On Earned Media and Enabling

Campaigns must be able to spread the word about their campaigns when doing wholesale politics.  Thus campaigns must either buy media spots (paid media) or generate free media coverage (earned media).  This may be accomplished from  a spectacular campaign event, an unusual comment which is considered "newsworthy" or from media hits.

The 2016 Republican field has used different media strategies to varying effect. For example, former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) and his independent (but sympathetic) Right to Rise Super-PAC gathered a huge war chest to sway voters.  The Jeb! strategy was to earn legitimacy in Republican voters eyes by amassing a cornucopia of endorsements and shape the field by flooding the airways with paid media.

Obviously, this strategy did not work out well for the Bush scion.  Pointing to a score of retired generals who endorsed Jeb did not prove to have much sway.  Some of the name endorsements, like former Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) really seemed dated.  And Jeb bringing out his mother and former President brother in South Carolina smacked of desperation. This was too little too late and did not generate significant (or particularly positive) earned media

More telling was the money that Jeb and the Right to Rise Super-PAC burned through tens of millions of dollars on paid media.  The Jeb campaign and Right to Rise  flooded the airwaves in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina but Bush fell in towards the back of the pack and suspended his campaign early in the voting.

The Washington Post published a telling graphic to illustrate the cost benefit of Republican Primary campaigns on paid media and actual votes.

The only campaign which spent more per vote than Jeb Bush did is Dr. Ben Carson. But as Carson Campaign's Business Manager (tellingly NOT a Campaign Manager) Armstrong Williams knows, branding can be quite expensive.  But it can also be lucrative for those charged with placing the ads.  Bush confidant Mike Murphy worked at the Jeb oriented Right to Rise Super-PAC but reportedly earned $14 million for buying the earned media.  Nice job if you can get it.

On the other end of the campaign publicity spectrum,  there is earned media.  Capitalizing on earned media has been one of the keys of Donald Trump's current success in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary race.  Donald Trump has been a master creating controversy to keep the spotlight focused on him and earning lots of earned media. During the summer of 2015, Trump received saturation media coverage by the networks.   Trump's experience doing reality television already established name recognition and a branding of successful businessman in the eyes of many non-political low information voters.  By saying outrageous things and constantly attacking opponents who threaten his perch, Trump generates tons of earned media.

Another characteristic of the 2016 Trump campaign is a persistent attack on the media. Trump complains seemingly whenever a media organization reports something critical.  Trump will label them nasty, unfair or stupid.  Trump has gone so far to eject credentialed media with whom Trump does not like the line of their questions.

Trump has a trend of disparaging journalists who challenge him, from benign interviews with Katy Tor to hostile news conference exchanges with Jorge Ramos.  Most famously, Donald Trump launched myriad mysogenic slurs against Megyn Kelly, a Fox News anchor who questioned how Trump treated women. Several months later, Trump claimed that he was boycotting Fox News debates because of Megyn Kelly's inclusion, but later relented when Trump discovered that missing debates could hurt him amongst the electorate. To be fair, it might also have been a Trump technique of truthful hyperbole to further self promotion.

The attack dog mentality plays well for the angry electorate but Trump's tirades against Fox News seem somewhat counter-intuitive. Fox News has long been considered the major media outlet most friendly to Republican voices. Despite what Trump-eteers trumpet on social media, much of Fox News is friendly towards Donald Trump.  Trump has long done weekly call ins with Fox & Friends.  Judge Janine Pirro has a longstanding friendship with Trump and has formally endorsed him.  In addition, Sean Hannity is a personal friend, as is Bill O'Reilly.  Both are happy to give the Manhattan mogul airtime, but these shows do not necessarily endorse the candidate, although O'Reilly was obsequious in begging Trump to participate in debates (even promising to take milkshakes off the ledger).

So why does Trump peseverate on complaining about Fox News? The answer may be several fold. Trump loves positive news stories about himself. Despite all of the earned media, news hooks and friendly airtime through the auspices of Fox News, Trump has not won over Megyn Kelly thus he feels justified to rail against Fox.  Cynically, Trump might deduce that attacking Trump may appeal to his "silent majority" of blue collar (Reagan) Democrats that are poised to support a populist like Trump but their perspectives have been poisoned by constant Democrat lambasting of Fox News.  From a Machiavellian mode, by intimidating a strong opponent, it sends a bully message to the rest of the media and harbors a hint that they might lose access if they do not say nice things about Trump.

For running a comparatively shoe-string budget campaign, Trump has done well trading on celebrity, controversy and earned media access.  Cable channels love to run with Trump quips because they attract eyeballs and create controversy, which improves ratings. Trump tends to speak unscripted, so you never know what he is going to say.  As many campaign rallies have been at large venues, live media coverage can be justified as being newsworthy. Trump is not shy about doing interviews with those he can rely upon not to be hostile interviews, so he gets lots of airtime.

It is a curiosity that progressive channels like MSNBC and CNN have also been Trump obsessed. Is it because it is newsworthy? Does it attract eyeballs? Or could it be media manipulation to help pick the Republican nominee who will be easiest for a progressive to beat? Enabling through earned media isn't always an endorsement.

Some might conclude that Trump is brilliant in leveraging earned media to his advantage in the 2016 Election. But glowing coverage and earned media can only get a candidate so far.  And those who live by the media can perish by the media.  Senator John McCain had such a chummy relationship with the media on his Straight Talk Express, but the media mob turned on him after he won the 2008 Republican nomination. NBC News has bought all of the footage from Selena Scott's BBC documentary on Donald Trump but is holding the damning information until after the convention. The Lamestream Media has not focused on some of the business connections of the real estate tycoon.

Unless the Republican electorate is convinced that it is a Trump landslide, it is difficult to see how an earned media oriented strategy works to appeal in nine separate primary races during the so called SEC primary on March 1st.  Then on March 15th, there are several big winner take all states in Florida, Ohio and Illinois which have many media markets and are not built for quick barnstorming campaigns.

But Trump is not the only seriously competitive candidate in the Republican nomination race.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) campaign relies heavily on endorsements and paid media.  Rubio and his independent (but aligned) Conservative Solutions Super-PAC had amassed a vast war chest.  Moreover, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and his four independent (but aligned) Keep the Promise Super-PACs have raised lots of money and have been have resisted the temptation to blow the war chest early.  This paid media, combined with strategic earned media news hooks and organized Get Out the Vote drives, could deflate the Trump balloon.

Trump is short on specifics but loves to taut his poll ratings and his greatness on media availability, might not look as promising for earned media if the so called Trump Train is slowed down.  For example, Donald Trump accepted his second place finish in the Iowa Caucus' gracefully and did not use social media much the next day.  Consequently, Trump disappeared from the media spotlight.  The next day, Trump cranked up the smear machine questioning Cruz's eligibility and other outrageous claims that Carson had votes stolen from him during the Iowa Caucus.  That media circus strategy works well  for Trump when everyone is concentrating on the next state.  But when there are many simultaneous contests in diverse regions, that might not be a successful strategy, especially if the media (or the establishment) has anointed the new "golden boy" for saturation coverage.

Looking forward to the General Election, once the Republican nomination is decided, even friendly foils in the media become fierce foes. This is to maintain impartiality, to create controversy to become newsworthy and often reflects the liberal Lamesteam Media bias.  If a candidate is overly reliant on earned media from chaos campaigning and chummy Manhattan media ties, it could endanger the viability of such a candidacy. Oppo research leaks to the media about a candidate's shortcomings (or even silly stuff like crating a dog on top of a station wagon for a summer vacation) can dominate the media landscape and besmirch the reputation of a former media darling. While such jaundiced journalism would not alienate the hardened core of Trump supporters, it would bolster the ceiling of popularity and drive the debate to terra incognita. 

What Makes for a Good Speaker?

After four and a half years as Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH 8th) announced his resignation. Boehner allegedly wanted to resign after the 112th Congress but his handpicked heir, seven term incumbent  former Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA 7th), but he was ignominously upset by Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA 7th) in the Republican Primary. So  Boehner blustered that he wanted to resign after the pinnacle of his career in hosting Pope Francis to speak before a joint session of Congress.  Of course, this “Zip-a-Dee Doo Dah” excuse conveniently ignores the looming Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC 11th) Motion to Vacate the Chair, which the Speaker would either lose or have to win with Democrat votes. Boehner gave a month for his resignation to take effect in late October, 2015.

It is a good thing that Speaker Boehner gave a month to let things shake it.  Everything was arranged for Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA 23rd prior 22nd) to assume the big chair. But then McCarthy opened his big mouth during a friendly interview with Sean Hannity in which inartful articulation about Hillary Clinton blew two years of non-partisan investigation by House Select Benghazi Committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th).

McCarthy’s gaffe enlarged a gulf between the House Republican establishment and the Freedom Caucus, which was reluctant to back a Cocktail Party candidate.   The Freedom Caucus had been poised to support Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL 8th), who is less conservative then the Freedom Caucus but open to rules reform.  However, before the Republican Caucus secretly voted on their choice, McCarthy suddenly resigned and the vote never took place.

In the aftermath of this announcement, there was pressure to draft House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) from divergent voices like Trey Gowdy and Mitt Romeny. But Ryan   was leery about leading what some might characterize as a den of vipers to spend lots of his time fundraising away from family.  Ryan took a week to decide his druthers.  Ryan announced that he would run if his candidacy would unite the party and under certain conditions (such as reducing his extra congressional travel).



Paul Ryan was hailed as a conservative when he was chosen to be former Governor Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) running mate in 2012, yet was run down by some radicalized conservatives for his stance reformist inclinations on immigration.  As Ryan readied himself to possibly assume the Speakership, he tapped  David Hoppe, a veteran conservative who now works at the Heritage Foundation to be his  chief of staff. Yet even this move was characterized by discontented populists as “picking a Washington lobbyist”.  Moreover, some said that the Freedom Caucus would be sell outs if they backed Paul Ryan for speaker. But a super majority (but not 80%) of the Freedom Caucus expressed willingness to support Ryan for Speaker so the Wisconsin Congressman put his name forward for consideration.

Keeping these recent events in mind, it would be wise to discern what makes for a good Speaker. Some would claim, res ipsa loquitur, that the person must be able to speak.  Thus, Kevin McCarthy’s disjointed utterances should have disqualified him. There is no doubt that the Hannity snafu killed McCarthy’s bid to be Speaker.  But it was not because he was not articulate in his utterances.  Former Democrat House Speaker and now Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th prior 5th and 8th) was not a skilled speaker but was on message and ruled her caucus with an iron fist (and is aided by a sympathetic mainstream media).  Looking back into recent history, Rep. Denny Hastert was not chosen to be the chief spokesman for Republicans or the House.  Neither was Rep. Tom Foley (D-WA 5th).

On the other hand, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA 6th), Rep. Jim Wright (D-TX 12th) and Rep. Tip O’Neil (D-MA 8th) were able media front men while being Speaker.  So being clean, well spoken and  articulate, to borrow a compliment from Vice President Joe Biden, can augment the Speaker’s role but is not quintessential.

A second trait often associated with the House Speakership is as a fundraiser.  This would have been a task that Rep. Kevin McCarthy would have excelled at, lest the Benghazi bungle.  Boehner seems to have done well at raising funds, particularly for those who would support establishment leadership.  But this party role is something which Rep. Paul Ryan did not relish.  Obviously, it is ancillary to the job of being Speaker of the House and constitutionally the second in the line of succession to the Presidency.

A third quality associated with being Speaker is setting priorities.  Newt Gingrich was legionary for nationalizing the 1994 cycle and voting on the Contract with America in the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. Nancy Pelosi rallied her caucus in supporting legislation which impeded the waning George W. Bush administration in the 110th Congress and facilitated President Barack Obama’s agenda in the 111th Congress.

While current Speaker John Boehner has done some things to quell conservatives in the GOP caucus, like eventually launching the Benghazi Select Committee, suing about Obamacare and recently establishing a select committee to study Planned Parenthood abuses, his style tended to be top down and accommodating the powers that be in the White House. For instance, the lawsuit on Obamacare is window dressing with little chance of success (as it is a political issue that courts will eschew).  Congress voted many times to repeal Obamacare, but it was not really attached to budgets or fought for doggedly in conference committees.

Boehner also reneged on understandings which irked the base and conservatives.  For instance, Boehner repeatedly broke the Hastert Rule (bills must receive a majority of the majority to be put on the floor).  This meant that legislation passed with Democrat votes. Boehner would also jam down bills, like a continuing resolution or other lengthy legislation without giving members (and the public) three days to read it before voting.  So, to echo Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare, “We have to vote on the bill before we know what is in it.”.  Not a wise way to run a railroad.

Many rank-and-file conservatives wanted one of their own to be Speaker.  So social media pushed Trey Gowdy or Freedom Caucus leader Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH 4th).  This is under the assumption that a true Conservative would dominate the GOP caucus and get things done.

[L] Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH 4th) [R] Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID 1st) [photo: BD Matt]

Well, the popular press has branded the Freedom Caucus as being ultra-right wingers bent on their own way.  But at the October Conservation with Conservatives presser, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID 1st) struck a much more restrained set of expectations.  The Freedom Caucus realized that with unity of around 38 votes they had a certain amount of power, to deny a candidate the requisite 218 votes, but they could not successfully back one of their own as Speaker.

It may seem strange that a Republican member generally considered an up and coming Conservative like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT 3rd) only got lukewarm support in his bid for Speaker, as the Freedom Caucus was initially poised to back Rep. Daniel Webster, who had a 57% Liberty rating.  Rather than have a conservative warrior in the big chair, they wanted someone who would hear their voice.

What really bothered members of the Freedom Caucus was process issues.  They were tired of being shut out in the Committee process, not being able to advance their own legislation or  offer amendments during mark-ups. Ironically, this was not always because their amendments might lose, but that they could carry the day and ruin the pre-baked cake that House leadership had concocted with their counterparts in the Senate or across Pennsylvania Avenue.

Webster promised to have a bottom up leadership process and that influenced the Freedom Caucus.  While Ryan issued some daring demands (like get rid of the Motion to Vacate the Chair), he seems to have mollified the Freedom Caucus.  Scuttlebutt is that Ryan promised to not raise immigration reform until there is a new President. Politico reported that the Freedom Caucus and Ryan agreed in principle on most items and the Freedom Caucus would have some “buy in” on legislation, but his candidacy was still “take it or leave it”.  That was still good enough for 70% of the House Freedom Caucus.

This meeting of the minds did not win over all anti-establishment Republicans.  Rush Limbaugh posulated that to donor class got what they wanted in Paul Ryan.  Glenn Beck accused the Freedom Caucus of being sell-outs. But Beck wanted the House to look outside of its chambers to find a leader, by endorsing Senator Ben Sasse's (R-NB) modest proposal to draft AEI President Arthur Brooks.  In addition, Mark Levin railed at Ryan for never meeting a bailout he did not like.

Ryan may not be the essential man for Speaker but one wonders what Conservative critics want. Who would they choose and why?  If no one is likely to win, would firebrands be OK with Speaker Boehner remaining in place?  This is why discerning what makes a good Speaker matters to understand what candidate to support and appreciating the consequences of the choice.

Representative Ryan tends to be a conservative but has some bagging regarding bailouts and lingering concerns about immigration.  If he becomes Speaker, he may not be out of the rubber chicken circuit as much fundraising. But Ryan will probably be more of a media friendly face of the House and can articulate the Republican message.  Ryan’s reluctance to leave the Ways and Means Committee is because he wanted to radically reform our tax code from the burdensome stack of bureaucratic regulations.  It remains to be seen if this reformist impetus can be instituted while in the Speaker’s chair.

The Republican House Caucus will vote in secret on October 28th. If Ryan is a clear winner, then a formal floor vote should follow on October 29th as Boehner steps down.  But if the votes are not they, all hell will break loose and the House will need to discern what makes for an acceptable choice for Speaker. When Gingrich resigned in 1998, Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA 1st) was poised to be Head of the House, but some kinks came up in that ascension, which brought about Speaker Denny Hastert.

Scuttlebutt on the Sony Hack Cyberwar Skirmish

Former Speaker of the House  Newt Gingrich opined that America lost its first cyberwar associated by the Sony Hack, which demanded that the feature film "The Interview" be withdrawn from distribution. 

So America's freedom of speech is subject to the whims of a tinpot dictator (albeit with a few nuclear bombs) from the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. 

A corporation like Sony Pictures may harbor concerns about liability associated with the publicized threats made by the anonymous hackers calling themselves "Guardians of Peace"  against movie-goers who attended the now cancelled Christmas day opening.  

Voices from both side of the political spectrum, from former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) to Alan Dershowitiz.  But Sony Pictures pulled "The Interview" from all prospective platforms.  There may also have been pecuniary motive for the move.  If the picture is never officially released, Sony Pictures could recover from insurance money, otherwise they would absorb the $41 million production costs.  

This does not explain Hollywood's cowardice towards pissing off Pyongyang. After Sony Pictures cancelled "The Interview",  the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin, Texas announced that it would show "Team America: World Police"(2004),  Alas those puckish plans were foiled by Paramount Pictures which refused to offer the Trey Parker and Matt Stone's film which satirizes Kim Jon Un's father Kim Jong-il due to "circumstances beyond their control." Those who want to revel to "I'm So Ronery" can still see it on Netflix or through Amazon Instant Video. 

If that is not sufficient evidence that Hollywood waved the white flag for the Hermit Kingdom, New Regency pulled the plug on the Steve Carell project "Pyongyang", which was slated to start up in March, 2015. And George Clooney spent a week asking a large number of Hollywood executives to sign a petition protesting the Norks blackmailing Hollywood through the Sony Hack.  Tellingly, no one had enough courage to sign the petition.  During World War II, studio produced propaganda pieces like Bugs Bunny cartoons sending up der Fuehrer. Now, such Tinseltown execs like the fortitude to sign a meager memo protesting business blackmail and standing up for freedom of speech. 

During his end of the year press conference, President Barack Obama opined that Sony Picture executives made a bad choice in pulling the film and that they should have talked with him.  It seems that running a rough cut in front of State Department officials was insufficient. Our Dear Leader's messianic charisma, Obama's renown negotiating skills and his steadfastness in setting red lines (and then ignoring them) surely would have made a difference.  But President Obama promises to study the problem and offer a measured US response to North Korean Cyberwar provocation. After all, Mr. Obama will be 6,000 miles closer on golf courses in Hawaii to offer leadership.

The United States does have limited options in dealing with North Korea.  There are virtually no economic sanctions left to use.  Moreover, Pyongyang is insulated by charity from the Peoples' Republic of China so the NORKS can continue create trouble with the US.  We can not forget that the Hermit Kingdom does have nuclear capabilities.  Then there is the small matter of the DRK having 10,000 missiles aimed at our treaty ally South Korea, where we incidentally have 37,000 soldiers stationed.  

There may be black operations by the US which should not become public, as well as behind the scenes diplomatic de marches with DRK allies in Beijing.  But the best public responses that I have heard so far involve Hollywood using the Oscars ceremony on Washington's Birthday to use "The Interview" actors James FRANCO, Seth Rogen and Randall Park to come out in character and joke around.  While at the same time, the Pentagon sponsors a joint training operation with the South Korean, Japanese and American military forces in the Sea of Japan.

But considering the cravenness recently displayed by Hollywood, it is more likely that the Oscars would be hosted by the actual Kim Jong Un with a special appearance by Sony Picture's Racial Inclusion Czar, the Reverend Al Sharpton.

h/t: Steve Sack

Laus Deo--Bible Museum to Be in DC

[L] Curator Dr. Scott Carroll [R] Steve Green

The Museum of the Bible, a non-governmental not-for-profit organization, has secured a site two blocks from the National Mall to open a large scale national, non sectarian gallery  to display sacred texts by 2016.

Steve Green, the heir to the the Hobby Lobby craft chain (and current President) began collecting bible artifacts in 2009.  In collaboration with his “Indiana Jones” manuscript expert Dr. Scott Carroll, Green estimates that he spends half of his time now amassing 40,000 biblical antiquities which comprise the Green Collection. Currently, the collection includes Torahs, papyri along with illuminated or decorated manuscripts which are valued at between $20 million to $40 million.  The antiquities world marveled at the rapid acquisition rate of the Green Collection.

 Traveling as part of the Passages exhibition, 400 pieces of the Green Collection is touring the world, with stops at the Atlanta and soon Charlotte, NC.  A smaller portion of the Green Collection traveled to the Vatican during Lent for a Verbum Domini, a exhibition celebrating interfaith contributions to the Bible.



The Green Collection will find a permanent home in Washington, DC at 300 D St. SW in a $50 million deal for a building which was previously  a home design center. The spokesman for the yet to be named biblical museum observed that Washington, DC was chosen over Dallas and New York City due to the ten hour driving proximity to over half of the United States.


Steve Green effuses over engaging people in Scripture.  While there are other Bible Collections in America, like Manhattan’s American Bible Society, the aim to the yet to be named Bible Museum will be to inspire people with the story of the Bible and its history. Green notes that the “[Bible] has been banned and burned more than any other book. It has over 40 writers over  a 1,500 year period.  That in itself is an incredible story.”

The average household in America owns seven Bibles and it has become somewhat common place. Yet Green feels that we have become ignorant of the Bible as it is no longer taught in the schools. The aim of making the Green Collection accessible to the public is to re-engage them with scripture and become acquainted with the God of the Bible.

Although Steven Green is evangelical and his family comes from a Southern Baptist tradition, the Bible Museum is intended to be non-sectarian.  In fact, Green hopes that atheists and skeptics of the Bible will tour the Collection and recognize that it is the most documented book from antiquity for which so many people have given their lives so there may be something to it.

When the Bible Museum is slated to open in 2016, it does plan to charge admission.  In the Nation’s Capital, paid admissions are the exception and not the rule, due to taxpayer largess with the Smithsonian Museums and the National Gallery of Art.  In the past decade, there have been a couple of successful private museums which charge admission, like the International Spy Museum and the Newseum.  Both of those ventures have dynamic and interactive presentations and somewhat specialized subject matter.

Washington's Carnegie Library

There have been two spectacular failures of paid admission museums between-the-beltways.  The City Museum in Washington in the historic Carnegie Library across the street from the Washington Convention Center, opened in 2003 to great fanfare and a Disney-like attraction.  But it closed in 2005 due to financial difficulties.

John Paul II Cultural Center

More on point was the John Paul II Cultural Center, a 130,000 square foot museum  near Catholic University in Brookland, DC sought to explore faith in the world, opened in March 2001 at a reported cost of $75 million.  It is speculated that the downturn in tourism after the September 2001 terrorist attack and economic recession doomed the project.  That may be true but personally I felt that there was not much to the collection for the proffered entry fee and it was far from typical tourist sections of the Nation’s Capital.  The JPII CC has now closed and the monumental building was sold to the Knights of Columbus for a reported $22.5  million in 2011.

While Steve Green reverse the majesty of the King James Bible, it would behoove the Bible Museum to augment the scriptural story beyond the Authorized Version, which just celebrated its quadricentenary in 2011.  Even though The Voice translation of the Bible may not work, it is an example of contemporary efforts to engage readers with scripture and should be recognized.

During the recent Restoring Love Rally in Dallas, Glenn Beck showed one of the eight surviving copies of a Bible commissioned by the Continental Congress after the American Revolutionary War that was given to soldiers as a token of gratitude, as King George had prohibited Americans from publishing their own Bibles.  Perhaps the Bible Museum could consult with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to rediscover God in America to make connections between the Federal City and how scripture shaped the formation of the nation.

h/t: Philanthropy Roundtable