Category Archives: Government

Apr 14

I guess the South will rise again

Posted on by

Gone_with_the_Wind(070311092656)Via_col_Vento_6A just-released CNN/ORC poll marking the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War showed  an astounding 42 percent of respondents said slavery WAS NOT the main reason southern states seceded from the Union. Holy Abraham Lincoln!

When broken down by political party affiliation, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split (which is why they're independents, I guess) and MOST Republicans said states' rights and not slavery, was the reason for secession. Gimme a break.

The South seceded solely to protect 'the curious institution' as they called slavery. Period. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and reminds me of the nut jobs who claim the holocaust never occurred either.

I'm not surprised the Tea Party-inspired Republicans believe the way they do. It actually fits like a glove. Still, it's a sorry commentary on the current state of affairs and an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who were killed and wounded to preserve the union and end slavery.

I think the survey speaks volumes about the image of the Republican Party and, frankly, am surprised the Rachel Maddows of the world aren't making a bigger deal about the findings. I'm also surprised reactionaries such as the Reverend Al Sharpton aren't leveraging the survey to further fan the flames and advance their personal agendas.

BTW, here are a few other key findings:

– One in four Americans surveyed sympathize more with the Confederacy's cause than the Union's. Nice.
– That statistic increases to an astounding 40 percent among Southerners. Even nicer.
– 80 percent of Republicans admired the leaders of the southern states (all of whom were slaveholders, BTW).

I suggest CNN/ORC survey the same group in November of 2012, when we mark the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. I wonder if an overwhelming number of Republicans and Southerners will still insist the Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery? Silly me. Of course they will.

I guess the South will rise again.

Tip o' the hat to Chris 'Repman, Jr.'  Cody for suggesting this post.

Jan 20

What would Lincoln have done?

Posted on by

Believing that President Obama’s speech in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings was quite possibly his best moment to date, I decided to ask an historian-in-the-making how other past presidents might have handled the very same situation. The following guest blog is authored by Chris ‘Repman, Jr.’ Cody, who is pursuing his master’s degree in history at Northeastern University.

ObamaLincolnMatted The recent shootings in Arizona, and subsequent heated political discourse, have led me to reflect on how past presidents might have handled the same crisis.  Having taken a deep dive into each and every one of our 43 presidents, here’s how I think a few might have reacted (Rep, Sr. Note: Grover Cleveland held two, non-consecutive terms so, technically, Obama is 43 and ‘43’ was 42. That, in turn, would make ‘41’ 40, but something tells me this might be too complex an issue for the Bushes to figure out):

–Thomas Jefferson would have publicly denounced the shootings, but would have tempered his remarks based upon the violent world in which he lived (i.e. his vice-president, Aaron Burr, killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel).

–Franklin Pierce would most likely have shrugged his shoulders and said absolutely nothing (as he did when outspoken Abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane by a Southerner on the Senate floor in 1856).

–James Buchanan would have kept mum, taking no decisive action whatsoever. The only bachelor president was notorious for saying and doing absolutely nothing as our antebellum country was coming apart at the seams.

–Abraham Lincoln would have risen to the occasion and, undoubtedly, delivered a speech comparable to the Gettysburg Address in both its brevity and magnitude. 

–Teddy Roosevelt (despite being the benefactor of McKinley's assassination) would have denounced the Tucson shootings.  But, in doing so, he would have firmly reinforced the importance of the Second Amendment. Despite being our first, great environmentalist, T.R. was also an avid hunter, killing thousands of animals during his lifetime. There’d be no call for gun control from the man who spoke softly but carried a big stick.

Of these five examples, it seems clear that President Obama followed Lincoln's lead.  Obama's speech, and its conciliatory overtones, has been hailed by many as his greatest moment.  This may indeed be the case.  However, I think it's worth pointing out that the only truly unifying events in our nation’s long history have been outwardly-focused. Consider this:  The Mexican-American War united Southerners and Northerners alike in a military action that delayed the Civil War by a few decades.  Similarly, the Spanish-American War served as a catalyst in mending post-Civil War animosities by again bringing the North and South together in an outward-facing cause. 

Our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything but unifying.  So, do we need another Mexican-American War to end the fratricidal fighting in our country?  There certainly seems to be one brewing.  But the James K. Polk approach, in which we invaded Mexico while proclaiming "manifest destiny," would never work today.  Cross border, Pancho Villa-like incursions by the Mexican drug cartels are another story, though.  If such incidents were to occur in significant numbers, I could see our country becoming united again in the same way it was following 9/11.

One must accept that, from a historical standpoint, assassination is as American as baseball and apple pie. And, political discourse in a democracy will always be divisive (except during those rare moments of unity a la Pearl Harbor).  True unity will only occur when it is ignited by a perceived threat beyond our borders.  That doesn’t mean Obama has no influence to bring us together.  Indeed, there is a right and wrong way to lead.  I agree with Rep Sr. that Obama's post-Tucson remarks were the correct strategy for mitigating any further escalation of hate talk in America.

Jan 13

The differences couldn’t be more striking

Posted on by

Officialportrait 20091122013824!Sarah_Palin_official_portrait I'm becoming more convinced with each passing day that Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.

For one thing, he's finally awakened and is now followed Bill Clinton's proven 'centrist' strategy.  More importantly, though, his statesmanlike words and actions in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting spree stand in stark contrast to those of his number one contender in 2012.

Last night, Obama called for a new era of civility (and, good luck with that, Mr. President.) Meanwhile, the erstwhile Alaskan governor and slayer of moose, elk and god knows what else chose, instead, to stir the hate talk with even more hate talk. Palin accused TV commentators and journalists of “blood libel” in their rush to blame Palin-inspired, Tea Party-generated hate speak for the murders.

In the process, Palin somehow managed to make a bad situation even worse by outraging Democratic lawmakers, fellow Republicans and Jewish groups with her use of the expression “blood libel”. According to a New York Times, the term was originally coined by anti-Semites in the Middle Ages who blamed Jews for killing their Christian children. Palin, who is positively clueless about history, American or otherwise, obviously had no idea of the term's historic and demeaning origins.

The Republican Party needs to start distancing itself from their momma grizzly and find a centrist candidate who has some grip on reality, a sense of history and an ability to project statesmanlike leadership in a time of crisis. What they don't need is someone like Palin, who seems limited to vitriolic, malaprop-laden, mumbo-jumbo.

As someone who studies image and reputation, I think the aftermath of the Tucson shootings reveals the stark differences between the two leaders.

One is calm, measured and able to seize the opportunity to redirect a nation that is slowly splitting apart at the seams. The other reverts to form, hunkers down in her Wasilla bunker and stirs up a new, news cycle with her unfortunate anti-Semitic remarks.

The differences couldn't be more striking.

Aug 30

Representing controversial clients is a slippery slope.

Posted on by

I’m a firm believer that, in the court of public opinion, a controversial client is innocent until Pat_robertson_devil_sign proven guilty. I also believe he or she deserves the very best representation possible. That said, some prospective clients are toxic and invite more trouble than they’re worth.

I’m reminded of the terrific image and reputation bashing inflicted on Hill & Knowlton in the early 1990s, when the firm decided to represent one highly controversial client after another. The carnage reached its apex (perhaps nadir is more appropriate) when Hill & Knowlton took on an image and awareness campaign for the government of Kuwait. Almost immediately afterwards, they were accused of ‘staging’ fake genocides to heighten worldwide distaste for Saddam Hussein’s Machiavellian machinations. It was an event that, whether true or not, inspired the Hollywood movie, ‘Wag the Dog’. H&K’s decision to represent a raft of highly controversial accounts precipitated a mass exodus of blue-chip clients (who didn’t want to be associated with a public relations firm that was caught in the crosshairs of negative news). The firm also lost top notch counselors, who disagreed with H&K’s stance on a moral and ethical basis.

As a proud alumnus of a kinder, gentler H&K, I’m pleased to see the firm has finally rebounded and reclaimed its rightful position as a top global player, but it took lots of blood, sweat and tears to execute the turnaround.

I mention all this because I see that 5W is representing Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law & Justice in its efforts to halt construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque. As mentioned above, Mr. Robertson’s entity deserves the very best public relations support it can afford. But, at what cost to the firm? In its defense, 5W has never shied away from representing clients that most mainstream PR firms would avoid like the plague. But, does such representation jeopardize existing client relationships? Will it alienate employees who see the issue as a First Amendment right that has nothing whatsoever to do with public relations? Time will tell.

In our 15 years of business, we’ve tried to avoid highly controversial clients (falling prey only twice in my memory). Thankfully, neither relationship cost us clients or employees. In fact, with the latter, we were quite transparent and suggested that anyone with reservations could opt out of actual account work. Several took us up on the offer.

But, rather than place a firm in harm’s way, why choose to represent a potentially toxic client? The short-term gain in billings and notoriety will most certainly be offset by the long-term unease among clients and employees alike. As a former employer of mine liked to say, “It’s a classic lose-lose.”

Jul 28

You don’t know how lucky you are, boy, back in the U.S.S.R.

Posted on by

Phoenix and its 116 degree heat and Manhattan with its hazy, hot and humid spell of six million
St-petersburg-russia straight, 90 degree days have nothing on St. Petersburg, Russia.

Having had the pleasure of touring the historic Czarist city the past few days, I can report on the following:

The Russians don't do air conditioning. Period. And, that's not a good thing. I thought London struggled with excessively high heat, but the Brits could learn a trick or two from the plucky Russians. Most merely shrug their shoulders, sigh and deal with it. As Pauline, our tour guide put it: “Your Mr. Albert Gore was sure right about his world warming theory, da?”

To begin with, there's St. Petersburg's overall miasma: daytime temperatures soar well in excess of 100 degrees (F). But, unlike Phoenix and it’s much heralded and over-hyped 'dry heat,' the humidity here is Vietnamese jungle-like in its intensity (courtesy of its proximity to the Baltic Sea).

Stir in absolutely no carbon dioxide emission standards whatsoever, never-ending road construction work which sears the air with a heady aroma of burning tar and a sun that, due to our extreme Northern exposure, doesn't set until 11pm and one gets hot, hot, hot to paraphrase another pop song.

But St. Petersburg's special charm is its cigarette-addicted populace. When it came to conquering the Russian population, Napoleon and Hitler should have studied Phillip Morris instead of Carl von Clausewitz. Nearly every uber attractive, scantily-clad Russian lass can be seen strolling the Neskiye Prospekt with a cigarette dangling from her lips. And, the men puff away just as enthusiastically. So, if you're an investor, hang onto your tobacco stocks- Phillip Morris is making a killing here, literally.

On the plus side, St. Petersburg has beautifully restored 17th and 18th century Russian Orthodox churches on virtually every street corner. They also have a subway system that is clean and cool. (Yes, I said, cool. I was actually thinking of bedding down in one for the night.) There are also lots of historic sites for the hyperactive tourist. (But, one morning of inhaling noxious fumes and sweating through my clothes many times over was enough to put a damper on any extended tours for this blogger.)
 
Another plus is the World War II memorabilia. The Russians proudly display many of the weapons used to fight back the Nazi siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg's name during the Communist regime). And, there's even a brief tour of the Astoria Hotel (not to be confused with NYC's Waldorf-Astoria) where Hitler had already made plans to host a gala celebration of the fall of Leningrad. (As our guide, Pauline, beamed, “So, he did not have the chance for that, no? So, instead, Stalin came here and he give big, big celebration.”)

I found it curious that there were no statues or murals of Stalin to be found, but Lenin is everywhere. I guess those 30 million mass murders tended to dampen the Russians' pride in Uncle Joe.

Anyway, my climbing team leaves St. Petersburg this morning for a day-long flight South to Mineral Vody in the Caucasus Mountains, where we begin our assault on 18,840 foot Mt Elbrus. With cell service being as scarce as tobacco and nicotine are plentiful, this blogger doubts he'll be able to file an update until we reach Moscow midweek of next week. Here's hoping in advance that Moscow copes with the heat a little bit better than its neighbor to the North.

St. Petersburg was nice to visit, but here's one comrade who wouldn't want to live there. Dasvedanya, Amerikanskis.

Jul 26

Ministry of Silly Names

Posted on by

Today's guest post is by London Peppercommer Sandhya Shyam

Sounding suspiciously like Nineteen Eighty-Four Newspeak, the newly elected British government
Big-Society is  busily unfolding it’s most dramatic manifesto yet, Big Society. Yes, they actually named it Big Society, an umbrella phrase to describe what will be a gradual transfer of power from the state to the communities.  David Cameron and his merry troupes are busy announcing initiatives that will see volunteers and local community groups adopt significant administrative and policy control of local schools, rural housing schemes, post offices, libraries, museums  etc.– you know, those things called jobs that people used to get paid for. 

Cynicism aside, I actually genuinely appreciate the concept of empowering people and making communities responsible for issues that impact them directly. Britain for the last decade at least has suffered from being spoonfed.  Huge chunks of society happily depend on handouts and for the government to tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it. Big Society, in theory at least, is designed to get people thinking for themselves again.

Though Britain has a strong culture of volunteerism, I wonder who actually will participate and where will they find the time? An Audit of Political Engagement in 2009, found that ‘half the public do not want to be involved in decision making in their local area and over half (55 percent) do not want to be involved at a national level.’ At the very least, perhaps Big Society might cure the curse of apathy. Still, who are these charmed few who will be running our country? I’m pretty sure that my own local despot will be the busybody at the end of our street who keeps reminding us that the plants in our window box are a little too tall.

Oh dear. 

Jul 15

Jobs tonight. Earth tomorrow.

Posted on by

Today's guest post is by Ann Barlow, President, Peppercom West & Director, GreenPepper.

We need jobs now and we need the earth later.  Why can’t the two go together? 
Broc_obama_2

According to an Economix blog earlier this week, green jobs, even with the spotty help they’ve gotten from government and private investment, are growing at 2½ times the rate of the rest of the jobs out there.  With the dire need for jobs and a job-led economic recovery, isn’t this something to build on?  God knows, we have a ton of work to do to become as energy efficient as Europe and even China at this point.  And renewable energy must be integrated into our existing infrastructure if we are to rely on something more advanced than burning the liquid and the rocks we dig out of the ground.  So why in the world can’t we address these two huge needs through one comprehensive, government-led program that will provide tens of thousands of jobs now while building for our future?

Oh, I can hear all of you ‘big government is our enemy’ folks yelling now, “That’s all we need! Another government project funded by the taxpayers!”  You’re not wrong; a wasteful, poorly managed program is the last thing we need.  But look at what can be done when the power of this nation’s government is wielded, power that is supported by a public that puts everyone’s needs ahead of their own personal ones.  Bridges and dams and parks and roads get built.  Power sources and grids.  Think of all of the people who were able to feed, clothe and house their families thanks to FDR’s New Deal, and the legacy they left for generations to come.

I hope this President, who came to power with so much promise for taking on the big problems, can seize this moment, becoming the Architect in Chief of a program that will relieve the suffering felt by so many millions right now while preserving the planet for their descendants. 

Jul 06

There are morons. Then there are cigarette smokers.

Posted on by

Thomas Jefferson’s words notwithstanding, all men (and women) are not created equal. Some
No-smoking-ad are gifted athletes. Others are Nobel Prize winners. Most, though, while away their lives staring vacantly at reality TV shows. I’d place cigarette smokers in the latter group. Can there be a more clueless and moronic class of human beings than cigarette smokers? Not only are they knowingly destroying their health, they’re paying huge amounts of money to do so.

I’d leave smokers to their inevitable plight if it weren’t for a new survey I happened across in a recent Daily Dog. It shows that one-third of smokers surveyed by GlaxoSmithKline misunderstand the health impact of ‘light’ or ‘mild’ cigarettes. Almost half (44 percent) say they typically smoke light or ultra light cigarettes, with one-quarter of these nincompoops saying they do so because they mistakenly believe light cigarettes are less harmful and easier to quit than regular cigarettes. Oh baby. And, I thought that two-year-old, chain-smoking Indonesian kid was clueless. He doesn’t hold a candle (or, lighted match for that matter) to American smokers.

The GSK survey was timed to coincide with the government’s intention to ban such words as light, low and mild on all cigarette packaging. Well, there’s a few more million dollars down the tube. The warning won’t matter. Smokers are too dumb to get it.

I wonder if the same morons who believe the words mild or light indicate a less toxic cigarette would accept similar adjectives if placed in front of other known killers. To wit:

1.)    Al Qaeda Light (“Honey, I’ve just been recruited by a real sweetheart of a guy named Osama. Even smokes light cigarettes.”)
2.)    A new, mild 9mm from Glock (“They say they’re safer, babe. They use softer, lighter bullets!”)
3.)    Low tar BP oil (“Surf’s up, hon. Let’s do some snorkeling in Gulfport!”)
4.)    Iran Light (“So what if they start building nuclear weapons? They’ll be nuke lights.”)
5.)    Wall Street Light (“Those AIG guys are 100 percent honest. They earned every nickel. So what if it was our nickel?”)

Maybe if we just referred to the Great Recession as ‘light’ smokers would happily puff away believing their life savings haven’t gone up in smoke? Might smokers also dismiss the Catholic Church hullabaloo as much ado about nothing if the Vatican started positioning the pedophilia cases as ‘mild’?

According to the same survey, smokers also think cigarettes are safer if they’re contained in light colored packaging! Maybe the Taliban should change from black-hooded robes to teal instead? I’d have to believe the Bloods and Crips could start recruiting smokers to their ranks if they began marketing a kinder, gentler line of gang clothing. Perhaps mocha and lime? And, if those Montclair-based Russian spies were really diabolical, they would have sought out American smokers within the intelligence community, donned light-colored clothing and asked for some mild intelligence and light secrets.

I ask you: is there anyone dumber than a smoker?

Jun 17

If Obama’s lost the New York Times, he’s lost the nation

Posted on by

Watching the evening network newscasts one night in the
midst of the Vietnam War morass,
Obama-tv-460x276 President Lyndon Johnson witnessed a withering
assault on his policies by none other than CBC News anchorman Walter Cronkite.
LBJ sighed, wearily shut off the Oval Office TV set and famously quipped, “If
I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the nation.” And, sure enough LBJ had lost
the legendary Cronkite and, in turn, the entire nation. He scored poorly in a
few early 1968 Democratic presidential primaries and decided not to run for
re-election.

Now, fast forward to the ides of June, 2010. President
Barack Obama is himself experiencing a later-day LBJ-Cronkite experience. In
the immediate aftermath of Obama’ televised Oval Office address Wednesday night
on the BP oil spill, both the lead Times
editorial as well as the rhetoric of its resident, caustic, left-wing liberal
columnist, Maureen Dowd’s positively savaged ‘The One’s’ indecisiveness.

This is Obama’s Vietnam moment. With Dowd, et al in the role
of Cronkite.  If the President has lost the Times, then he’s most certainly lost the nation. Looking ahead to
2012, and borrowing a phrase from the upcoming Wimbledon Tennis Tournament,
it’s ‘Game. Set. Match’ for Mr. Obama. I can already visualize the January 2013
O’Dwyer’s headline reading, ‘Former President joins Edelman’s public
affairs office. Obama to counsel high-level clients on crisis issues. Joins
endless array of other erstwhile Capitol Hill power brokers to provide senior
counsel.’

So, what went so terribly wrong?

Unlike W. and Cheney, who shot first and asked questions
later, Obama vacillates to a fault. He waits. He ponders. He evaluates. He
fiddles while Rome, or in this case, Rome, Louisiana, burns. Obama’s Oval
Office speech was deemed a rhetoric-pocked, action-lacking failure by left-wind
pundits, And, if Dowd and company are unimpressed, god knows what the likes of
O’Reilly, Limbaugh and that ultimate pit bull, Glenn Beck, are saying (note:
for reason pertaining to my personal health and well-being, I will not watch
Mr. Beck. He not only baits in Josef Goebbels-like ways, he also bears an
uncanny physical resemblance to one of the worst clients in Peppercom history.
Note: think purple).

Like many moderates and liberals, I’d hoped that Barack
Obama’s ascendance signaled a new era in politics. I answered the clarion call
of change and voted for B.O. who, sadly, is literally living up to his initials
and stinking up the place.

The BP oil spill and Gulf disaster are the Teapot Dome and
Credit Mobilier of our era. One can also throw in Watergate, Iran-Contra and
Monica Lewinsky’s beret, for good measure. It’s been building to a slow
crescendo since his swearing in, but Barack Obama has clearly self-destructed
in the past few weeks.

I’m now convinced he’s a one-term President. That said,
who’s waiting in the wings? Weird Al Yankowicz?

The combination of a relentless 24×7, news beast salivating
at the thought of savaging any new candidate, along with the limitless personal
wealth available in the private sector, has scared away America’s most talented
managers. What’s left is  a dog’s breakfast of dysfunctional miscreants
and career mediocrities who can neither talk nor shoot straight.

It’s enough to make a blogger ask for a third round of
Sancerre and go gently into that good (and oil-riddled) night. As former New
York Mets Manager Casey Stengel asked of his horrific 1962 squad: “Can anyone
here play the game?”

Apr 21

The S.S. RepChatter sails into unchartered waters

Posted on by

Since its origins a few years back, RepChatter, the bastard podcast offspring of RepMan, has bravely sailed through turbulent waters to examine such controversial issues as:

– The relevance of the Catholic Church (with guest Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League)
– The very existence of God (with guests Darryl Salerno and Dawn Lauer arguing nay and yay, respectively)
– Toyota’s self-inflicted wounds (with a top Fordham professor)

First Officer Ted ‘Ludacris’ Birkhahn and I have navigated these controversial and often heated discussions with our usual combination of bluster, bravado and complete ignorance (we’ve also ducked and covered when things have gotten totally out of hand. Listen to the Salerno v. Lauer podcast and you’ll know what I mean. But, Ted and I must admit to a certain trepidation in anticipation of our upcoming podcast with Andy Sullivan.

April 21 Andy, you see, manages public relations for bluecollarcorner.com, and is one of the Tea Party’s 365 founding members. To say that Tea Party members are outspoken is like saying the Rolling Stones occasionally tore up hotel rooms in their heyday. The S.S. RepChatter will be sailing straight into a Category Five hurricane named Andy.

To prepare for the epoch-making event, I’ve boned up on the Tea Party and studied the recent CBS News/New York Times poll. As most of you know, the Tea Party’s goal is to reduce the role of the federal government in our lives. That I knew. What I didn’t know was their make-up. The average Tea Party member watches Fox News (Surprise. Surprise). Most are men. Nine in 10 are white. Half describe themselves as middle class. Three in four are age 45 or older. Nearly three-fourths consider themselves conservative (another ‘no duh’) and 39 percent identify themselves as evangelicals (So, I have to believe they aren’t fans of Darryl Salerno’s P.O.V. on God). They despise Obama and the current Congress and adore W and Sarah Palin (although most don’t think the erstwhile Alaska governor should run for president). Last, but not least, nearly 60 percent keep a gun in their households (which is why we’ve asked Andy to join us by phone as opposed to in-studio).

I plan to ask Andy a whole range of questions, including:

– How come you dig Sarah, but don’t think she belongs in the Oval Office?
– What’s with all the guns?
– Is Fox News really ‘fair and balanced’ as advertised?
– Describe the ideal society
– Do a bunch of middle-aged white guys really represent the views of the average Americans (Some 84 percent of Tea Party members say they do)

I’ll have other questions based upon Andy’s responses. And, I’m sure the Ludacris one will weigh in with his usual few non sequiturs. But, what about you? What questions would you like me to ask Andy? Let me know and I’ll be sure to represent my constituents. As for now, it’s full steam ahead. First Officer Birkhahn: be on the alert for icebergs.