Tell ‘Em To ‘Pound Sand,’ Harry

“I know every one of these 50 fellows. There isn’t one them that has enough sense to pound sand down a rat hole.” — President Harry S. Truman upon learning that 50 political writers polled by Newsweek had all predicted that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would win the 1948 presidential election.

“I think the press has been pretending to much more wisdom (or is it smartness?) than it had any right to claim, and has been getting away with murder for some time. The plain fact now appears to be that (as far as politics is concerned, at least) the press hasn’t known what time of day it is for years.” — T.S. Matthews, Time magazine managing editor, 1948

Almost DailyBrett remembers his boss California Governor George Deukmejian’s Two Laws of Politics: Never take anything for granted (e.g., Dewey), Run as if you are running behind (e.g., Truman).

Do you suspect the Duke learned these rules as a young aide from Albany sending messages to the Dewey campaign train?

Reading historian David McCullough’s 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Autobiography, a 992-page door-stop “Truman,” one his struck how the New York/Washington Punditocracy was so very wrong — even worse than Donald Trump’s upset of Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Your author has asked before and will pose the same question again: ‘Why do we listen to these people?’ They largely never leave Mid-Town Manhattan or the Friendly Confines of the Beltway. Their worlds are very small only talking to each other. That was the truth in 1948, again in 2016 and most likely in 2024 and beyond.

The Little Bridegroom On The Wedding Cake

The trend away from the hard work of reporting facts on the ground as they play out day-in, day-out to providing the great unwashed with personal interpretations has been poisoning the profession of Journalism for almost 75 years and counting.

‘Why cover a campaign, that’s over when I can personally tell the public what it all means (in my informed opinion).’ That was the case in 1948, when the conventional wisdom was that New York Governor Thomas Dewey was going to be sworn in as the 34th President of the United States.

This was the same Dewey, who lamely talked about “unity” (where have we heard that before?). Dewey was the little man with the moustache — he was sensitive about his height — who looks “like the bridegroom on the wedding cake.”

As the wife of a New York Republican politician once said: “You have to know Dewey well in order to dislike him.”

In direct contrast, ‘Give ‘Em Hell’ Harry’ took the fight to Dewey and the “Do Nothing” 80th Congress from the back of his Ferdinand Magellan campaign train on its Whistle-Stop tour of America. The former farmer from Missouri understood the heartland. He triggered a massive shift in sentiment, particularly with the farm vote, while the media and pollsters were a sleep at the switch.

The polling industry stopped tracking the campaign two weeks before election day. Harry Truman kept on giving Hell to Dewey and the Republicans. The GOP thought the election was in the bag. Truman was drawing crowds, big crowds. You can’t draw definitive conclusions from audience sizes, but you can’t discount them either.

And with the reliance, make that overreliance on polling comes a potential negative to Democracy as explained by Truman assistant press secretary Eben Ayers: “There has been a danger, it has seemed to me, that the polls would reach a point, if they continued to be right, where they easily could easily control the outcome of an election.”

The good news is the pundits can be and have been wrong. The pollsters take snap-shots of sentiments, but no more. The American people, particularly the working stiffs in the Fly-Over States, have proven in the last two centuries to be mercurial. They need be understood. Their voices need to be heard (qualitative research) and measured every day — rolling tracking — until election day (quantitative research).

Almost DailyBrett believes that reporters, anchors, editors and correspondents need to get off their lazy behinds, and get out to heartland to actually listen, instead of pontificating and bloviating their sacred opinions about the historical failures of America.

Sorry very few care about 1619. We need to be focused on 2022 and 2024. We don’t want to go back to Donald Trump, but forward. Winning political campaigns are directed toward the future — (e.g., The New Deal, New Frontiers, Morning in America) — not the past.

In Donald McCullough’s Truman, we learned the president in effect was the challenger even though he was the incumbent. He took his case directly to the American people. He pointed to his accomplishments and the record of his predecessor President Franklin Delano Roosevelt — New Deal, Marshall Plan, Berlin Airlift, Ending World War II — and projected more of the same for the future.

Thomas E. Dewey talked about, “Unity.”

My Dog Is Bigger Than Your Dog

Ending War With A Sudden Flash Of Light

A Great Ex-President

“We always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own. Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy.” — President Jimmy Carter, Crisis of Confidence (‘Malaise’) Speech, July 15, 1979

“If his (Carter) administration had been a novel, a book, you would have had to read it from the back to the front to get a happy ending.” — President Ronald Reagan, October 29, 1984

As the final chapters are being recorded of Jimmy Carter’s eventful life, Almost DailyBrett is impressed by the sheer number of supporters of the former president. They cite his impressive post-presidency humanitarian works and deeds including his support for Habitat for Humanity, guarding against third-world voting fraud, and meeting with Kim Il Sung in North Korea.

These accolades are all true. Jimmy Carter has been a great ex-president. The problem with this avalanche of praise is the simultaneous whitewashing of his sad presidency.

For Carter’s apologists, they have ventured past denial and anger and appear anchored in the bargaining phase. Will they ever make it through the depression and finally acceptance, when it comes to confronting the reality of his presidency?

Jimmy Carter was the Martin Van Buren of the 20th Century. Maybe that comparison besmirches the legacy of our nearly forgotten 8th president, historically wedged in-between “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson and “Tippecanoe” William Henry Harrison.

As certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, a revisionist history campaign is being planned for the inevitable passing of the 39th president. Critics, particularly those who lived through and vividly remember Carter’s desultory tenure, will be effectively silenced upon the eventual passing of a former president.

One must not speak ill of the deceased.

In this light, we will be compelled to celebrate his presidency and extol Jimmy Carter’s commitment to good works as an ex-president. The problem with this campaign are the optics of Carter’s presidency, and the painful memories they harken to those who were alive from 1977-1981.

Unlike Harry S. Truman, Jimmy Carter’s presidency will not look any better with the passage of time.

“It’s all over, it’s gone!”

“The main asset any Republican candidate brought to this race for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was that he wasn’t Jimmy Carter.” — Former MSNBC anchor and Carter aide Chris Matthews, “Tip and The Gipper”

 “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?” — Ronald Reagan presidential debate closing statement, October 28, 1980

Carter Pollster Patrick Caddell relayed the final polling tracking to White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan on the wee hours of election day, November 4, 1980. Never in Caddell’s career had he ever witnessed such a massive shift of public opinion in the last days and hours of the campaign from one candidate (Carter) to another (Reagan.)

Never in recorded (and unrecorded) American history has an incumbent president been beaten as badly as Carter’s loss to Reagan. The final count: Reagan, 489 electoral votes, Carter 49. Reagan captured 44 states, Carter 7 including DC. The popular vote favored Reagan 50.7 percent to Carter’s 41 percent.

The “It’s all over, it’s gone” conversation was recounted in Jordan’s aptly titled book about the Carter presidency: “Crisis.”

Carter is credited with introducing Arthur Okun of the Brookings Institute’s “Misery Index” (e.g., the combination of the national unemployment rate and the measure of inflation), using it effectively against President Gerald Ford in 1976.

Ford completed his presidency with 12.66 misery index. Carter’s presidency finished with a 19.72 misery index. Oops. Was Carter hoisted on his own petard?

Shortly after the malaise speech (the actual word was not used, but the president’s unfortunate remarks live on), Senator Ted Kennedy (1932-2009) decided to wage a primary challenge against his own party’s incumbent president for the Democratic nomination.

The months long fight was bitter and ultimately Carter won the nomination. Your author still remembers Carter standing on the convention stage on the final night waiting for Kennedy to come down and join him in the traditional unity hand grasp. He waited. He waited. And he waited. And he waited some more.

Finally Kennedy appeared, but the political damage was done. There was no warmth. Kennedy did his duty. It seemed the convention wanted “The Lion of the Senate” instead of its own nominee.

Now there are those who equate Carter’s ex-presidency with his presidency. Almost DailyBrett poses the question to those engaging in Carteresque revisionist history: ‘Did you support Jimmy Carter or Ted Kennedy in 1980?’

If it was the latter and you are now engaged in Carter bargaining and revisionist history, you have some explaining to do.

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycartercrisisofconfidence.htm

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/remarks-reagan-bush-rally-millersville-pennsylvania

https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-28-1980-debate-transcript/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

“The Other Side of the Story”

“The World Is Quiet Today, Mr. President”

When Reagan Walked Into The Room

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-brookings-institutions-arthur-okun-father-of-the-misery-index/

Ending War With A Sudden Flash Of Light

“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

Mob Rules; Misogyny Reigns

Celebrating A Time When Civility Reigned

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/

Tearing Up The Speech; Paying The PR Price

 

“Born With A Silver Foot In His Mouth”

“Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.” — Former Texas Governor Ann Richards (1933-2006)

“You’ve probably received a hundred of these ‘feet’ but I want you to have this one from me – a peace offering.” – President-elect George H.W. Bush note, sending a silver foot pin to soon-to-be Texas Governor Ann Richards November, 1988

”I think it was a kind and generous gesture on his part. I was delighted that he saw and enjoyed the humor in the keynote address.” — Ann Richards upon receiving the silver foot pin

How come our politics can’t be practiced with clever satire, even a smile, a wink, and better yet … take it that way?

Ann Richards gave #41 the business in her keynote address to the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta with a smile on her face, an endearing Texas drawl, and great sense of timing and humor.

Yes, Harry S. Truman once said that if you needed a friend in Washington, D.C. — get a dog. Does that require everyone to be so doggone mean?

Maybe, just maybe, that old dog can still hunt.

See The Other Point Of View

“Do it with all you’ve got. Keep your cool, work like hell, don’t let the meanness that will surface get you down, don’t overreact, see the other guy’s point of view. See his merits but convince people you are the better man — for you are.” — Former President George H.W. Bush advice to his son former President George W. Bush in 1977

“Ellen (Degeneres) and George Bush together makes me have faith in America, again” — Tweet from Matt highlighted on Ellen’s Show

The broadcast image of Ellen Degeneres sitting right next to former President George W. Bush at last Sunday’s Dallas Cowboys vs. Green Bay Packers game went viral, and generated a series of unpleasant comments about how she could occupy the same space with #43.

The CBS Evening News’ headline said that Ellen “defends” her friendship with the former president.

CNN along the same vain noted that Ellen “explains” sitting next to the Republican chief executive.

Almost DailyBrett must rhetorically ask these media elites: Why does someone, anyone have to “defend” or “explain” being nice?

Have we reached a point that being kind to someone, who does not share your political philosophy, is somehow a crime?

“People were upset, why is a gay Hollywood liberal sitting next to a conservative Republican president? I am friends with George Bush.” — Ellen Degeneres

Your author is mature enough to remember vividly Ann Richards chiding George H.W. Bush, literally bringing down the house in Atlanta with laughter. Richards was effective, but she was not mean … not even close. The prevailing civil behavior of our politicians at that time was a model for the nation.

The outright hatred and hostility in Washington toward those who do not share a given philosophy has extended to public discourse and nasty behavior from sea-to-shining sea. We are talking about the way each individual sees the world and the direction of the country.

There are some that are even amazed that a Reaganite Republican and a Obamaesque Democrat cannot only inseparably co-exist for seven years, but most of all … love each other. Jeanne even happily joined me for a 2017 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

Almost DailyBrett will speak in an ex-cathedra manner: If a couple cannot love each other because they hold differing … maybe even diametrically opposed … political philosophies, then the relationship is doomed from the start. How about focusing on areas of agreement?

Your author is often chided for romancing a better time, somehow turning back the clock. Guilty as charged. It was better then, why can’t it be better now?

As Ellen stated on Tuesday: “Just because I don’t agree with someone on everything doesn’t mean I’m not friends with them. When I say, ‘Be kind to people,’ I don’t mean only the people who think the way you do. Be kind to everybody.”

Amen, Ellen. Amen.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ellen-degeneres-defends-george-w-bush-friendship-cowboys-game-tweets-monologue-2019-10-08/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/entertainment/ellen-degeneres-george-bush/index.html

 

Media Training For Joe Biden

“Now was I wrong a few weeks ago, to somehow give the impression to people that I was praising those men (i.e., James Eastland and Herman Talmadge) who I successfully opposed time and again? Yes, I was. I regret it. I’m sorry for any of the pain or misconception that I caused anybody.” – Former Vice President Joe Biden

Poor Joe Biden.

Has he become an elderly Dan Quayle in the headlights?

When will it be time for his next apology to anybody and everybody?

Can he apologize his way to the Democratic presidential nomination, let alone the presidency?

Reflecting on the June 27 Democratic debate, California Senator Kamala Harris berated Biden for working with the two segregationist senators, and for openly opposing busing. She more than implied that he was weak on racism.

Old habits die hard. During the debate Almost DailyBrett was whispering, ‘Obama … Obama’ and ‘Busing failed. It was well-intentioned (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), but it failed miserably.’

For some reason a seasoned politician with a career going back at least to 1972, seemed verbally paralyzed on the stump.

Earlier this week, Biden finally said:

“They (opponents) don’t want to talk much about my time as vice president. It was the honor of a lifetime to serve with a man who was a great president, an historic figure, and most important to me, a friend. I was vetted by him and selected by him. I will take his judgment of my record, my character and my ability to handle the job over anyone else’s.”

Too little too late, Joe.

It’s time for a refresher course in media training, Joe. We are assuming you want to be president. Right?

Are you sure about that, Joe?

Can you fight off your younger, more agile competitors for the Demo nomination, not to mention the biggest bully of them all, one Donald John Trump?

Acknowledge-Bridge-SOCO

The best media trainer on this planet is Anne Ready of Ready for Media in Malibu, California.

She pioneered the concept of acknowledge the question, bridge to your answer, and deliver your SOCO (Strategic Operating Communications Objective).

Your SOCO response is your agenda.

Biden knew going into the June 27 debate, he was going to be questioned about his collaboration with segregationist Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia.

Even though he is a white, straight male (all demographic negatives for the Demo presidential nod), what is Joe Biden’s ace in the hole?

He was chosen and served as vice president to America’s first president of African-American dissent.

Envision Joe Biden looking right into the eyes of Senator Harris last month and saying: ‘When Barack Obama was seeking a running mate, he chose me. I served President Obama and our country with distinction for eight years. I am proud of my longstanding record on Civil Rights.”

Bingo. Joe Biden just uniquely separated himself from the pack. No other Democrat can make that (Obama-Biden ticket) assertion.

Almost DailyBrett is 100 percent certain Kamala Harris would come back with a rejoinder – heck, she’s an attorney — including the glorification of the failed busing social engineering experiment.

Macht nichts!

Biden would have been seen as defending his turf with a strong Acknowledge-Bridge-and-SOCO (e.g., Obama VP) response.

The stories would have undoubtedly still focus on Kamala challenging the former vice president, but they wouldn’t have been so lopsided. There would have been two strong sides to the televised exchange.

Motor City Meltdown? We Have A Problem, Houston

The second Democratic debates, hosted by CNN, will be held in Detroit, July 30-31.

The third round, moderated by ABC, will be located in Houston, Sept. 12-13.

Will the “frontrunner” be ready for these crucial encounters? Their is little doubt that Kamala Harris and others are sharpening their verbal knives.

As political strategist Mary Matalin said repeatedly: “Politics is a contact sport.”

How will we know that Biden is truly serious about running for president? He was Hamlet in 2016.

The answer lies with Acknowledge, Bridge and SOCO.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/06/biden-apologizes-segregationist-2020-1399254

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/biden-segregationist-eastland-talmadge/592228/

Anne Ready

What, No Media Training?

Busing Nostalgia?

What Happened To The Exceptional Nation That Twice Elected Barack Obama?

Is the “C”-word the equivalent of the “N”- word?

If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog – President Harry S. Truman

If you want a friend in Washington, get a bitch – Shock Comedian Bill Maher

Time for Almost DailyBrett to go on the record: The first quote was uttered by the former president. The second one very well could be attributed to Maher, and after a few days virtually no one would give a whit.

President Truman was reminding those contemplating entering public life that having a tough backside is absolutely essential, particularly with all the slithery creatures that populate that zone of infinite wisdom, commonly known as “Inside the Beltway.”

But when is enough, enough? When are lines crossed that should never be crossed?

Certainly we all enjoy the First Amendment right of free speech, but even with this precious liberty there are limitations (the famous restraint against yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre comes immediately to mind).

What about uttering the N-word to describe African-Americans?

Everyone knows this word is hateful and goes back to the bad ole days of bad ole Bull Connor and the attack dogs. Mercifully, those extreme days are over even though racism still exists. We should celebrate that the nominee for one political party this fall will be an African-American and the other most likely will be a Mormon. We have come far as a civilized society.

And yet, even with this progress, we hear that Maher in March 2011 in Dallas called former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “cunt,” adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

Really Bill? You also called her a “twat” and suggested that she and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann are “boobs” and “bimbos.” Any other gender specific slang for female reproductive parts that you want to throw in, Bill?

Maher’s past use of the C-word came simmering to the surface for a few nanoseconds when he gave $1 million to the president’s Super PAC. This revelation came just a few days after the president called a college student that was mocked as a “slut” and a “prostitute” by conservative radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right

Mumsy was right when she said that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” The nation’s elites came unglued when white Anglo male Limbaugh used the “slut” word, but essentially dismissed white Anglo male Maher’s use of the ugly C-word to describe Governor Palin. Why?

Is “slut” more egregious than “cunt?” Both are awful. Almost DailyBrett dares to opine the latter is the absolute nadir of hateful sexism, when it comes to crudeness and ugliness.

CBS fired Don Imus for calling members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team, “nappy headed hos,” (racist and sexist at the same time), but HBO gladly rakes in “Real Time” advertiser bucks with Maher and his liberal use of the C-word.

Is the C-word the equivalent of the N-word?

Your author is not a sociologist, so Almost DailyBrett cannot offer empirical evidence that the C-word invokes the same reaction in women that the N-word provokes among African-Americans (sounds like a critical qualitative study for a major university).

One thing we do know is that both African-Americans and women have been repeatedly discriminated against during the course of this nation’s (and other nations) history. We have not wiped out the last vestiges of racism and sexism.

For those who use the N-word and/or the C-word, does it say more about the targets of the verbal venom or does it say more about you? Should we just dismiss Maher because he is a comedian because they are there simply to entertain?

Or should we take a stand for decency, even though some will mock us? There is never, ever any excuse, any rationalization, any explanation for using the gross c-word to describe any woman regardless of her profession, her political philosophy or place in life. There is no equivalent in terms of crudeness to the c-word. It stands alone in vulgarity.

There Almost DailyBrett said it.

As a society we have learned to speak out and shame those who use the N-word to describe African-Americans. We should be proud of the infrequent use of that racist word even in private. It should be totally stricken from the nation’s vocabulary.

The same applies to the C-word. We should not laugh at the ugly, hateful name calling, culminating with the C-word about any woman.

Maher is not funny. The little smirk on his face and his self-adoration of his “cleverness” is egged on when we as a society express no outrage. If the C-word becomes common place in our society, it will be because we applauded and laughed when we should have deplored and condemned.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/maher-your-beautiful-theater-gonna-long-1070487.html

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-calls-sarah-palin-the-c-word-during-his-stand-up-act/

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/06/its-like-totally-different-when-a-libera

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/bristol-awaits-obamas-call-shoulder/

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/17982146/

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2675273.html

POTUS and Little Ole Me

The setting is a Darth Vader-style black bus, capable of waging simultaneous nuclear warfare on two or more fronts, rolling through the farm fields of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. An unlikely visitor has just boarded the bus…

Little Ole Me (LOM): “You asked for me, sir?”

POTUS: “You are probably wondering why I summoned a Republican from Eugene, Oregon…even though that sounds like an oxymoron…or maybe just a moro…”

LOM: “With all due respect sir we probably don’t want my neighbors to know my political affiliation. They are already really concerned about neighborhood property values.”

POTUS: “Look I only have limited time. In fact my time is running out, if things don’t change pronto. Comprende senor?

LOM: “Si, el Presidente…I am willing to serve my country. What can I possibly do to help the red, white and blue?

POTUS: “You mean the Tea Party colors? Don’t get me started…Let me get to the point. You write Almost DailyBrett, a strategic communications blog…”

LOM: “You know about Almost DailyBrett? I don’t know if I should be flattered or appalled…”

POTUS: “The question is how can I change my image, my perception and my messaging to turn around my 39 percent polling numbers nationally, and in particular win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and all the other swing states.”

LOM: “They really like you in San Francisco…

POTUS: “Think again. They don’t like anyone in San Francisco. Have you ever seen a happy social-justice activist?”

LOM: “Can’t say that I have ever seen a ‘happy’ activist in my entire life.”

POTUS: “What I really need to do is embrace Republican principles without setting off a rebellion among my liberal…err…progressive base…”

LOM: “That’s going to be tough sir. You are trying to do the right thing…Sorry sir…You are trying to do the correct thing without pissing off the pissed off. How can you satisfy the insatiable?”

POTUS: “I can’t afford a Ted Kennedy or Pat Buchanan-style primary challenge. I have enough problems with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann…They are all more telegenic than me.”

LOM: “Especially Michele Bachmann…I get lost in her eyes…”

POTUS: “So do I…Let’s get off this tangent before I get in trouble with my Michelle, my belle. I already have enough comparisons with Jimmy Carter, particularly his incompetence, to have to face a similar primary challenge from the left wing of my party…”

LOM: “Mr. President. Can someone really run to the left of you? Do you really think it is still possible for a credible primary challenge to be mounted at this late date? And do you think the redistributionist social justice crowd is going to sit it out next November, if Mitt Romney or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann is the GOP standard bearer? I think not.”

POTUS: “Maybe I just blame the Standard & Poor’s downgrade, the massive unemployment and the record $14 trillion deficit on George W. Bush and the Tea Party?…And then I can vilify the Republican nominee. I think I have a winning strategy. You don’t think I should run on my record?”

LOM: “Do the names Harry S. Truman and Ronald Reagan ring a bell?”

POTUS: “Of course, they were well respected throughout all 57 states, Alaska and Hawaii too…”

LOM: “Truman said, ‘The Buck Stops Here.’ You should declare that you are the president. You accept responsibility for the past three years, and you have a plan for the future.”

POTUS: “I do?”

LOM: “And Reagan campaigned for re-election with the mantra, ‘Morning in America.’ It was a message of optimism and hope. Why can’t you go back to offering hope for a better tomorrow? Maybe even a Shining City on the Hill?”

POTUS: “You know, I remember mentioning the notion of hope in 2008.”

LOM: “Do you remember when Bill Clinton fried his fellow Democrats with a massive welfare reform bill, so much that it even upset Hillary?”

POTUS: “You are reminding me about upsetting Hillary?”

LOM: “Sorry sir. I am just suggesting that you should infuriate Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Let them start attacking you. Your polling numbers will skyrocket…even better than taking out Osama bin Laden.”

POTUS: “Do you think I can send in the Navy SEALS to take out Harry and Nancy?”

LOM: “No sir. Something about the messy Separation of Powers gets in the way.”

POTUS: “And then what should I do?”

LOM: “Propose a true compromise. In exchange for closing corporate loopholes, you should offer true entitlement reform for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which represent 60 percent of the budget. Exempt everyone over 50 years of age from these changes, and then apply means testing and raise the age limit to at least 67 for all of those under 50. All additional revenue will be used for deficit reduction. Wall Street will be happy, and maybe Standard & Poor’s will restore the nation’s AAA bond rating.”

POTUS: “You mean be a leader instead of a campaigner. I am really great on the stump…Do you really think I should hack off Harry and Nancy?”

LOM: “Have you ever heard the German word, ‘Schadenfreude?’

POTUS: “Schadenfreude?”

LOM: “When Harry and Nancy are unhappy, I am happy and a whole lot of other people too, especially in the swing states.”

POTUS: “Sounds like a great strategic communications strategy.”

LOM: “Thank you Mr. President. Can I get off the bus now?”

Reverse Ivory Tower Effect?

Wikipedia defines the term “Ivory Tower” in the following manner:

“The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary. “From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a willful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. In American English usage it is a shorthand for academia or the university, particularly departments of the humanities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_Tower

In short, the term “Ivory Tower” (and by extension those who reside there pontificate and bloviate to the gathering masses below) is not a positive and in fact it can seen as a repudiation and rejection of the academic world.

So what am I getting to, and why should you even care?

The point is that I have left the so-called “real world” for the perceived ivory-tower academic world. As I walk to-and-from University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication classrooms http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/ for lectures and discussions, I have been wondering whether I am also guilty of living in my very own ivory tower.

How’s that and what the heck is the reverse ivory tower effect?

It is very easy for someone who spent nearly two decades in California’s Silicon Valley to think that all of the earth’s innovation resides between Fremont on the East and Palo Alto to the West (okay a few nearby places as well). Undoubtedly, the greatest concentration of engineering talent (at least in the United States) is concentrated right there. So do they rule the roost when it comes to devising the next killer app and the next destructive technology? If you ask them, they would be more than happy to respond in the affirmative.

Years before that, I worked at another Ivory Tower, this one with a dome on top of it. As laughable as it may seem to some, there are those in Sacramento (yes, the capitol of the biggest state in the union) that seriously believe the sun, moon, stars and asteroids revolve around this town that would have little reason for being other than it is the state capitol. And if you think the folks in Sacramento have an Ivory Tower complex, then let’s not even contemplate Washington, D.C. even though many are wondering out loud whether government is permanently Balkanized and broken.

Did I bring my own personal ivory tower by way of Silicon Valley and Sacramento (and other places) to the academic world? Do I think that just based upon my years and years of experience that I can’t learn anything new?

Harry S. Truman said that he distrusted “experts” because if they learned something they wouldn’t be an expert any longer.

One very reassuring event occurred this week in J350 “Principles of Public Relations” (please do not be the next person to ask me if there are really ‘principles’ in ‘public relations’) Professor Kelli Matthews http://www.linkedin.com/in/kellimatthews was teaching almost 100 undergraduates how to write cover letters and resumes, so they could get their careers off the ground. That doesn’t sound like an ivory tower approach to me. In fact, it sounds very practical and incredibly useful in the face of a very bleak employment picture.

Sure beats answering a Silicon Valley engineer’s question about whether the Wall Street Journal would be interested in covering PCI (Peripheral Computer Interconnect) Express. The answer would be “no.”

Pass the ivory tower.