Tag Archive: The Donald


“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” – Winston Churchill

Relationships matter, now more than ever.

Tact also counts more than ever, even for those not known for gentile diplomacy.

It’s way too easy to obsess about our digital world with instantaneous global communication in mere nanoseconds, which was unthinkable three decades ago.

These “destructive” technologies have forever changed the world (note Facebook and Google privacy concerns).

Even more destructive is the ability to plunge the world into an unthinkable thermonuclear exchange.

And let’s not forget trying to deflect attention from the ubiquitous, addictive smart phone.

Despite all these seismic shifts in the form of digital ones-and-zeroes, personal relationships are more than ever taking center-stage, particularly in the global political arena.

Think of it as “The Art of the Deal” on steroids.

Not So Warm and Fuzzy

What are the most important public relations of all?

The answers are personal public relations and reputation management.

Do Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have the best personal PR, let alone Kim Jong Un?

This question seems almost silly, but the ability and willingness of these gents (and at least one Frau) to establish and maintain fragile bromances and romances in our scary digital world are absolutely vital for our survival.

Consider that Trump and Kim (dubbed by The Donald as “Rocket Man”) were bragging about the capability of their nuclear buttons a few months ago, yet they still may or may not meet in Singapore on June 12.

Despite the low expectations for lasting, meaningful success, the prospect of a Trump-Kim summit is far better than a potential nuclear war.

Arm-in-Arm gehen Francois Mitterrand (l) und Helmut Kohl (r)

When it comes to war and peace, bromances and romances matter. The longest sustained peace in Europe has been maintained by the establishment of The European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, followed by the European Community (EU) in 1993.

If you are scoring at home there has been peace for the most part on the European continent for 73 years and counting. The relationship between the two most influential EU members – Germany and France – has survived and prospered by means of the relationships between Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle, and then Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand, and now Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.

As the lone woman in this equation (all due respect is afforded to the UK’s Theresa May), Merkel is rightfully regarded as the most powerful woman on earth – a title she did not seek and obviously does not cherish.

Nonetheless, Merkel has proven she is more than a match for some of the most self-absorbed men on this planet including: Trump, Putin, China’s Xi Jinping and to a lesser extent, Marcon.

Merkel’s relationship to Messrs. Trump and Putin are not warm and fuzzy, but she has been an effective foil. She rolled her eyes at Trump and reportedly insists on speaking German to Putin, while Putin speaks Russian to her – even though they are fluent in their respective languages.

Macron has obviously concluded that Trump is the leader of the world’s largest economy and power. Some have scoffed at the bromance between the two, and questioned what Macron has received in return (e.g., US pulled out the Paris accord and the Iran nuclear deal). Keep in mind that Macron has Trump’s ear, and may be Europe’s closest confidant to POTUS.

Trump’s bromance with China’s president Xi, including a visit to Mar-a-Lago in Florida, is a complicated relationship including strategizing about Kim Jong Un’s nagging North Korea and the question of tariffs and intellectual property (IP) protection. A solid, even though conflicted, relationship between the world’s two largest economic and military powers increases – not decreases – the prospect for world peace and maybe even, harmony.

President Donald Trump talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with their wives, first lady Melania Trump and Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan as they pose for photographers before dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Thursday, April 6, 2017, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Time will tell whether Almost DailyBrett is correct on this point; hopefully that is the case.

You Can Take Putin Out of the KGB …

But you can’t take the KGB out of Putin.

Russia’s leader will play games, including inviting his black lab Koni to a 2007 summit with canine-phobic Merkel (see earlier Almost DailyBrett blog on this Machiavellian topic). How will Putin exploit perceived Trump weaknesses? How will Trump counter?

And yet these two leaders appear to enjoy each other’s company, at least in front of the cameras.

Will Trump develop the same kind of rapport with Kim Jong Un?

Kim has already kibitzed with Xi and most recently on both sides of the most heavily fortified and dangerous border with South Korea’s Moon Jae-in.  The overriding subject of their historic encounters: the prospect for a summit between Kim and The Donald, regardless of the potential for success.

In our increasingly dangerous world – in which the digital ones and zeroes work for us and hopefully not against us – Almost DailyBrett takes the humble view that talking is far better than fighting.

Bromances and Romances matter.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33365-tact-is-the-ability-to-tell-someone-to-go-to

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/common-market-founded

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2017/02/20/putins-pooch-und-merkels-dog-o-phobia/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does it matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

“Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.” – Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

Weren’t we all repeatedly told by mumsy to never discuss religion and politics in polite company?

Wouldn’t you expect this admonition to particularly apply to your dear friends and family?

And what are the impacts of these unwise political discussions on the most important public relations of all? Your own PR and personal brand.fbpolitics

Then why do far too many of us insist on bloviating and pontificating our unrestrained and unvarnished political views on Facebook, and other digitally eternal social media sites including LinkedIn, Twitter and others?

Don’t we have enough to do?

Before delving any further into this issue, Almost DailyBrett must pose the following rhetorical question: What are we expecting when we bombard our family and friends (or LinkedIn connections) with unrestrained political diatribe, regardless of whether it comes from the progressive left or the patriotic right?

Don’t the vast majority of our friends and family already know our political views? Don’t they harbor their own political opinions? Are they really persuadable at this point in time?clintontrumpdebate

For most Americans, you have to be living under a rock if you don’t have a well-formed and mostly unchanging opinion about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. According to the Real Clear Politics average, almost 59 percent of national poll respondents have a negative view of Hillary and nearly 62 percent are thumbs down on The Donald.

The political pros tell us these two are the most unpopular respective nominees in the long histories of the Democratic and Republican Parties. As a result, most of us have formed an unalterable opinion about both of these pols, and they are hardening, not softening … if that’s still possible.

If all the above is true, Almost DailyBrett must ask why do we bother offering our political views to people who we regard as friends and family? Do we enjoy making them react as if someone took their finger nails to a chalkboard?

Do we secretly enjoy being passive, aggressive?

Unfriending A “Friend” Because of Politics

Who is ultimately responsible for an unfriending decision because of political digital intercourse?

  1. The “friend” who frequently offers political opinions to one and all via a few digital key strokes with no consideration of how these comments are going to be construed.
  2. Or the “friend” who takes personal affront to repeated political commentary, more often than not, negative about the opposition, and angrily unfriends the so-called friend.buckleyquote

The late conservative commentator William F. Buckley is probably smiling from heaven as a result of the Pew Research Journalism Project, which revealed that liberals are more likely than their conservative counterparts to unfriend someone with contrary political views (e.g., conservatives).

However, the same study opined that conservatives are more likely to gravitate to their own kind online and have less exposure to competing points of view.

Which is better? How about none of the above?

If the Nielsen ratings folks are correct, the Monday, September 26 debate between Hillary and The Donald will be the most watched and streamed presidential debate in the history of the country, if not from a purely infotainment standpoint.

If that is indeed the case — and there is zero reason to suggest it won’t be — then why will we insist upon offering our biased opinion before-during-after this encounter to our friends and family via Facebook and other social media?

Weren’t they also watching the same feed and avoiding the Monday Night Football game between the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints?

Didn’t they already form an opinion about what they watched on their own and/or had their views reinforced by Charles Krauthammer on Fox News, Chris Matthews on MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos on ABC or David Axelrod on CNN?

Former football coach Lou Holtz once said: “If you can’t add value to silence, then shut up.”

Considering that minds have been made up and are unlikely to change … and we really respect and value our friends and family … wouldn’t it be best to refrain from offering our own version of political invective?

Silence can indeed be golden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/#social-media-conservatives-more-likely-to-have-like-minded-friends

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

 

“To protect herself as president, and to protect her presidency, Clinton needs a Dr. No. That’s somebody more powerful than the smart loyalists she surrounds herself with, somebody with the stature to say: “Ma’am, you cannot do that.” – Bloomberg Columnist Al HuntDrNO

Whether or not Hillary Clinton is elected president in November will play out in the next four months. For now, Mr. Hunt may be getting a little ahead of himself.

And whether or not Hillary Clinton and by extension Bill Clinton (and of course, The Donald) needs a personal reputation “Dr. No” as Mr. Hunt suggests is beyond doubt.

The author of Almost DailyBrett would be a very wealthy hombre, if he received a dollar for every time somebody suggested that he should be coaching/mentoring Public Celebrity A. (e.g., Tiger Woods) or Public Celebrity B (e.g., Anthony Weiner).

The very notion of mentoring suggests that a Hillary Clinton and/or Bill would actually listen to a brand/reputation coach regardless of her or his level of personal gravitas.

Now before one accuses Almost DailyBrett of directing attention to only one side of the ever-widening political divide, your author would like to opine that Donald Trump has repeatedly warranted an ejector seat. This point applies to his rambling off-the-cuff remarks and his fire-ready-aim use of Twitter.

FILE - This is a Wednesday, March 25, 2015 file photo of FBI director James Comey as he gestures during a news conference at FBI headquarters in Washington. FBI director Comey has caused huge offense to a U.S. ally: using language to suggest that Poles were accomplices in the Holocaust. On Monday, April 20, 2015 Poles were waiting to see if FBI director James Comey apologizes _ something Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Schetyna said he expected so the matter can be settled. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci, File)

FILE – This is a Wednesday, March 25, 2015 file photo of FBI director James Comey as he gestures during a news conference at FBI headquarters in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci, File)

At a time that FBI director James Comey handed the Republicans a political gift with his public repudiation of Hillary as “extremely careless” in regards to her mobile devices/personal server, The Donald is meanwhile assessing the positives of brutal dictator Saddam Hussein because he allegedly fought terrorists.

Where is your message consistency, Mr. Trump?

Can you stay on topic?

Must you always say what is on the top of your mind?

Ma’am and/or Sir, you cannot do that’!

Most Americans – including elites in both parties – believe both Bill and Hillary Clinton think a different set of rules and standards apply to them than everyone else. This dates to the 1990s.” – Washington Daily 202 columnist James Hohmann

“Mr. Trump was typically free-associative and talked too long, more than an hour. He doesn’t know when to stop because he doesn’t know when he’s made his point, or sometimes what his point was.” –Former Presidential Speech Writer Peggy Noonan

Just as most Democrats wax nostalgic about John F. Kennedy and Republicans harken back to “Shining City on a Hill” Ronald Reagan, there were also influential aides-de-camp who were always there to question, advise and mentor.

Pres. John F. Kennedy with his Aide Theodore Sorensen (R) discussing W. Virginia's economic problems with President-election. (Photo by Paul Schutzer//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Pres. John F. Kennedy with his Aide Theodore Sorensen (R) discussing W. Virginia’s economic problems with President-election. (Photo by Paul Schutzer//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Ted Sorensen was beside Kennedy as the U.S. faced down Nikita Khrushchev’s Russia and the Missiles of October. The young president was well served by listening (and not necessarily always agreeing) to Sorensen.

James Baker was the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State and served as chief of staff for two Presidents, Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush. The native-born Texan was always cool under pressure, seemingly hitting the right tone and drawing the ear of at least two presidents.

The Always DailyBrett question of the day: Who are the Ted Sorensens and Jim Bakers for Hillary and The Donald?bakerbush

Some may immediately point to Hillary’s spouse, former President Bill Clinton, but is he a paragon of political discipline? Wasn’t there an embarrassingly improper meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the broiling tarmac of Phoenix International Airport? And for some reason, Almost DailyBrett is reminded a series of presidential dalliances in the 1990s.

For The Donald, he heavily relies on his family. Yes it is true that blood is thicker than water, but are any of his clan ready to tell Emperor Trump that he doesn’t have any clothes on? More to the point: Will any of them insist that Mr. Billionaire think before he speaks or tweets?

When egos exceed respect for any advisor no matter how talented, how skilled, how schooled and how seasoned, does it really matter if the candidate stops listening before the aide-de-camps stop talking?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/07/06/daily-202-clinton-s-credibility-gap-widens-after-fbi-rebuke/577bff0c981b92a22d5b2044/

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-05/hillary-clinton-needs-a-dr-no

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

http://www.wsj.com/articles/comedy-wears-better-than-cynicism-1467933077

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide-de-camp

 

“I cannot imagine ever voting for him (Donald Trump).” – Conservative Washington Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer

“What I think about Hillary Clinton is — I imagine to be a bright woman without the courage of her convictions because I’m not sure what they are.” — Comedian and Late-Night Host Jon Stewart

“(Trump’s attack against an Hispanic judge) The textbook definition of a racist comment.” – House Speaker Paul Ryan

“All I’m saying is that the idea that there’s one set of rules for us (The Clintons) and another set for everybody else is true.” – Former President William Jefferson Clinton

Choosing between Hillary and The Donald is akin to either burning at the stake or drowning (not to be confused with “Berning” at the stake).hillarytrump

Is this “choice” posed to the American people the absolute best the most powerful country on earth can do at this critical point in the nation’s history?

Can Hillary seriously be compared in the same vein to Democratic forerunners Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy?

We all know the answer to that question.

Ditto for weighing out-of-control Donald Trump against Honest Abraham Lincoln, Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, Commander-in-Chief Dwight Eisenhower and The Gipper, Ronald Reagan. All of these presidents were the epitome of political discipline. That is very last word that applies to Trump.

There is a nationwide pile-on against The Donald for a litany of good reasons, which could lead to the ultimate Schadenfreude moment: We are so happy The Donald is so sad … and humbled.oligarchy

The most likely net side-effect: The Clintons are back in the White House. There will be the predictable celebration of the first woman president. Keep in mind, we will not be electing the American equivalent of Kanzerlin Angela Merkel, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher or Fed Chief Janet Yellen, but yet another member of the Clintonian Oligarchy.

Maybe we should simply elect the right person for the right time (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Ronald Reagan in 1980) or is that too much to ask?

Is there a third way?

Is there a third option?

Throwing Away My Vote?

“I’m sorry this happened (Trump nomination), but we’ll see where it ends up. I’m not making any final decision yet, but at this point I just can’t do it (endorse The Donald).” – Ohio Governor John Kasichkasich

Last month, yours truly cast his first State of Washington primary ballot for Kasich. Even though Ohio’s chief executive easily fits my definition of a Ronald Reagan-vintage Republican, everyone knew that Kasich could not win. Did the author of Almost DailyBrett throw his vote away?

By voting for Kasich, your author opted for a good guy and better yet did not jump on the Trump bandwagon as it heads towards the electoral cliff. Proud to NOT vote for Trump and akin to Charles Krauthammer, can’t imagine ever checking the box for Trump even though he is the party nominee.

The list of prominent Republicans not yet (or never) endorsing The Donald is deep and prominent: Former President George H.W. Bush, Former President George W. Bush, Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina among others.

Even more important to your author as a former Golden State press secretary is that all three living California Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson and of course my former boss, George Deukmejian, are not endorsing Donald Trump … and hopefully never will.

Bull Moose in 2016?

Former President Teddy Roosevelt was less than enamored with his successor Howard Taft in 1912 and ran as “progressive” third-party “Bull Moose” campaign for president, splitting the Republican Party and electing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to the White House.teddyroosevelt

As an eternal optimist Almost DailyBrett must ask: Is there a common sense, free-enterprise, strong-fiscal discipline and hawkish on national defense type who can run “Bull Moose” this year?

Whattyathink Mitt Romney? How about it, John Kasich? Do you really want to be speaker, Paul Ryan?

Yes, Almost DailyBrett understands that running a “Bull Moose” candidate this year (former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson does not fit the bill) will most likely result in Bill Clinton measuring the new drapes for the Lincoln Bedroom, but one can be spared from having to decide between Hillary and The Donald.

University of Virginia Professor of Political Science Larry Sabato pointed to 1964 (e.g., Goldwater) as the year the Republicans “went off the rails” followed by a similar exercise in political masochism by the Democrats in 1972 (e.g., McGovern). Now it is the GOP’s turn again. The more-than-likely Republican train wreck will not be pretty, but it may be cleansing.

It will be onward to 2020. Hopefully, we will not be looking up to the heavens for a third choice, a third way once again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-matter-of-paul-ryan/2016/06/09/e2d7734a-2e71-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/07/ryan-says-trumps-attacks-on-judge-fit-the-textbook-definition-of-a-racist-comment/?tid=a_inl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/15/time-for-panic-or-for-nevertrump/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/16/good-for-kasich-now-will-he-help-dump-trump/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/13/this-new-poll-utah-poll-is-amazingly-bad-for-donald-trump/

http://www.eonline.com/news/671706/arnold-schwarzenegger-reacts-to-donald-trump-s-run-for-president-some-candidates-will-make-a-lot-of-noise

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-vice-president-224488

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/november-is-fast-becoming-what-the-gop-fears-a-referendum-on-trump/2016/06/18/f942ddd2-34dd-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/jon-stewart-perfectly-diagnosed-the-problem-with-hillary-clintons-candidacy/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some contend that you can’t quantify, “free media.”

Oh, really?

How about $2 billion in estimated free media for one, Donald Trump?trumpratings

To be more accurate let’s be sure to call publicity, public relations and dealing with the media for what it really is: Earned Media. There is absolutely nothing “free” about facing the music posed by the Fourth Estate.

And when it comes to wall-the-wall conventional-and-digital media coverage, no one rivals Donald Trump. The media just can’t get enough of the developer-reality TV personality-turned presidential candidate. They may instinctively not like him, but who cares for now; he’s good for ratings.

When a Republican presidential debate (e.g., sometimes a sophomoric verbal food fight) comes to an end, the host network each-and-every time interviews Trump first before turning to any other contender.

Is all the fawning attention on The Donald emanating exclusively from Fox News? Consider the ongoing feud between Trump and network boss Roger Ailes and the answer is an obvious, “no.” The GOP populist (oxymoron?) is also in demand on CNN and (gasp…), MSNBC.

Trump’s two remaining challengers for the Republican nomination have not even come close when it comes to earned media. According to mediaQuant and its analysis of media exposure equated to advertising dollars and media outlet influence and reach, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has drawn $313 million and Ohio Governor John Kasich has secured only $38 million.

Guess who is winning the Republican nomination fight?trumpmedia

On the other side of the great political divide, Senator Bernie Sanders has repeatedly complained about the influence of money in political campaigns and has called for the overturning of the 2010 U.S, Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.

In all due respect to the honorable senator, the possible future government imposition of advertising spending limitations (e.g., paid media) for political action committees (PAC), corporations and unions would have zero impact on earned media … and for that matter owned media (i.e., websites, social media, blogs, events, brochures …).

What’s ironic is Trump is certainly the wealthiest candidate to ever contest for the presidency (e.g., somewhere between $4 billion and $10 billion in personal net worth), and yet he doesn’t rely on advertising (only $10 million) or extensive PAC contributions. Why would he have to, if the media will provide gobs of free access to its airwaves, digital content and newsprint?

How about $400 million worth of media time in the last month alone?

Schadenfreude Journalism

“They [the Marines] break you down in order to build you back up.” – Oft-heard description of the tender-loving care exhibited by the U.S. Marine Corps

“The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” — Chicago Evening Post journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne

The danger that comes from overreliance on earned media can be exhibited by the U.S.M.C.’s Camp Pendleton boot camp in California, but in reverse.

Instead of breaking you down in order to build you back up, the media loves to build you up only to gleefully bring you crashing down into a pile of personal wreckage. Almost DailyBrett has been known to refer to this practice as either ‘Vulture Journalism’ or ‘Schadenfreude Journalism.’vulture

The media is just so darn happy that you are so sad.

Remember President Gary Hart, President Newt Gingrich or President John Edwards?

What movie won this year’s Academy Award for best picture? Spotlight, the story of how the special investigative unit of the Boston Globe exposed the systemic neglect of Cardinal Bernard Law, allowing literally hundreds of pedophile priests to prey upon literally thousands of young boys and girls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger target than the Catholic Church. Guess the comb-over scalp of Donald Trump will serve these purposes for now.

The Big-Three networks and the 24-7-365 cable news types are basking in the advertising dollars that come from Trump-driven higher ratings, but do the media elites and Washington political class really want Republican Trump to be sitting in the Oval Office? The answer is obvious.

Let’s ask here and now, has there ever been a bigger political target for a salivating carnivorous media in the post-Richard-Nixon era than one Donald Trump?

Those who live by earned media die by earned media.

Most reporters, editors and correspondents literally take a vow of poverty in order to enter the brutal and volatile profession of journalism. They can only imagine a Donald Trump lifestyle, but will never have the personal resources to even come close. Will they care about a Comb Over smack down?

They will relish in afflicting his personal comfort, and most of all denying him the White House.trumpratings1

Republicans often complain about a double standard, not only having to contest the Democrats but the media as well. Take this equation and multiply it by 10 … or how about 100?

When the dust settles in early November, there is little doubt the undisputed earned media champion will be Donald Trump.

And also when in the dust settles in early November, will the earned media whipping boy also be Donald Trump? Don’t bet against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/15/the-medias-2b-gift-to-trump/

http://time.com/money/4260127/trump-free-media-coverage-2-billion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

http://breakingmuscle.com/sports-psychology/what-the-marines-know-about-discipline-that-will-make-you-a-better-athlete

http://breakingmuscle.com/sports-psychology/what-the-marines-know-about-discipline-that-will-make-you-a-better-athlete

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/persona-matters/

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/megyn-kelly-and-the-beast/

http://www.poynter.org/2014/today-in-media-history-mr-dooley-the-job-of-the-newspaper-is-to-comfort-the-afflicted-and-afflict-the-comfortable/273081/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/movies/review-in-spotlight-the-boston-globe-digs-up-the-catholic-churchs-dirt.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/special-reports/2002/01/06/church-allowed-abuse-priest-for-years/cSHfGkTIrAT25qKGvBuDNM/story.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It’s Not What You Say, But How You Say It.” – Too Many Moms to Count

Donald Trump lost it, Saturday night … Not just the debate, but any resemblance of personal deportment.trumprage

We knew it was coming, it had to happen … and it did.

Too many kisses on the CombOver’s derriere from the lips of way too many lackeys for way too long. And at last … along came former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

He got under The Donald’s skin, enough to make his face as crimson as the horrible CBS red backdrop (Who in the RNC approved angry red behind angry candidates?)

On the other side of the philosophical divide … When Hillary was blown out in New Hampshire by Bernie it was more than people don’t trust her, it was also because people don’t like her.hillaryinlaw

Bernie is a weak candidate, and he still won. In fact, he won big.

Experience is a plus. Business smarts is a plus. You may say all the right things or at least the politically correct things, but in the end analysis, if people can’t imagine you appointing Supreme Court justices, let alone having your finger on the nuclear button … you are not going to be president.

Yep, moms are right … It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

Persona – The Way You Behave

“George Deukmejian’s favorite color is gray.” – Too Many ‘Clever’ Reporters to Count

Supposedly, my guy was boring. My guy didn’t have vision. My guy didn’t have charisma. That was the narrative.

My guy was the most popular California governor in the modern era, even more than Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger.deukmejian2

George Deukmejian barely won the governorship in 1982. He won the biggest landslide in the state’s history (61-37 percent) four years later. He was just as boring in the eyes of the media both times. He was also pleasant and positive on the stump.

Governor John Kasich of Ohio was asked his reaction to being the Democrats favorite Republican candidate for president … including primary endorsements from the liberal New York Times and Boston Globe … designations that are normally the kisses of death in a contested GOP primary.

Kasich took these “accolades” in stride, and scolded his five fellow presidential contenders for their at-times out-of-control behavior. If Kasich is to lose the nomination, he will go down waging a positive campaign … and demonstrating persona (and gravitas too).

Best Hopes or Worst Fears?

“Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears.” – President Ronald Reagan’s Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

“This back and forth, and these attacks: Some of them are personal. I think we’re fixing to lose the election to Hillary Clinton if we don’t stop this. You know what I would suggest? Why don’t we just take all the negative ads and all the negative comments down from television.” – Governor John Kasichkasich

Fat chance the negative “comparison” ads – television, radio, Internet — are going away. But aren’t they still part of the problem?

This week, the RealClear Politics average of respondents asking whether America is on the right track or the wrong track is 28.3 percent for the former and 63.7 percent for the latter or 35 points below the Mendoza Line.

The Donald Trump crusade pivots off these horrible results and contends that everyone in government is “stupid.” Bernie offers his own revolution and declares that America is “corrupt.” And even the Hillary campaign contends there is a “special place in hell” for women who dare to vote for Bernie.

Stupid … Corrupt … Hell. Let’s throw in “liar” and “liars.” And you wonder why people are tired of the bickering in Washington, D.C., believe the system is broken, and want positive messages for a refreshing change?

Almost DailyBrett contends from a public relations standpoint, it is much easier to point out the problems and resort to the negative. It takes courage to offer solutions and positive optimistic messages. Many will scoff, let them.

Could John Kasich be the George Deukmejian of 2016 American politics?

Sure hope so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-not-what-you-say-but-how-you-say-it/

http://link.washingtonpost.com/view/5483d7e93b35d052478c33d33mv62.4cvh/24e67ed5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/hey-hillary-heres-why-peo_b_9206424.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/14/people-dont-have-to-like-hillary-clinton-to-vote-for-her-donald-trump

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persona

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/02/john_kasich_makes_the_positive.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-albright-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: