Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Unanswerable questions?
I was listening to sports radio this morning and I again noticed a trend that creeps up whenever Clemson (or for that matter, any team, ) is not doing as well as fans expected. It is the trend of unanswerable questions. What is this trend? Well, let me answer it. These are the questions that fans ask in anger, that they really don't want to know the truth but by asking it they make the question the truth.
Not following me? Let me preach on.
For example, a Clemson fan called into to complain about the football program. I will paraphrase his comments, but they went along the lines of "why does Clemson have so many people working in IPTAY? Are they needed? They should know who the donors are. They should just put all the money into scholarships." What the caller has done is ask a question, but doesn't want to know the answer. He just doesn't like IPTAY, or at least is blaming them for the losses.
These sorts of unanswerable questions are popular in government and government. Scarily popular. The difference, though, is many times the people asking these questions should be the ones with the answer. Why do they pull the razzle dazzle stunt?
That is the unanswerable question I wonder about.
From the World of Politics
I noticed an interesting little public relations piece in this morning's New York Times. It appears that several Democratic Party congressmen and women are distancing themselves from their own party in election ads. Ok, maybe distancing is not the right word. They are downright not mentioning it.
Ouch.
That is not a dig at the Democrats per se, but an alarming look at the current state of political affairs. It's a smart public relations move right now, but what does it say about America? Elected officials are fearing their own party name when it comes to people heading to the ballot box this fall. It underlies a major problem with our government. It is more and more being run by parties and not leaders. Leaders would stand up to the bullies in the parties who demand loyalty to them and not America.
Ouch.
That is not a dig at the Democrats per se, but an alarming look at the current state of political affairs. It's a smart public relations move right now, but what does it say about America? Elected officials are fearing their own party name when it comes to people heading to the ballot box this fall. It underlies a major problem with our government. It is more and more being run by parties and not leaders. Leaders would stand up to the bullies in the parties who demand loyalty to them and not America.
Is it really bad?
The latest round of political sex scandals and campaign shenanigans (That's Jim Clyburn's words, not mine) has again raised the ire level of South Carolina. And it has raised the laughing stock level as well. There is a general pattern to these scandals. There is the announcement, followed by the denial, followed by the proof, followed by the criticism, followed by the anger, followed by Jon Stewart making a couple of jokes.
After that comes the retort of "Oh, jeez, South Carolina again is the laughing stock." I'm not going to chronicle the long list of missteps and gaffes that have befallen South Carolina in the past few years, but they have been many.
But have they been worse than anywhere else? Not really. California is a punchline. So is Illinois. New York is. Pretty much every state gets its own round of stupid jokes and pratfalls. South Carolinians don't notice them and guess what, the people in other states don't notice all of ours.
It really isn't that bad.
After that comes the retort of "Oh, jeez, South Carolina again is the laughing stock." I'm not going to chronicle the long list of missteps and gaffes that have befallen South Carolina in the past few years, but they have been many.
But have they been worse than anywhere else? Not really. California is a punchline. So is Illinois. New York is. Pretty much every state gets its own round of stupid jokes and pratfalls. South Carolinians don't notice them and guess what, the people in other states don't notice all of ours.
It really isn't that bad.
More thoughts on the Greene machine
What did Alvin Greene's "surprise" victory in the race to be South Carolina's Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate really tell us? It's not anything can happen. Nor is it politics as usual. Or even that politics is changing. The real story is this is why people campaign hard. This is why their are yard signs, mass mailing and television ads. I often hear from people who complain about politicians who spend all their time campaigning and "wasting" money on ads. The lament is that the voter is smart enough to find the right person on their own.
Greene shows that doesn't happen. Greene, for those of you who haven't heard, is the unemployed Army vet facing a felony charge for showing pornography on a computer to a college freshman. He didn't campaign. Never filed reports with the state. Held no rallies. He paid his fee to the Democratic Party, vanished and ended up winning Tuesday night.
Conspiracy theorists are fishing the idea that Greene was a Republican plant to beat Democrat Vic Rawl. It's possible and not unheard of in South Carolina, but it does seem a little far fetched. Why would anyone pay Greene to essentially not run a campaign is highly circumspect. It could happen in a general election, but in a primary seems odd. Was Vic Rawl that much of a threat to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint? No. Could this be a way to draw attention away from the malfunctioning GOP in the state? Maybe.
So, who voted for him? The theory is that Democrats focused on the gubernatorial race came out, hadn't been following the Senate race, and voted for the first name on the ballot. The other is that somehow black voters found out Greene was black and voted for him. The third is that Republicans somehow stuffed the ballot box. Yes, Republicans abandonded their own strong races to play a joke on the Democrats. Does that make sense?
Another possibility is machine error. Maybe the electronic voting tallies were wrong? Stranger things have happened.
The reality is voters elected a man they had never heard of in a race they didn't care about. Rawl apparently overlooked Greene in the race and was focused on November. He nor anyone gave Greene a second thought, and he waltzed right in.
That is why we campaign.
Greene shows that doesn't happen. Greene, for those of you who haven't heard, is the unemployed Army vet facing a felony charge for showing pornography on a computer to a college freshman. He didn't campaign. Never filed reports with the state. Held no rallies. He paid his fee to the Democratic Party, vanished and ended up winning Tuesday night.
Conspiracy theorists are fishing the idea that Greene was a Republican plant to beat Democrat Vic Rawl. It's possible and not unheard of in South Carolina, but it does seem a little far fetched. Why would anyone pay Greene to essentially not run a campaign is highly circumspect. It could happen in a general election, but in a primary seems odd. Was Vic Rawl that much of a threat to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint? No. Could this be a way to draw attention away from the malfunctioning GOP in the state? Maybe.
So, who voted for him? The theory is that Democrats focused on the gubernatorial race came out, hadn't been following the Senate race, and voted for the first name on the ballot. The other is that somehow black voters found out Greene was black and voted for him. The third is that Republicans somehow stuffed the ballot box. Yes, Republicans abandonded their own strong races to play a joke on the Democrats. Does that make sense?
Another possibility is machine error. Maybe the electronic voting tallies were wrong? Stranger things have happened.
The reality is voters elected a man they had never heard of in a race they didn't care about. Rawl apparently overlooked Greene in the race and was focused on November. He nor anyone gave Greene a second thought, and he waltzed right in.
That is why we campaign.
South Carolina: Facing the Flag Flap, Again
We wrote a post not too long ago about how the issue that just won't go away in our state -- the Confederate flag -- continues to command attention from both sides ten years after the flag was removed from the dome of the South Carolina Statehouse. Though the flag was taken down from the Capitol and placed on a 30-foot pole on the Statehouse lawn, the NAACP and others continue to protest the flag's presence on state property. The issue that just won't die in South Carolina has positioned our state on a perilous ledge until it is fully resolved. The ongoing ferocity potentially jeopardizes not only our own internal political and social relations, but has the opportunity to also directly impact the state's economy by causing businesses to shy away from bringing industry to such a cutthroat political climate.On Monday, Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP, announced the organization will make a stronger push to remove the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds. His announcement was skim on further details but indicated by summer 2010, more publicity will surround the NAACP's economic boycott of the state. As South Carolina moves forward with the Boeing deal, 2010 elections and other upcoming statewide events, the full impact of the enduring flag flap remains to be determined.
Obama's Jacket: If only all our coats were worth this much
Hundreds of thousands (or more) of people pass by this billboard in Times Square in New York City every day, but we're betting far more than that will see this advertisement for the Weatherproof Garment Company simply via media, internet and viral rounds.The garment company put the billboard up on Wednesday showing President Obama wearing what has quicky been dubbed "The Obama Jacket". While it's a legitimate photo taken during Obama's visit to the Great Wall of China last November actually wearing the company's brand of jacket, Weatherproof never contacted The White House to ask permission to use the image.
The legal boundaries of what the company did remain muddled, but as a company that's been known for its outlandish publicity stunts, the billboard was undoubtedly meant to cause a stir. The author of the New York Times article remarks that it may not be worth President Obama's (and the White House's) time to even bother legally pursuing the Weatherproof Garment Company. Legal ramifications and possible tackiness aside, the billboard will drive huge traffic to the company's website and up their name recall factor considerably. The expense they spent on a Times Square billboard is probably nothing compared to what they will reap in consumer recall.
The legal boundaries of what the company did remain muddled, but as a company that's been known for its outlandish publicity stunts, the billboard was undoubtedly meant to cause a stir. The author of the New York Times article remarks that it may not be worth President Obama's (and the White House's) time to even bother legally pursuing the Weatherproof Garment Company. Legal ramifications and possible tackiness aside, the billboard will drive huge traffic to the company's website and up their name recall factor considerably. The expense they spent on a Times Square billboard is probably nothing compared to what they will reap in consumer recall.
Being politically inclined, one of our reactions quite honestly was to wonder how the billboard and ensuing publicity will affect the Weatherproof Garment Company's overall customer base. Say for example they currently have customers who, in regards to party loyalty, are 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, or some other division thereof when you account for Independents, Libertarians, etc. etc. After putting the floodlights on Obama as the model of choice, undoubtedly those numbers will change. This one billboard and the hoopla around it will ultimately skew their customer base when it comes to political affiliation, regardless of how it affects their overall sales. A trifling point perhaps, but worth mulling.
Michael Steele: How Real is Too Real?
Michael Steele, the RNC chairman notorious for his proverbial rhetoric and oft-controversial statements, is the focus of a new website that has surfaced called "Keeping It Real With Michael Steele". Users have the opportunity to "pose for the ultimate profile picture" by amalgamating their own photos with a likeness of the Republican leader.All one must do is upload a photo, select the Steele delineation of choice, and post the pièce de résistance for public commentary.
Steele has purported to want to focus Republican Party efforts on "emerging as the party of new ideas" by putting "energy, the focus, and the determination to turn our timeless principles into new solutions for the future". The "hipster" feel of the website certainly suggests the concept of new ideas, but does not claim to be affiliated with Steele. In fact, it bears a disclaimer that says: "Keeping It Real With Michael Steele is an independent project and not associated with any political party, organization, or company".
How, then, will this lone website affect Michael Steele as it makes its viral rounds on email, social media and the internet as a pass-along link and in blogs like ours, giving it more exposure? On one hand, the site may create public noise because of its cutesy creativity and as a result boost Steele's image and further his platform of new solutions. But because users can post almost any photograph, the website has risky potential to feature depictions that may or may not be favorable to the chairman.
View the website and let us know your thoughts.
As a side note, Steele's mother Maebelle Turner, was born into an African-American sharecropping family in our state -- South Carolina.
Sanford: More Popular than 'The Terminator'?
In terms of personal strife, our own Governor Mark Sanford has certainly seen his share. Over the past six months the married governor has endured ongoing criticism and public relations fiascos stemming from his actions related to his relationship with an Argentinian woman.
When it comes to the most unpopular governors currently in office across the nation, one might think Sanford would be a star in the topmost tier. But according to a poll released today by Public Policy Polling, Sanford doesn't even make the top 8 in terms of unpopularity. If the poll is correct, Sanford has a better approval rating than California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Budget and financial issues appear to be the root reason of the unpopularity of the eight most unpopular governors, says PPP. They include:
John Baldacci (D) of Maine
Jan Brewer (R) of Arizona
Jim Doyle (D) of Wisconsin
Jim Gibbons (R) of Nevada
David Paterson (R) of New York
Bev Perdue (D) of North Carolina
Ed Rendell (D) of Pennsylvania
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) of California
Takeaway from this poll? Even in an age when scandals like the Mark Sanford affair rock the country, more obscure, less flashy issues may ultimately have a truer impact on a governor's overall perceived image.
VIEW THE FULL POLL RESULTS
When it comes to the most unpopular governors currently in office across the nation, one might think Sanford would be a star in the topmost tier. But according to a poll released today by Public Policy Polling, Sanford doesn't even make the top 8 in terms of unpopularity. If the poll is correct, Sanford has a better approval rating than California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Budget and financial issues appear to be the root reason of the unpopularity of the eight most unpopular governors, says PPP. They include:
John Baldacci (D) of Maine
Jan Brewer (R) of Arizona
Jim Doyle (D) of Wisconsin
Jim Gibbons (R) of Nevada
David Paterson (R) of New York
Bev Perdue (D) of North Carolina
Ed Rendell (D) of Pennsylvania
Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) of California
Takeaway from this poll? Even in an age when scandals like the Mark Sanford affair rock the country, more obscure, less flashy issues may ultimately have a truer impact on a governor's overall perceived image.
VIEW THE FULL POLL RESULTS
Did You Hear? Live Political South Carolina Twitter Chat
At Brett, Inc., we are lucky to be acquainted with and follow on Twitter Jason Spencer, a political and general assignment reporter for the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. Like other select journalists, Spencer has wisely embraced social media as an important aspect of his job and spends a solid chunk of his time blogging and conversing with his followers and fellow media on Twitter.Recently, Spencer launched a series of live South Carolina political "Twitter chats", calling the first one an 'experiment'. We witnessed the first chat live, and our takeaway is that he has really hit on a powerful way to connect people across the state in South Carolina political conversation through social media. Many Twitter-users know how to follow a "live Twitter chat". Simply do a Twitter search for the official hashtag (#) associated with any particular chat and follow the conversation by continually updating the seach for the hashtag.
Spencer's first official live political Twitter chat took place on November 11 with Olivier Blanchard, a well-known Greenville-based social media and marketing expert with a strong interest in politics. That discussion proved so successful and interactive he followed it a week later with another chat with Trey Pennington, another Upstate social media and marketing entrepreneur with a political background. Just this week, Spencer hosted Wesley Donehue, the South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus’ political and communications director who is also the technology director for the state GOP, for a third live chat.
Spencer's political chats are well worth an hour of your time and truly have the capacity to heighten the political conversation in our state. When he can, Spencer posts follow-up recaps of the chats on his blog Crazyworld. To become a part of his political chats, follow the official hashtag #scpol.
What the Confederate Flag is Doing to South Carolina and Our Politics
If you've lived in South Carolina for any significant period of time, you undoubtedly know that the Confederate flag flies in front of the Capitol in Columbia next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. Our state has a storied and tense history with the flag, which perched atop the Capitol building from 1962 until the state senate passed a bill in 2000 to have it moved to its current location. And there it has flown ever since...albeit a more traditional square-shaped version of the flag.Yet many remain vehement that the flag is a symbol of racism and want its removal entirely, including the NAACP, who has maintained a long-standing boycott of South Carolina as a result.
When gubernatorial candidate Mullins McLeod announced this week that he believes the Confederate flag should be permanently removed altogether from the Capitol grounds, angry hornets from both sides started buzzing again. While the Confederate flag issue is a tense one, it for the most part has remained dormant for the last nine years. McLeod maintains that flying the flag is a detriment to state economy and will ultimately hurt jobs and economic growth.
With our ear to the ground when it comes to South Carolina politics, we have noticed in the last day or two just how fervid the argument over the flag is. While certainly a legitimate argument with many people's feelings deserving to be taken into consideration, it also made us think about what this persistent issue is doing to South Carolina politics.
With our ear to the ground when it comes to South Carolina politics, we have noticed in the last day or two just how fervid the argument over the flag is. While certainly a legitimate argument with many people's feelings deserving to be taken into consideration, it also made us think about what this persistent issue is doing to South Carolina politics.
Regardless of whether or not you think the flag should go or stay, regardless of whether or not you agree with McLeod that the flag hurts our economy, we would be remiss not to point out the zealous and angry discord the issue is allowing to continue...and drag on...and on.... The issue has created a serious crack in our politics, our political parties and our people, and each time it resurfaces we open those old wounds. Our point? Sure, it's a heated issue and a very personal one for many people. But we need to work together to heal this fissure. It's bad for our state, it pollutes our political climate and it pits our people against one another.
As a state that is already perceived by much of the nation as floundering in a fishbowl of political quandaries, we need to band together, not allow issues to sever our political parties.
More insights and info into the Confederate flag issue:
FITSNEWS
The Rock Hill Herald
The Greenville News
A PR Dream Team: Why Eliot Spitzer Might Have Gotten Luckier Than He'll Ever Realize
Undeniably, reporters and PR people have to work together. In a sublime world, public relations staff and reporters would offer one another easy, fluid transfer of information, but let's get real. Reporters seek facts and instant access to experts that will validate their stories, while PR folks usually have a solid idea of precisely how they think a story should be told. And rightfully so, as their job is to craft a positive image for the person or entity for whom they work. While the need for information can at times create a bit of a love-hate relationship, quality public relations people will ultimately establish and maintain good media relationships.
We bring this issue up because of a recent Gawker item on Eliot Spitzer, the former Governor of New York outed in 2008 in a prostitution scandal. Spitzer's communications director and press secretary were thrown right into the heat of what the piece refers to as Spitzer's "PR meltdown". It seems that Spitzer's people had established exceptionally good relationships with the New York Times reporters hunting for the juicy scandal, as they apparently allowed Spitzer's press team to preview parts of the stories and asked permission before contacting sources. In the article you can read a play-by-play of actual emails between reporters and public relations team.
The moral of the story? Whether or not a scandal lies ahead in your future, having the right public relations people on your side with good press relationships remains a fundamental necessity. As bad as it seems for Spitzer, in reality with the magnitude of what he did, it could have been much, much worse.
Smart Move: Obama Knew Early On He Didn't Need John Edwards' PR Help
On Sunday, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire ran a short blip from political strategist and Obama heavyweight David Plouffe's new book, The Audacity to Win. The book quote points to former Presidential hopeful John Edwards. After deciding his campaign was finally kaput, Edwards apparently tried to turn his loss into an endorsement bargaining chip laid on the table between remaining candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. An Edwards aide indicated that Edwards might be willing to jump ship to Team Obama ship to help defeat Mrs. Clinton. According to the Goddard post, Plouffe writes in the book that Obama's response to Edwards "was quick and firm: he would cut no deals."
An endorsement, including any bestowed by a former candidate who has bowed out of a race, can provide a powerful channel to help shape a public persona and political identity for a candidate, not to mention influence voting behavior. Many, if not most voters, rarely follow candidates closely enough to have more than just a passing familiarity with their political ideologies, and thus often turn to non-political cues such as endorsements to ultimately make voting decisions.
At the time when Edwards apparently courted the Obama campaign, news had not yet leaked of his now infamous dalliance and affair with Rielle Hunter that for any foreseeable amount of time has cost him his political future, dragged his reputation through the mud, and made him the laughingstock of late-night comics.
Looking back, we bet Obama is glad this is one deal he didn't make.
At the time when Edwards apparently courted the Obama campaign, news had not yet leaked of his now infamous dalliance and affair with Rielle Hunter that for any foreseeable amount of time has cost him his political future, dragged his reputation through the mud, and made him the laughingstock of late-night comics.
Looking back, we bet Obama is glad this is one deal he didn't make.
Turning Bad Press into Opportunity: How Can Politicians Turn The Wheel?
Politicians walk a precarious wire. As public figures, every move they make in public and private becomes subject to scrutinization by constituents and the media at large.Joe Wilson's You Lie outburst earlier this fall during President Obama's speech wound up being a gold mine for the South Carolina Congressman. Facing condemnation from much of his own party and people across the country, he hired professional public relations pros who were able to tweak his message and tuck him into every social media channel across the country. His hired guns revived his campaign and then some, netting campaign funds that currently reach into the millions of dollars range.
And meanwhile... also in South Carolina... yet more controversy has erupted.
On October 18, Orangeburg's Times and Democrat ran an editorial page column by Republicans Jim Ulmer Jr. an Orangeburg County chairman, and Edwin O. Merwin Jr., Bamberg County chairman. The column, meant to highlight U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint’s stand against congressional earmarks, inflamed some readers due to a comment about Jews perceived by many as stereotyping. By October 20, the ire ignited into a statewide story, even landing on national news sites such as The Huffington Post. Following critical comments by Joel Lourie, a Jewish South Carolina legislator, Ulmer and Merwin issued apologies alongside SCGOP Chairwoman Karen Floyd and Senator Jim DeMint.
Ulmer and Merwin have a heap of options when it comes to neatly re-packaging their reputations following this fiasco, but what is the course of action they ought to pursue? As leaders, are they now in the pile of "damaged goods", or can they repair those cracks?
Ultimately, having begged public forgiveness, they may opt to sit quietly by the sidelines in humiliation until the public moves on to the next tumultous story of the day. Over time the story will certainly wane and some people may forget, but as far as reputations go, the issue could leave a stain.
They could hire a team of PR experts to work the media field and work on more positive, image-boosting stories. If they hire the right folks to manage the right message and atone for the negative perception of the Times and Democract column, they could even see their status elevated to leaders of their party on the state level.
Or perhaps Ulmer and Merwin could become their own best public relations spokespersons and make the news show rounds, inviting the public to engage in conversations about stereotyping and other similar issues in South Carolina. By taking the bull by the horns, they could potentially unfetter themselves a bit from their sticky situation. But until then, how the latest South Carolina political blunder plays out in full remains to be seen.
More:
Why GOP.com's Mistakes May Not Be So Costly After All
All the ado over the past couple of days about the new, re-vamped website by the GOP got us thinking about the overall impact of the fuss. If you follow politics, you've likely heard that the Republican National Committee finally launched their new site earlier this week, complete with a bright red banner and an "O" in GOP that apparently metamorphoses into a different human face each time you click the page... to represent party diversity. The intent of the site re-launch is to create, according to Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, "a forward-looking, open platform for the party of new ideas."Critics pounded the site for looking too much like the Chinese flag, being short on content and crashing. Steele changing the name of his blog to "Change the Game" from the much-mocked initial title "What Up" didn't help much with the critics, either.
Bugs and other glitches aside, problems will eventually get fixed. But as you've probably heard many a time, no press is bad press. Our initial thoughts were how many MORE people will, as a result, be driven to the GOP.com website. GOP.com got many more web hits, links and traffic because of what's been called "negative press". Probably far more people - Republicans, Democrats, Independents and those unaffiliated with any party - are now familiar with and/or interested in the site, as a result.
So What Up with GOP.com? It may Change the Game more than you think.
More on the re-launch of GOP.com:
Wesley Donehue had some great insights.
The Washington Post
Politico
We also just learned via The Discust that there is a GOP site specific to South Carolina.
To Follow or Not to Follow: South Carolina Politicians Who Twitter
We witnessed an interesting conversation on Twitter yesterday, as a well-known local television anchor pondered whether or not he should follow politicians on Twitter. He said, "Have resisted following politicians thinking I have to follow all or none, but I have several following me now and feel rude. Opinions?"The advice that other Twitterers gave him was a resounding Yes, with one newspaper reporter even remarking "You should follow them. Even if it is mostly useless chatter, to quote The Wire, all the pieces matter."
Subsequently, another user tweeted a fairly comprehensive list of well-known South Carolina politicians, candidates and politicos. The list, part of the website SC Tweets, was created by SC State Representative and realtor Dan Hamilton (@dphamilton) and Columbia-based political consultant and tech enthusiast Wesley Donehue (@wesleydonehue). The site has a lot of well-known names and is a valuable resource, if you do the Twitter thing. Take a look at the site and bookmark it.
Should you follow politicians on Twitter? Absolutely. Twitter allows politicians to speak directly to you, so you can hear straight from the horse's mouth how they feel about issues that affect you every day. Not to mention, it's sort of entertaining to watch them tweet about what kind of barbecue they ate for lunch.
Joe Wilson Amps Up the Tweets
Piggybacking on our most recent blog post about hiring professionals to handle your Web 2.0, we'd be remiss if we didn't take the opportunity to remark on Congressman Joe Wilson's recent decision to hire a professional Tweeter.That's right, Representative Wilson, following his now-infamous "You Lie!" heckler's shout during President Obama's healthcare speech last week, has suddenly been thrust into the national spotlight. Pre "You Lie!", Wilson was a somewhat under the radar Congressman; a lesser-known Republican who was for the most part seen as congenial and easy-going. But with those two words uttered amongst the sanctity of a televised Presidential address, he suddenly catapulted himself to a whole new level of notoriety.
The chosen Wilson pro Tweeter is David All, a new media strategist whose Web 2.0 firm caters to conservative clientele. All's role ala Joe Wilson is to maintain a constant stream of Twitter updates on behalf of Congressman Wilson as well as to promote him across the political and news blogosphere. Before All stepped in to tidy up Wilson's reputation, the Congressman's Twitter account hadn't been updated since early August. Wilson is now on a roll, spewing out upwards of ten or more tweets a day.
Our point comes down to the mere fact that as amusing as Wilson's professional Tweeter hire may be, it is part of a broader strategy for the Congressman. By hiring All, Wilson is attempting to deflect some of the controversy through professionally-managed social media outreach. Meanwhile, many grassroots supporters and even many fellow Republicans have come out to back Wilson and his anti-Obamacare platform. Wilson seems to be even now using the whole episode as part of a larger tidal wave to keep his name in the media, and on the Web, and to promote his upcoming Congressional race (and raise money at the same time!).
Joe Wilson has certainly made a name for himself in South Carolina and across the country, and with his constant social media presence seems to be launching a PR campaign of his own. Check out his most recent in a string of YouTube videos, "I Will Not be Muzzled".
Tim Brett and Jim Morton: Make a cigarette tax increase happen
In case you don't receive the Greenville News, we are publishing below a Brett Op-Ed piece that ran on Friday, August 28, regarding the cigarette tax issue in South Carolina. Read the article at the Greenville News web site here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make a cigarette tax increase happen
For the past nine years, legislation to increase the state cigarette tax has come before the South Carolina General Assembly that would financially boost Medicaid by providing health-care coverage for many of our state's poorest residents and also pay for smoking prevention programs. And for the past nine years, that legislation has failed to become law.
Make a cigarette tax increase happen
For the past nine years, legislation to increase the state cigarette tax has come before the South Carolina General Assembly that would financially boost Medicaid by providing health-care coverage for many of our state's poorest residents and also pay for smoking prevention programs. And for the past nine years, that legislation has failed to become law.
It would seem reasonable to assume that a bill which would be so valuable to our state's health should be a legislative no-brainer. Not only would disadvantaged South Carolinians get health-care coverage, but smokers would hopefully be encouraged to give up the habit, and others would be dissuaded from ever starting. But year after year, a number of bumps in the road continue to prevent our state's neediest citizens from getting the Medicaid assistance many of them literally cannot live without.
In 2008 it appeared South Carolina would join the legion of other states, as well as the District of Columbia, that have increased cigarette taxes. The House and Senate passed legislation to increase the then 7-cent tax to a reasonable 50-cent tax, which would still be the lowest rate of taxation on cigarettes in the nation, only to have the bill vetoed by Gov. Mark Sanford, who held tight to his no-new-taxes stance.
During this year's legislative session, cigarette tax bills once again came to the floor of both chambers and once again were not passed, this time due to a battle over different versions. The House version would have offered maximum tax credits of $3,000 to people making up to $21,000 annually.
The Senate version of the legislation argued that the House plan would only create unnecessary bureaucratic and overhead costs by distributing the money on an individual basis. The Senate's alternative lobbied instead for the tax money to go straight into expansion of Medicaid programs, which would additionally have procured the state $3 in matching federal funds for every Medicaid dollar spent. At the close of the 2009 South Carolina legislative session, the battle over the expenditure of the proceeds was still undecided, shutting the door once again on a new state cigarette tax.
According to a recent Families USA research study, 670 people a week lose their health-care coverage in South Carolina. Yet we still have the lowest cigarette tax of any state in the nation and rank last among states in funding smoking prevention programs.
Our House and Senate seem to have reached a general consensus that it's time to raise the cigarette tax, because the issue continues to come up year after year. Now it's just a matter of untangling the web of disagreement between members of the General Assembly and the governor so we can get the job done in 2010.
Call or write your legislator and let them know your thoughts on the cigarette tax bill. To find your legislator, visit http://www.scstatehouse.gov/ and click “Find Your Legislator” in the left-hand column.
In 2008 it appeared South Carolina would join the legion of other states, as well as the District of Columbia, that have increased cigarette taxes. The House and Senate passed legislation to increase the then 7-cent tax to a reasonable 50-cent tax, which would still be the lowest rate of taxation on cigarettes in the nation, only to have the bill vetoed by Gov. Mark Sanford, who held tight to his no-new-taxes stance.
During this year's legislative session, cigarette tax bills once again came to the floor of both chambers and once again were not passed, this time due to a battle over different versions. The House version would have offered maximum tax credits of $3,000 to people making up to $21,000 annually.
The Senate version of the legislation argued that the House plan would only create unnecessary bureaucratic and overhead costs by distributing the money on an individual basis. The Senate's alternative lobbied instead for the tax money to go straight into expansion of Medicaid programs, which would additionally have procured the state $3 in matching federal funds for every Medicaid dollar spent. At the close of the 2009 South Carolina legislative session, the battle over the expenditure of the proceeds was still undecided, shutting the door once again on a new state cigarette tax.
According to a recent Families USA research study, 670 people a week lose their health-care coverage in South Carolina. Yet we still have the lowest cigarette tax of any state in the nation and rank last among states in funding smoking prevention programs.
Our House and Senate seem to have reached a general consensus that it's time to raise the cigarette tax, because the issue continues to come up year after year. Now it's just a matter of untangling the web of disagreement between members of the General Assembly and the governor so we can get the job done in 2010.
Call or write your legislator and let them know your thoughts on the cigarette tax bill. To find your legislator, visit http://www.scstatehouse.gov/ and click “Find Your Legislator” in the left-hand column.
Smear Tactics: Politicians' Reputations Get Dirty
Mud-slinging, smear campaigns, character attacks - no matter what you call them, these oft-used tactics have been a staple of American politics for years. Used in regards to a political campaign to malign or otherwise damage the credibility of an individual or a group of people, it is and almost always attempted quietly and/or anonymously, so as not to reveal the source of the smear. For example...
In the chaotic circus of South Carolina politics this week, embattled Governor Mark Sanford has been accused of launching his own smear campaign against his own Lieutenant Governor and fellow Republican Andre Bauer, allegedly spreading gossip that Bauer is homosexual. While Sanford and Bauer have never been on the friendliest of playing fields with one another to begin with, political gossip circles claim that the supposed ad hominem against Bauer is retaliation for Bauer's call for Sanford to step down from office. Regardless of whether or not Sanford's camp was responsible for the hatchet job, someone apparently launched and spread the rumor.
In similar news, it was just a few weeks ago that President Obama's science adviser Jon Holdren also allegedly became the victim of a defamation attempt by traditionally conservative media outlets. An article by Climate Progress claimed that Fox News and several other media groups were twisting Holdren's views on energy and climate to paint a picture of him as in favor of mandating population control.
Libel and slander charges and prosecution issues aside, smear campaigns are not reputable methods nor are they good business practices. But they are an unfortunate reality, especially in politics. The person being targeted almost always has to spend time refuting the character assassination attempts and less time on the real issues. Read more about (in)famous smear campaigns here.
Governors and Publicity: It's Getting Viral now
With the state's current governor embattled in multiple public relations snafus of his own that just don't seem to end, South Carolina also has an impending gubernatorial race just getting its wheels churning. The concurrence of the two has us wondering just how the upcoming Governor's race will impact not only Sanford's fight to stay in office, but the outcome of the state's next election.
On Monday, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dwight Drake release a mock movie trailer video entitled "500 Days of Sanford" that quickly went viral, making the rounds on Twitter, Facebook, email and statewide newscasts. The video forecasts a grim outlook for the remainder of the Sanford administration, assuming he stays in office, yet does it in a way obviously meant to poke fun at the embroiled Governor. The public relations and marketing gurus hired by Drake to create the video no doubt intended to capitalize on Sanford's uncomfortable position by further hammering him as a poor leader. At the same time, they managed to sprinkle Drake's name throughout a public that right now is fascinated with the Governor's scandal.
An offscreen voice on the video says, “This is not a love story, it’s a story about a governor’s last year and a half in office. 500 days left of uncertainty, of wondering where he is.”
Ultimately, did the 76-second video really cause the Sanford negative publicty pit to be dug any deeper than it already is? Did it position Drake as the best candidate for Governor among a field of, oh, 9 or 10 others at this point? Was it a waste of money?
An offscreen voice on the video says, “This is not a love story, it’s a story about a governor’s last year and a half in office. 500 days left of uncertainty, of wondering where he is.”
Ultimately, did the 76-second video really cause the Sanford negative publicty pit to be dug any deeper than it already is? Did it position Drake as the best candidate for Governor among a field of, oh, 9 or 10 others at this point? Was it a waste of money?
Our opinion is that it was a smart move on Drake's part. The YouTube video probably cost him no more than a couple thousand dollars at the most, and by piggybacking on the ongoing Mark Sanford buzz, his video got a lot of attention. That amount of money he spent, which really amounts to only one or two large campaign donations, got him endless social media hits plus a number of TV newscasts mentions and links to his video from TV and newspaper online newsrooms. Watch the video for yourself and decide what you think.
PR: Insurance Companies' Secret Weapon in the Health Care Debate?
Strategic public relations, when used effectively in controversy, can be the dog whisperer that ultimately tames the beast. It can likewise be the match that ignites the giant blaze.
We bring this point about PR up because of a CNN Politics.com article recently written by ex-insurance company spokesman Wendell Potter. Potter's former role as a corporate public relations executive for one of the nation's largest health insurers put him in the constant role of helping to "promote and defend" that insurance company's reputation. We found his points about the impact of public relations for the insurance industry quite illuminating, especially in light of the recent turmoil over President Obama's health care plan. According to Potter, big insurance groups often put much of their budget into hiring public relations people to enhance company reputations, deliver a consistently positive message, and engage media to write positive industry and company coverage.
Potter even claims that some of the public relations teams hired by insurance companies funnel talking points to conservative politicians, business people and other high profile right-wing figures, as well as set up strategic PR stunts. All of these tactics are designed to positively promote the insurance industry while at the same time quashing support for government-run health care. When it comes to an issue as pervasive as the current health care dispute, these strategies can pack a significant punch when used well.
Regardless of where you stand on the Obama health care plan or what your thoughts are on the insurance industry, Potter's article is insightful and worth a read.
We bring this point about PR up because of a CNN Politics.com article recently written by ex-insurance company spokesman Wendell Potter. Potter's former role as a corporate public relations executive for one of the nation's largest health insurers put him in the constant role of helping to "promote and defend" that insurance company's reputation. We found his points about the impact of public relations for the insurance industry quite illuminating, especially in light of the recent turmoil over President Obama's health care plan. According to Potter, big insurance groups often put much of their budget into hiring public relations people to enhance company reputations, deliver a consistently positive message, and engage media to write positive industry and company coverage.
Potter even claims that some of the public relations teams hired by insurance companies funnel talking points to conservative politicians, business people and other high profile right-wing figures, as well as set up strategic PR stunts. All of these tactics are designed to positively promote the insurance industry while at the same time quashing support for government-run health care. When it comes to an issue as pervasive as the current health care dispute, these strategies can pack a significant punch when used well.
Regardless of where you stand on the Obama health care plan or what your thoughts are on the insurance industry, Potter's article is insightful and worth a read.
Posts
