Category: International Public Relations


How can a governor roll out the red carpet for the Queen of England, when it’s barely held together with tacky silver electrical tape?

One of the biggest disappointments in the four-decade career of Almost DailyBrett was seeing the Office of the Governor in Sacramento for the first time.

Would it be an exaggeration to describe the office in January 1983 as a “hell hole?” Yes, but not as much as one would think.

The red carpeting was held together with silver electrical tape. The paint was chipping off the walls. The casters were falling off the chairs. The office was a great before picture for “Sunset Magazine.”

The chief of staff’s office emitted a fresh sickening sweet aroma, the type of smell that is frequently found in parking garage stairwells.

The physical space of the Office of Governor had been neglected since 1967, the year Governor Ronald Reagan first put his hand on the Bible.

The California that my boss Governor George Deukmejian inherited 16 years later was $1.5 billion in the red, its Triple A bond rating was gone, and the Golden State was threatened with the prospect of paying its bills with IOUs.

Almost seems quaint compared to today’s record California budget deficit of $54 billion.

Feb. 26, 1983: California Gov. and Mrs. Deukmejian, left, watch as Mrs. George Finlayson, wife of the British Consul General, curtsies before Queen Elizabeth II in a reception line at the Broadway Street Pier in San Diego. This photo was published in the Feb. 27, 1983 LA Times.

And yet Queen Elizabeth II and her hubbie Prince Philip were coming to Sacramento, including a visit to the aforementioned hell-hole Office of the Governor on Saturday, March 5, 1983.

Could flat-broke California quickly renovate the office, when it couldn’t even pay its bills?

Our immediate predecessor, “Era of Limits” Jerry Brown (first eight years as California governor), patched up the fraying and decaying red carpeting with silver electrical tape. Did we want to show off of the embarrassment of the Office of the Governor of the largest state in the union to Queen Elizabeth in that condition?

Democrat state Senator Alfred E. Alquist (1908-2006) proposed an immediate solution, a massive $2 billion tax increase, right in the middle of a deep recession. Governor Deukmejian promised during the 1982 campaign not to raise taxes. Alquist had a plan for the governor to immediately break his pledge, divide the Republican Party and therefore ensure his tenure as a one-term California chief executive.

Philosophically, we did not believe in the public sector taking billions more from taxpayers, when most families were desperately trying to make ends meet.

Sutter’s Fort To The Rescue

Somehow, someway, we spruced up the office. It wasn’t glamorous, more cosmetic. The carpets were replaced. The walls were painted. There were 1849 Gold Rush era period pieces sprinkled throughout the office courtesy of Sutter’s Fort in Sacramento. Heck, there was even standard Home Depot-style blue tile in the governor’s corner office loo. George Deukmejian — who later was labeled “The Iron Duke” — was accused of being a spendthrift.

The queen’s California Dreamin’ itinerary included stops in San Diego, Palm Springs, LA, Yosemite, San Francisco and then Sacramento. Shortly before her trip to Sacramento, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip held a 31st wedding anniversary dinner for President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan aboard the HMY Britannia moored in San Francisco.

Almost DailyBrett distinctly remembers being asked by San Francisco Chronicle capitol reporter Rob Gunnison, whether George Deukmejian would have to transfer his authority to then Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy because the Britannia was a foreign flag “The Union Jack” vessel? An arcane law promulgated during the 19th Century days of the telegraph requires the Governor to cede powers to the Light Governor, whenever he or she leaves the state.

Was The Duke really departing California?

Your author’s first instinct was the question was preposterous. His second was only a lawyer would know for sure. Vance Raye was our Legal Affairs Secretary. Remember seeing him roll his eyes upon hearing the media question. After hours-upon-hours of research, Vance concluded that since the “Britannia” was floating in California waters, well within the three-mile state limit, therefore George Deukmejian remained present in the Golden State.

If someone wished to sue, then someone could very well sue. The law books were essentially silent when it came to governors, foreign-flag yachts, presidents, monarchs and California waters. We were more than confident, we would prevail — if necessary — in court. By then, it would be a moot point.

The story ultimately led to a happy ending. The queen enjoyed a smashingly brilliant visit to California. The Office of the Governor was presentable. There were zero lawsuits.

And best of all, Governor Deukmejian vetoed $1 billion out of the state budget and allowed the economic resurgence to do the rest.

The governor did not raise taxes, California’s budget was balanced with a prudent reserve for emergencies, the state’s Triple A bond rating was restored, and George Deukmejian was re-elected in the blue state’s greatest landslide (61 percent to 37 percent) in 1986.

Those were the days my friend; Almost DailyBrett wishes they never ended.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-queen-elizabeth-ii-visits-california-1983-20160420-snap-htmlstory.html

https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=485

https://www.courts.ca.gov/2648.htm

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/the-duke-the-prince-and-the-fainting-princess/

“I believe this weapon prevented the United States and allied forces from invading Japan. And because of the prevention of such an invasion, I’m sure that we’ve saved many, many lives. I couldn’t hazard a guess to how many, but I think it brought a quick end to the war.” — Colonel Paul Tibbets, mission commander of the B-29 strike force against Hiroshima

Colonel Paul Tibbets did not want a memorial service or a headstone.

He always feared his service would be interrupted and/or his marker would be desecrated.

Was Tibbets (1915-2007) prescient about how American history would be treated in the 21st Century by those with no sense of decency?

Instead, the B-29 mission commander asked for his ashes to be spread over the English Channel, ensuring his eternal peace. The geographic choice reflects the countless bombing sorties he and his crew mates made against Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany before being transferred to the Pacific.

Almost DailyBrett recognizes we are now exactly one month to the date of the 75th anniversary — Thursday, August 6 (Japan time) — of the dropping of the atomic bomb, ending World War II with a brilliant-and-horrific flash of light, heat and radiation.

Longtime Fox News correspondent Chris Wallace and AP investigative journalist Mitch Weiss co-wrote, “Countdown 1945, The Extraordinary Story Of The Atomic Bomb And The 116 Days That Changed The World.” 

The crux of the book, which reads similar to a page-turning novel, is the Mother of All Decisions made by a newly minted American president, Harry S. Truman.  After the passing of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) on April 12, 1945, Truman was inaugurated as America’s 33rd president. He quickly found out he had been deliberately kept in the dark about America’s greatest secret, the “Manhattan Project,” to produce a World War II game-changer: The atomic bomb.

All of the arguments and counter-arguments at the time and the present-day second-guessing are fully presented in Countdown 1945. For example, bomb use opponent Allied Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower argued: Japan was already defeated, America would be known as the country that dropped the uranium bomb, and inviting the USSR to enter into the war against Japan was a colossal mistake.

Stating that America would be stigmatized as the nation that dropped the bomb was/is self-evident. The invitation to Stalin to invade Manchuria led directly to present day headaches North Korea, Communist China and Vietnam. The notion that Japan was defeated in early 1945 is debatable today as it was then.

Truman knew that an invasion of Japan beginning with Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyushu) in November, 1945 and the following Operation Coronet (invasion of Honshu) would last approximately 18 months with a projected loss of 250,000 American lives/500,000 wounded and 1 million Japanese killed or wounded.

Was there another option to the prospect of at least 18 more months of war and a quarter-of-million American casualties or heaven forbid, even more?

The alternative was the bomb, first at Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki three days later. VJ Day, celebrating the surrender of Japan, was proclaimed nine days later on August 15. The choice turned out to be nine more days vs. 18 months. Truman made the call. His approval rating at the end of World War II stood at 87 percent.

Even to this day, the majority of Americans — no lower than 53 percent at any time since 1945 — approve Truman’s decision to drop the bomb on military-industrial sites to end the war — but the collateral damage to innocent civilians was still horrific. Dropping the bomb was both a difficult decision (e.g., thousands of civilian deaths) for Truman and an easy call (e.g., saving American lives, early end of World War II) all wrapped in one.

Any Remorse?

“I have often been asked if I had any remorse for what we did in 1945. I assure you that I have no remorse whatsoever and I will never apologize for what we did to end World War II. Humane warfare is an oxymoron. War by definition is barbaric. To try and distinguish between an acceptable method of killing and an unacceptable method is ludicrous.” — The only crew member (radar specialist) to fly both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions, Jacob Beser

There is zero doubt the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan ushered in the nuclear age, and with it the specter of nuclear annihilation on a savage global scale. According to the Arms Control Association (ACA), there were an estimated 14,000 nuclear warheads on the planet at the end of 2019, the majority held by Russia (6,490) and the United States (6,185). The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has kept these warheads in their silos, even when relations between the Americans and Russians became downright frosty.

Allied intelligence knew that Hitler was working on an atomic bomb (confirmed by armaments minister Albert Speer in his two books about the war). The Wallace/Weiss Countdown 1945 states that industrial espionage about the Manhattan Project was provided to Stalin by theoretical physicist and Soviet spy, Klaus Fuchs.

At some point in time other nations were going to inevitably discover the secrets of the atomic bomb, and potentially use them. The United States has that single distinction of twice employing nuclear weapons.

The intense debate over the use of the atomic bomb will undoubtedly resurrect itself with the coming 75th anniversary of Hiroshima. In this super politically charged environment, the strife over Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the potential to further divide us … if that is even possible.

Almost DailyBrett acknowledges that upwards to 226,000 were killed in the two atomic bomb attacks. Your author also knows that a quarter of million of Americans would have succumbed if the war continued for another 18 months (or longer) with the two planned invasions of Japan’s home islands.

We should also keep in mind that without Pearl Harbor, the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be etched in history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/stories-of-those-who-built-the-bomb-those-who-used-it-and-those-who-survived-it/2020/06/11/45ca237e-a5e4-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/06/28/mob-rules-misogyny-reigns/

 

“First of all, a campaign is a marathon, you know that. I don’t think he (Biden) was up for a marathon. I think he would have been worn down already in the campaign by this time if he had to be out there everyday.

“Plus, let’s be honest: He’s a bit of a gaffe machine. He’d be saying all sorts of different things.” — Liberal Political Pundit Bill Maher

Can Joe Biden take “The 5th” the clear way to the presidency?

Does he benefit that his name is not Donald Trump?

Can he simply follow Napoleon’s axiom: “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself”?

This is the year in which Covid giveth and Covid taketh.

The infectious disease has greatly reduced Joe Biden contacts with the media and the voters. And with the reduction of these contacts, the potential for embarrassing gaffes goes down as well.

Almost DailyBrett has adhered to two political truisms during his career: The first is you can’t beat someone with no one.

The second is the race for the Presidency is a choice, not a referendum. It always has been, it always will be.

The two truisms are complementary. For example, the 1980 challenger (e.g., Ronald Reagan) stepped up on the debate stage and said, “There you go again” to unpopular incumbent Jimmy Carter.

After the debate, David Broder of the Washington Post wrote: Carter had “accomplished almost every objective except the most important one: The destruction of Reagan’s credibility as a President.”

Some chief executives adopted Rose Garden strategies with no debates, attempting to ignore the challenger and run out the clock. Richard Nixon won the 1972  battle against George McGovern, but ultimately lost the war with Watergate two years later.

What happens when the challenger adopts a Del-a-Where Bunker Strategy (DBS)? Can Joe Biden go underground for four months, leaving all the warm-and-fuzzy partisan activist media to unleash their 24-7-365 fury on Donald Trump?

The basement strategy may sound tempting to Biden’s always nervous handlers, but he still has to emerge from his subterranean refuge to announce his choice for a vice president, a bleeding heartbeat away from the presidency. He also must deliver his Democratic Convention acceptance speech behind the safety of the warm-and-fuzzy teleprompter.

And he has to debate Donald Trump at least three times.

The first two can be carefully calibrated and controlled. The debates bring the greatest risk, turning a preferred referendum into a contentious choice with equal amounts of public attention on both the incumbent and the challenger.

Playing The Expectations Game

 “I tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” — White dude Biden to black radio show host Charlamagne Tha God

“To have that mindset, you must have the attitude that we, Black Americans, we own you. We can take you for granted. … That to me shows you that Black Americans are an appendage of a party. That’s the biggest turnoff I’ve heard from a politician in a long time.” — Black Entertainment Television (BET) Founder Robert Johnson

As the debates approach and expectations need to be managed the question becomes: How far can Democratic operatives talk down Joe Biden’s debating prospects without denigrating the former vice president?

And … How far can Democratic operatives talk up Donald Trump’s extensive stage presence and television experience (e.g., “The Apprentice”) without praising the president?

Do they acknowledge as Bill Maher said that Joe Biden is “a bit of a gaffe machine”? Okay, maybe more than “a bit.”

Even though Biden is sitting on a double-digit lead nationally and mostly within-the-margin of error (MOE) edges in battleground states (i.e., Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania), his support is predicated more on not being Donald Trump than on being Joe Biden.

Trump supporters by a 2/1 margin are more enthusiastic about the president. Biden backers are the mirror opposite; they are not enthusiastic about their guy, but detest and loathe (being kind here) Trump.

And there lies the temptation for the Biden team to glide toward the presidency, limiting appearance and interviews.

You can’t utter a gaffe if you don’t say anything.

Didn’t President Hillary Clinton adopt a similar strategy?

Who did she run against?

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/504617-bet-founder-bidens-you-aint-black-remark-biggest-turnoff-from-a-politician-in

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-says-biden-sidelined-by-coronavirus-rules-helped-shut-down-gaffe-machine

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-widens-lead-over-trump-republicans-enthusiastic-but-fear-motivates-dems

Almost DailyBrett must ask: Can public trust in the Journalism “profession” plummet any further?

Have the inmates finally taken over the elite asylums?

Is it finally time — actually past time — for professional accreditation of journalists, and to require compliance with a defined set of media standards for fairness, balance and objectivity?

Physicians must secure their doctorates in medicine, plus four years of residency. Lawyers are confronted with the Bar Exam upon the completion of law school. Accounting majors are faced with the CPA exam. Virtually anyone who wants to succeed in business needs to earn an MBA, preferably from a top school (i.e., USC, Oregon, Harvard, Wharton … ).

What then are present-day standards and best practices for objectivity, accuracy and fairness for future Journalists?

Some will point to a curricula of university-taught devotion to activism, and intolerance to any-and-all dissenting views? That’s what most in university ivory tower J-schools may think, but they are wrong. They have been off-base for decades.

What about credentials? Ever wonder why reporters, editors, correspondents are less respected more than ever by the American public? To suggest that journalists rank in the same league with used-car salesmen actually besmirches the good name of … used car salesmen.

The obvious answer lies with the question of professionalism or more to the point, the glaring lack of media professionalism. Who needs ethos or logos, when your reporting is your personal pathos? You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.

The question of media accreditation — not talking about the mere issuance of credentials — is a perennial topic. Even mentioning the subject is the equivalent of a crucifix to a vampire for kicking-and-screaming reporters, editors, anchors and correspondents.

How much lower can public opinion of Journalism plummet when it comes to trust … or more to the point … lack of trust in the media? The profession’s approval rating is lower than … (gasp) the reviled, Donald Trump.

The Devil In The Details

Some may blame all of the media’s plunging public esteem all on Trump, the one-and-the-same who labeled journalists as “Enemies of the People.”

Some may say, he went too far with his comments and instinctively worry about chilling effects on the First Amendment. Trump can read public opinion surveys as well as anyone else and can easily conclude … the public is clearly dissatisfied with the media. They are an easy target, and attacking them obviously fires up his base of Independents and Republicans.

Heck, only one-third of Democrats trust most of the digital and/or conventional content they see from the media according to a Knight Foundation survey.  Independents, 13 percent. Republicans? Only three percent.

Maybe more telling is that one-quarter of all independents do not trust any of the content emanating from today’s media, actually higher than the 21 percent of Republicans who have zero trust in media reports.

The media is failing big time when it comes to trust. The numbers tell an undeniable quantitative story.

Truth be known, the slide in public esteem and trust began shortly after the glorified days of Woodward & Bernstein in the mid-1970s, and accelerated since then the race to the bottom. The arrival of digital media and the corresponding decline of print journalism only changed the business models, but not the down-to-the-right trajectory for the “profession.”

How does Journalism restore public trust in the news and information it provides?

Isn’t the Fourth Estate supposed to be the watchdogs of our Democracy? Who watches the watchdogs?

If there are going to be media accreditation, similar to public relations practitioners by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), who can objectively — there goes that word again — assume this task?

If the proverbial media fox is guarding the Journalism hen house — sets the standards for accreditation and best practices — how can the public trust the results let alone believe again in those who are supposed to provide with fair-and-balanced news and information?

The devil is in the details, but Almost DailyBrett believes that independent members need to be part of the process, similar to Boards of Directors for publicly traded companies.

There are some in the “profession” who will say the First Amendment “as we know it” will be threatened, if they are compelled to be tolerant, fair, balanced and objective to all points of view, not just the ones that advocate for redistribution Socialist Justice.

Almost DailyBrett is confident the First Amendment will live on, if journalists are accredited and conform to best practices of fairness, balance and objectivity.

The mission should be restoration of public trust in the media — and with it — the resurrection of the troubled profession.

There is a way. The question remains: Is there a ‘will.’

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/should-reporters-register-as-lobbyists/

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trust-in-media-down.php

Indicators of news media trust

Back in the 1980s and into 1990s, Almost DailyBrett drove a sleek and sexy BMW 635csi.

She was beautiful. She was well-designed. She was high maintenance. It cost a fortune to take her out to dinner.

That was then, this is now.

Today Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) at $185 billion and counting has a higher market cap — stock price x number of shares — than the three legendary German auto designers/manufacturers combined (i.e., BMW. Daimler AG, Volkswagen) at $151 billion.

How can that be?

The time-tested names Bayerische Motoren Werke (1916),  Daimler (1926), and Volkswagen (1937) are legendary and enduring symbols of German engineering. Having acknowledged this undeniable fact and provided the totally justified praise, one still must ask: Do these companies and their respective stock prices point to the past or to the future?

After all a company’s stock price is a forward — rather than a — lagging indicator. Right?

Visiting the BMW Museum and BMW World in München in 2017, your author was impressed by the company’s century-long achievements when it came to the design of internal combustion engine automobiles and motorcycles. Having said that, the story fell off — literally the wheels came off — when it comes to electric vehicles (EV). The BMW offering is an ugly duckling.

Is this Bavarian econo-box with an electric charger, “The Ultimate Driving Machine?” Seriously?

Do you think that Elon Musk is quivering in his boots? The BMW i3 EV box looks like … a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf. Are those auto also-rans now competitors to BMW?

Considering that BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen — let alone long-time American and Japanese competitors — have been making gas powered vehicles for decades, do they really want to cannibalize their existing businesses? Are their collective hearts really into no gasoline, no emission, clean and environmentally responsible EVs?

The answer may be found in their ugly EVs. Can you see the difference between the sleek lines of the 20th Century BMW 635 csi and the boxy contours of the 21st Century BMW i3 EV? Did the same company design these vehicles?

What happened? Why is BMW going backward?

Tesla Is A Pure Play

Before going further, Almost DailyBrett must provide a consumer warning after buying and selling Tesla stock five times before, making a nice profit four times. Your author owns a handful of TSLA shares now as he writes this submission.

Musk will never be hampered with the concern about competing against his own business. Tesla designs and manufactures EVs, ion lithium batteries and related software. Does the South Africa Wunderkind have a singleness of purpose? Of course not, he also guides privately held SpaceX in his spare time as the company propelled Americans into space for the first time since 1998.

As $400 million net worth Mr. Wonderful investor Kevin O’Leary recently said, Tesla is the way that investors can participate in the SpaceX story. Tesla is four figures expensive and has an astronomical 89 times forward earnings P/E ratio (stock price/forward annualized earnings per share). Shareholders need to watch this volatile stock carefully and take Maalox on the side.

For the time being, TSLA is a trading stock not a long-term buy and hold.

Now that the requisite investor warning has been issued, it’s perfectly acceptable to be dazzled by the beauty of Tesla’s sexy cars. In an absolute marketing coup, Musk showed off Tesla’s truck, semi and most of all its sexy lineup of cars — Model S sedan, MSRP $74,990, Model 3 sedan, $37,990 and Model X SUV, $79,990 — to car aficionado former Tonight Show host/comedian Jay Leno.

“Jay Leno’s Garage” is a prime-time show, following “Shark Tank,” on Wall Street on steroids network, CNBC. One can only imagine the average wealth of “Garage” and “Tank” viewers. Heck, Musk and Leno even showed off the Tesla roadster, which will only set you back about $200,000.

Is it time for Almost DailyBrett to trade in his Miata roadster? Don’t think so.

When it comes to Tesla, the company is pointed toward a no-combustion engine, no gas-guzzling and no emissions-into-the-atmosphere future.

While other companies are kicking and screaming as they are being dragged along to the electric vehicle horizon, Tesla is the pioneer, best in breed and No. 1 EV and ion lithium battery innovator all rolled into one.

Is TSLA a cult stock, based upon the Steve Jobs-type innovation of Elon Musk? Yes.

Is that a good enough reason, not to buy the stock? Does sex sell?

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND/members

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/every-electric-car-ev-range-audi-chevy-tesla/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/112315/net-worth-shark-tank-cast.asp#2-kevin-oleary

 

There are times when the First Amendment prevails.

There are times when arrogance and smugness fail.

There are times when there really are two sides to a story.

It’s amazing for Almost DailyBrett to watch and re-watch the July 18, 2016 interview between CNN’s Don Lemon and former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke on the supercharged subjects of race and policing, and realize the intensity, the passions, the issues and the rhetoric have not changed.

For Lemon, he was sitting side-by-side with Sheriff Clarke. The seven-figure anchor could not resort to the dependable “R” label under the first signs of intellectual pressure because the head Milwaukee County law enforcement officer is also … an African American.

Alas, the interview was not a satellite uplink, which would have provided Lemon with an easy forum for smirking, if not laughing during his reaction shots. The exchange was mano-a-mano and Lemon blinked, calling for a commercial break in the middle of the interview.

We’ll be right back, we’re going to go to break. Are you (Clarke) going to let me (Lemon) talk?” — Don Lemon in punt formation.

After the commercial appeals for legal tender, the interview continued with Sheriff Clarke back on offense and Lemon wondering … ‘who booked this guest?’ Dissent was talking back. Arrogance was being rejected. The other side of the story was being presented. First Amendment Rights were being exercised.

The optics were Sheriff Clarke refusing to be intimidated or to back down in the immediate aftermath of the death of three Baton Rouge peace officers, countering Lemon point-by-point with controlled intensity.

Clarke was well prepared for the interview with a defined agenda, compelling facts and information. Most of all, he was there on behalf of the law enforcement fraternity. He was standing up for all police officers, particularly those who paid the ultimate price for our safety.

David Alexander Clarke Jr. was the other side of the story, even though way too many in the Fourth Estate contend there is only one side to any story. They will make that determination without any help thank you very much.

Finis. Endo Musico.

The real question is, whether Lemon was prepared? Just as Apollo Creed did not take Rocky seriously, Lemon was obviously not ready to respond to the rhetorical exchange with Sheriff Clarke. The sheriff deals with the cruel world on the streets night-after-night rather than pontificating in a plush air-conditioned studio surrounded by adoring sycophants.

The CNN Apologencia will conclude that Lemon did not lose the exchange. Fair enough, but he did not win.

Four years later, the issue as everyone knows has exploded for two weeks and counting, reignited by the senseless Memorial Day murder of George Floyd by one Minneapolis police officer in particular and four officers in toto. All four officers are staring at some major jail time, up to 50 years for second-degree murder or being accomplices to murder by asphyxiation.

Due process will run its course.

In the meantime a veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council — and even New York Mayor Bill De Blasio — have called for defunding police departments. Minneapolis would replace its peace officers with a “new transformative model for cultivating safety.” How does the “transformative model” work, if someone is breaking into your house or stealing your car?

Back in 2016, Donald Trump promised to end crime in America. The late Charles Krauthammer scoffed at this notion, reminding his readers and viewers that crime has been a plague on societies since Babylonian King Hammurabi — served from 1792-1750 BC — and his code of 282 laws. If Hammurabi was concerned with crime and punishment almost 4,000 years ago, why should we take thousands well-intentioned police officers off the beat because of few bad cops in the 21st Century?

Police officers put their lives on the line every day. Some pay the ultimate price for our safety. Sheriff David Clarke dared to stand-up for his fellow police officers, some of whom recently kneeled with peaceful protesters, while protecting communities from those selfishly exploiting a tense situation with violence and criminality.

When divisions expand and the mood becomes even more volatile and explosive, the public need for media professionalism and fairness becomes greater than ever.

Almost DailyBrett believes that dissent must not be silenced by partisan media intimidation.

Your author contends that arrogance and smugness must not prevail.

And most of all, there are always two sides to a given story and both deserve their day in the courtroom of public opinion.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/veto-proof-majority-of-minneapolis-city-council-supports-defunding-police-mayor-objects/

https://www.kgun9.com/news/national/sheriff-clarke-on-recent-police-shootings-i-predicted-this

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/18/don-lemon-sheriff-david-clarke-police-shootings-full-intv-ctn.cnn

 

 

 

 

As a relatively new press secretary for California Governor George Deukmejian in 1987, your author was more than a little surprised to learn that Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis was paying an unscheduled visit to his colleague and my boss, “The Iron Duke.”

Dukakis was standing before the governor’s office door in the cabinet room in the State Capitol in Sacramento. He was cordial and polite, and apologized for the unexpected visit. The 1980s were a different time, more to the point a better era.

The political media was tailing along with Governor Dukakis that particular Wednesday, May 20 as he was running for the 1988 Democratic nomination for president. Dukakis was certainly not looking for encouragement as George Deukmejian was a Reagan-Bush Republican. And yet, George Deukmejian made time for his National Governor’s Association colleague and friend, Michael Dukakis.

My boss was never enamored about “surprises,” but he gladly welcomed Dukakis. The two demonstrated to America then and now that civility can reign, even if he political differences run deep.

Years later, George Deukmejian and his wife, Gloria, were sitting on the beach in Hana, Maui about to enjoy a picnic lunch, when a voice cried out … “Duke!” It was the other Duke, Michael Dukakis and his wife Kitty. One can only imagine they had some great stories to tell that afternoon and got along swimmingly.

As we celebrate what would have been George Deukmejian’s 92nd. birthday tomorrow on D-Day (June 6), we need to contemplate that America in general and California in particular were very different places when the Duke was governor from 1983-1991.

Almost DailyBrett is proud to champion that Governor George Deukmejian (1928-2018) is the most popular chief executive in blue state California’s modern political history by more than a two-to-one margin (66 percent approval, 30 percent disapproval)

Better than The Gipper. Better than Jerry. Better than AH-Nold.

Loss of Civility

George Deukmejian privately lamented the loss of civility, even in tamer times … night-and-day different times.

He remembered his policy debates on the floor of the California State Senate as the Republican minority leader against George Moscone, the Democratic majority leader. And when the rhetorical exchange ended, the two Georges could be seen having a glass of wine. Seems quaint now. Actually it sounds better.

George Deukmejian was not one for rhetorical questions. Subsequently, his press secretary avoided them like the plague. And yet when Almost DailyBrett posed a rhetorical question on the 1982 campaign trail — ‘how many terms did he envision as governor?’ — He immediately responded,”two terms.” Even though California did not have term limits at the time, Deukmejian knew then and there … there would be no third term.

His reasoning. Like any governor, you want the people of California to ratify your administration and policy direction through re-election (e.g., 61-37 percent). If a governor runs for a third term, there is the problem of the tyranny of accumulated decisions and with each one the number of disappointed people inevitably grows.

Only one California Governor was elected a third term, Earl Warren (later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court). One other pursued a third term (e.g., Pat Brown) and he lost to a certain movie actor.

What was his name?

As Almost DailyBrett looks over the 2020 political minefield, there is no chivalry. George Patton and Erwin Rommel will not come down from their tanks, shake hands, and then engage in battle with the victor winning the war.

There is zero civility similar to Deukmejian-Dukakis, Deukmejian-Moscone and the more celebrated relationship between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill.

Today the President of the United States refuses to shake the hand of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and she responds by tearing up his State of the Union speech. Their collective hatred went downhill from there.

Your author certainly will not scold anyone for thinking that today’s divisions and tribal hatreds are now a permanent fixture of our troubled society. After all, politics is indeed a contact sport.

There was a lot of heat in political kitchens (paraphrasing the famous Harry S. Truman quote) even in the 1980s, but there were also times of consideration, politeness, cordiality and celebrated instances when civility indeed did reign across the fruited plain.

Happy Birthday Iron Duke. We miss you. We will always love you.

Some day this author will hopefully join you for a glass of wine in heaven, and ponder the lessons of the 1980s.

https://www.ctpost.com/politics/article/Jerry-Brown-boasts-approval-ratings-higher-than-8355461.php

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/05/08/george-deukmejian-ex-governor-of-california-dies/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/tearing-up-the-speech-paying-the-pr-price/

 

Comparing one year to another in a different era is always an inexact science.

It’s easy to poke holes in any comparison and thus attempt to render the point meaningless, but this author will not go down easily.

The “perfect storm” of volatile factors in 2020 reminds Almost DailyBrett of a terrible year … 1968.

Certainly, there are no direct equivalents of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy (and let’s keep it that way).

Neither is there a similarity to the eye-opening Tet Offensive nor directly related deaths of US soldiers, which exposed that America was systematically misled and deceived about the Vietnam War.

Consider that 2020 and 1968 will always be remembered as election years with flash-point incumbents.

Americans have been cooped up indoors for months, way too many losing their livelihoods in a provoked recession, and then the weather grew hotter and George Floyd was senselessly murdered by a Minneapolis criminal cop.

And similar to 1968 (e.g., Chicago riot), legitimate protesters had their voices and actions drowned out by organized anarchists (sounds like an oxymoron, but sadly it’s not) who want to hurt people, steal, burn and create havoc. If one Googles “Antifa Portland,” 619,000 results pour back in 0.33 of a second.

Reflecting back on 1968 — your author was 13-years-very-young — it literally took another decade-plus until America settled down again in the 1980s. Will it take that long after what is setting up to be a rotten, 2020?

There were more than a few, who detested the violence on university campuses and in the streets back in 1968. They became a political force of their own: “The Silent Majority.”

Is it deja vu all over again?

The Rebirth of the Silent Majority?

What about the overwhelming majority of Americans, who are sickened by what happened to defenseless George Floyd … begging for the right to breathe on Memorial Day? They want the officers responsible, particularly one in particular, to face severe music. Justice must be done.

Having said that, the preponderance of Americans are staying away from the streets. They are incredulous by what they’re seeing on television and social media.

Didn’t the overwhelming number of voters elect and re-elect the first-ever African-American president, Barack Obama, in 2008 and 2012? We were internationally celebrated for being open and fair-minded. Are Obama’s historic elections now irrelevant?

The George Floyd murder comes across as an exploited opportunity by many who just want to destroy communities. They are looters, stealing from expensive stores. There are trigger-happy Yahoos with assault weapons — allegedly protecting places of business — just looking for any excuse to open fire.

Cable television and the Internet in 2020 are delivering these horrific videos and placing them in our collective faces. Didn’t television in 1968 bring the carnage of Vietnam into our living rooms on a nightly basis? At the time, the U.S. military drafted literally thousands to fight in rice paddies in a war, which was never explained, much less declared.

Then-candidate Richard Milhous Nixon called for a restoration of “law and order” on the 1968 campaign trail. Do we want another officer putting his knee on the neck of an unarmed man? The answer is an easy, ‘no.’ This abominable practice must stop now and forever.

At the same time, a riot usurping a protest is still a riot.

Can we conclude that a 21st Century equivalent of the 1960s Silent Majority detests and loathes rioters breaking windows, looting stores, burning vehicles, assaulting police officers, fire fighters, security personnel, chasing and intimidating reporters, and destroying Starbucks … just because it’s corporate Starbucks?

The Silent Majority wants to turn down the sound, cancel out the noise and return to some sense of normalcy.

Almost DailyBrett will be the first to admit making the wrong call in the 2016 election. This year started with rising markets, the best economy in one-half century, a positive atmosphere for any disciplined incumbent … assuming the incumbent is capable of political discipline.

Oh what a strange trip it has been: The Covid-19 outbreak, the unprecedented lock down, the forced recession, masked people fighting unmasked people, and then and now … the George Floyd murder and out-of-control chaos.

What’s next? There will be more. It’s not Morning in America, more like Midnight on the Streets.

Just as a turn of events spiraled out of control in 1968, the same seems to be true in 2020.

Who benefits and who does not — we need to be honest — no one knows.

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/10/27/what-happened-to-the-exceptional-nation-that-twice-elected-barack-obama/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at thus chorus of entitled white men, justifying a serial rapist’s (e.g., US Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh) arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to the swine? Yes.” — Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair

“Bias against women as political leaders has clearly diminished in modern times, and women have been elected to state governorships (e.g., Nikki Haley) and other executive offices with some frequency. But the presidency is the ultimate executive office, and there are still many men, and some women, who have hidden (or not so hidden) gender prejudices.” — Professor Larry Sabato, UVA Center For Politics

What is the male equivalent of the word, “misogyny?”

Are you ready for … “misandry?”

Haven’t heard the term, misandrists or women who hate men? The same was true for Almost DailyBrett until recently.

In our advanced 21st Century civilization there seems to be only public dialogue of the unfortunate practice of misogyny and evil misogynists, which is appropriate but is that the end of the discussion?

As former Vice President Joe Biden contemplates, which woman he will add to the ticket (too bad he closed the gender door to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), the always excitable resistance journalists will hyperventilate about how his running mate choice will impact THE Gender Gap (Democrats vs. Republicans and the women’s vote).

Translated: Who will better assist Biden in firming up and expanding his base with women: Stacey Abrams? Kamala Harris? Amy Klobuchar? Catherine Cortez Masto? Elizabeth Warren?

Your author fully anticipates the predictable absence of pundit bloviation of what is another valid factor, if not an equally germane discussion: What will be the impact of the chosen woman running mate on the forgotten gender gap: Republicans vs. Democrats and the vote by men (assuming all American males don’t suffer miserable deaths, while feminists laugh in the meantime).

Looking back at 2016 exit polling, we find not surprisingly that Hillary Clinton carried THE gender gap by a 13 point margin (54 percent-41 percent).

Conversely, Donald Trump won the forgotten gender gap by 11 points (52 percent-41 percent).

This assessment of the women vs. men voting tendency divide is not the end of the story, just the end of the beginning.

Digging deeper into the numbers, we find that inconceivably Hillary Clinton actually lost the white women’s vote to Donald Trump (52-43 percent). White men in numbers with high propensity, voted for Trump over Hillary by two-to-one landslide, 62 percent to 31 percent.

Three times in the past 48 years, Republican nominees have captured 50 percent or more of the total vote among women (Nixon, 61 percent in 1972, Reagan, 56 percent in 1984 and George H.W. Bush, 50 percent in 1988)

Only once in the last 48 years has a Democratic nominee won 50 percent of the total vote among men (Jimmy Carter with 50 percent in 1976).

‘Don’t Want This Particular Woman’

“Throughout the campaign, an observer could not miss an assertion made frequently by women young and old: ‘I want a woman president, and I’m sure we’ll have a woman president soon, but I don’t want this particular woman (e.g., Hillary Clinton).'” — Larry Sabato

Donald Trump’s two-for-one victory among men in 2016 should not be dismissed particularly as it applies to the fly-over swing-states including: Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin … White men and Midwest swing states still matter in 2020.

Should Joe Biden pay attention to the forgotten gender gap? How will his choice of running mate, a bleeding heartbeat away from the presidency impact the men’s vote?

Trust Almost DailyBrett on this point: The good folks at CNN, MSDNC, NBC and CBS will pay scant attention to the shave-their-faces in the morning demographic. They will focus on how a shrill Elizabeth Warren fires up progressive women base or how an angry Kamala Harris will perform in a debate against cool customer, Mike Pence.

Even as apoplectic Warren clearly unnerves Wall Street and America’s Investor Class (more than half of the country), how will she play with men in must-win-for-either-side, Florida?

Considering Biden’s rhetorical struggle against himself, could an oratorically gifted Governor Cuomo have been a wiser choice as a running mate?

Let’s also weigh Biden’s “… you ain’t black” gaffe with the African-American community. Will adding Georgia governorship loser Stacey Abrams or “I don’t believe you (Biden) are a racist” Kamala Harris solve the nominee’s problems with blacks in particular, and American men in general?

Maybe making the premature announcement that he would only consider a woman for the VP slot was political malpractice? Why close out one gender so early, when your party has historical major political problems with that very same gender, men?

Are progressive women going to vote for Trump, if an Andrew Cuomo or Cory Booker is selected? Forget about it.

Men are relevant. Men matter. They vote. They don’t appreciate being placed in a “basket of deplorables.” They will not be the forgotten gender gap.

Most of all, they will be there in November.

https://www.lexico.com/explore/what-is-the-female-equivalent-of-a-misogynist

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2018/10/02/when-boy-meets-girl/

“This is someone (President of the United States) whose grasp of science is at the third-grade level.” – New York Times science and health “beat” reporter Donald McNeil, Jr. during his May 12 CNN interview. He also called on the CDC’s Dr. Robert Redfield to resign.

“Donald McNeil went too far in expressing his personal views . His editors have discussed the issue with him to reiterate that his job is to report the facts and to not offer his own opinions.” — New York Times management rebuking McNeil

Reporters should not be part of the story, let alone be the story.

The acceleration of the decline in public esteem in elite media is not solely attributable to the Fourth Estate’s collective hatred of the president, and ensuing pack mentality that ensures that any reporter, correspondent, anchor can never be seen as being even a tiny bit sympathetic to Donald Trump.

It was the same pack mentality that unofficially declared any positive discussion of Trump’s 2016 electoral chances (exception: FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten) was strictly verboten in print, digital format and broadcast. In effect, the media became a major part of the story and may have unintentionally suppressed Hillary Clinton’s GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, thus aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s narrow upset victory.

Almost DailyBrett noticed a disturbing trend years ago, even before Trump’s Apprentice days: Reporters interviewing reporters.

Wait. Aren’t reporters supposed to be covering news makers, the important achievers in our society? As a member of the great unwashed, your author wants to hear from Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx when it comes to virology, not Donald McNeil, Jr., who graduated summa cum laude from Cal Berkeley with an undergraduate degree in …  rhetoric.

And yet instead of a credentialed medical expert, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour was interviewing McNeil about the Covid-19 outbreak and America’s response.

On what basis of fact does McNeil conclude that President Trump’s grasp of science is at the “third grade level,” “sycophant” Vice President Mike Pence should not be serving as the chair of the Corona Virus Task Force, and CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield (MD, Georgetown University, 1977) should resign.

Should we all be wearing masks even outdoors, Dr. McNeil?

It’s a rare day when Almost DailyBrett totally agrees with the editors at the New York Times, but McNeil expressed his obviously biased political views and did not even attempt for even a nanosecond to report any facts. The rebuke from the New York Times was essentially a slap on the wrist.

Your author believes that if McNeil was to appear on one of the many ubiquitous reporters interviewing reporters shows, he should stick to his coverage based upon facts learned. Now that he has called for Redfield to resign from his leadership at the Centers for Disease Control, how can McNeil cover the agency fairly?

McNeil is now jaded and exposed. He needs to be taken off the beat. He is not impartial. All of his subsequent copy is now and forever suspect. The fault is McNeil’s, and McNeil’s alone.

The next time McNeil editorializing occurs (Almost DailyBrett is taking the “over”), the blame will be directed to the management of the New York Times.

Taking A Vow Of Poverty

“It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.” — CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite, Feb. 27, 1968

Your author remembers J-School back in the Stone Age (1975-1978).

We learned how to gather facts and report the news professionally, fairly and objectively with the views of both sides represented regardless of our personal expression.

As we all took a vow of poverty, our opinions were irrelevant and most of all … should not enter into our copy or scripts.

What mattered were the ex-cathedra statements and fallacies of our elected leaders. We were there to cover them … not to preach, pontificate or bloviate. Right, Jim Acosta of CNN?

And there it is, Washington Week In Review on PBS with panelists enlisted from more than 100 reporters (curiously none from cable market leader, Fox News). Each Friday night, if you didn’t have anything better to do, reporters kibbutz and provide you with their hallowed personal opinions. The “interpretation” disease is now widespread and mutating.

One commenter pointed to Almost DailyBrett’s admiration of the professionalism and demand for both sides of any story to be covered by revered former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite. It was the very same Cronkite, who based upon years of coverage including on the ground in Southeast Asia declared the Vietnam War as a “stalemate.

Wasn’t Cronkite offering his opinion?

He was making a conclusion based on the on-the-ground facts immediately following the Tet Offensive, which made it clear the Communists had grabbed the upper hand in Vietnam. Declaring the Vietnam War as a “stalemate” was actually a mild description. America lost the war. The end came with helicopters on the roof of the collapsing American embassy in Saigon in 1975.

Isn’t Cronkite’s Vietnam declaration the same as McNeil’s opinion making?

Incorporating Cronkite and McNeil in the same sentence, besmirches the good name of 1972’s “Most Trusted Man In America.”

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/12/donald-g-mcneil-jr-senate-hearing-coronavirus-sot-amanpour-vpx.cnn

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/panelists

https://www.usnews.com/news/ken-walshs-washington/articles/2018-02-27/50-years-ago-walter-cronkite-changed-a-nation

%d bloggers like this: