult chore of defending their champion in the post-debate Hofstra University spin room. Will the media winner/loser declaration drive follow-up polling, thus elevating the stature of the elites in communications? Bet on it.

But what if the event is judged as a tie? Doesn’t a tie go to the runner?

The 2016 election is a contest for an open-seat as Barack Obama is completing his second term. Who is the challenger (e.g., “the runner”)? One could argue that Trump holds that role, considering Hillary’s quarter-decade of more in politics (i.e., First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State).

Is a tie, a tie? No. It would be a win for Trump as the challenger always has the advantage.

Hillary will naturally swing for the fences, trying to expose The Donald’s lack of gravitas and more importantly trying to get under his legendary thin skin. Will The Donald take the bait? Your author is taking the “over.”

So … what are the best strategies for both candidates? Be offensive without being offensive. As Rove has suggested talk to moderator Lester Holt and therefore the nation, and not to be other candidate.

No one wants to watch a rerun of “Divorce Court.” And we don’t wonkish prose. What we need and what makes better theatre and “good moments” is passionate poetry, pointing to a brighter future or that Shining City on the Hill.

Will the debate degenerate into a bitter “he said, she said” series of exchanges? Quite possibly.

The goal is to win, but also to keep faith with mumsy’s “… It’s how you say it.”

PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

Maybe the Donald should remember he invited the Clintons to his third wedding in 2005, and Hillary should reflect she was sitting in the first row. There may be more poetry in being the first to walk over to shake the other candidate’s hand.

Maybe a single act of kindness will be is remembered from Monday’s debate?

Don’t count on it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-presidential-debates-matter-1474498044

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/business/presidential-debate-moderators-lester-holt-chris-wallace.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/21/carlos-curbelo/clintons-really-did-attend-donald-trumps-2005-wedd/

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: