How not to sell "Brand Romney"

If there is one thing the 77-slide Romney powerpoint illustrates - leaked to the Boston Globe - it is how not to go about "selling Brand Romney." I realize that today we have started to commodify presidential candidates. We wrap them in a nice, shiny packages for the public and sell, sell, sell! We have taken the lessons of advertising, public relations, and branding to heart in how we structure political campaigns. Campaign politics have become more about creating a "brand" identity, then actually talking about meaningful issues.

It seems to me though that people are tired of being treated like idiots. We ahve heard enough about character and looks qualifying a president. We are tired of being told that we should elect a candidate because he has good or bad hair. Hair has nothing to do with POLICY. Yet, for corporate CEO's, it is all part of the packaging - which at times sells the product more than the actual qualities themselves. This "branding" notion is reflected in the misguided Romney campaign strategy.

Ultimately, the powerpoint presentation is just an example of bad PR. The fact that the document was leaked, alone is a PR nightmare. But, for Romney's sake, it might be better that the strategy was leaked - at least now he has reason to start over and change what was a surefire strategy for defeat.

So here are some suggestions for the Romney campaign - lets call it PR 101.

1. Next time you write a PR plan - DON'T LEAK IT! Lock down a reliable campaign staff that will be honest with you. The key words here: trust and honesty. You need people who you can trust not to leak sensitive information, and who will tell you the honest truth when it comes to how you can best present yourself to the American public. In my opinion - Romney does not have that.

2. STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW YOU LOOK! Perot had big ears, Kerry had perfect hair, W looked like a monkey - in the end it doesn't matter with a majority of the voters. People are going to find ways to ridicule you, looks are an easy target. You counter this by talking about sound policy options, and inspiring hope for the furture.

3. Stop trying to spin that you are not really flip-flopping, when you are! Instead just be honest, if you support gay unions, if you are cool with abortion then just say so. Or take the Guiliani strategy and just ignore the social issues all together! Either way, you will be rewarded more for your honesty then for trying to spin the issues like a typical politician. Nothing will kill your chances in the Republican party like insincerity.

4. Distinguish yourself positively - forget the attacks. This is already going to be a bloodbath of an election, there is no need to start it by turning on your own party. If you see yourself as innovative, as different, as being the future of a new type of politics - then say so and act so. Make that fresh, smart, inspiring image show through in your campaign by refusing to stoop the usual drudgery that is American campaign politics.

In the end, I like Mitt Romney. I wish he stood a chance of getting the nomination because I do think he is a unique politician. I hope he takes this chance to change his campaign strategy.

A tragic loss for America...

Today America has lost a great Congressman. This summer I was given the privilege to work in the office of Congressman Charlie Norwood, and it was there that I was given hope again that politicians could actually serve the best interests of this nation.

A simple dentist from Georgia, Charlie was not your typical politician. A pitbull in committee, he stood up for and fought for all that he thought was right in America, even through his battles with lung cancer. He was a Congressman who truly listened to and cared about not only his constituency, but the American people. Known for his battles to improve our nations healthcare system, Charlie's wisdom and insight will surely be missed in the coming years as we attempt to once again grapple with this pressing issue.

I ask for your prayers and condolences for his family and lovely wife Gloria.

A little more talk and alot less action...

Like I do on most days, today I picked up a copy of the New York Times on my way to class. While I generally only glance over most political hoopla involving the War in Iraq (mainly because it is alot of yelling and screaming without action by politicians) I decided to read the front page article over a Senate vote Monday to bring about debate on the President's "troop surge" plan.

Sen. Harry Reid was quoted on the floor as saying to Republicans, “You can run but you can’t hide. We are going to debate Iraq.” Didn't we just do that this past summer? I sat in on those debates in the gallery of the House, and the same debates occurred in the Senate. The arguments have not changed much since the first non-binding resolutions were debated. Republicans want to stay in Iraq, and Democrats want out. Why do we have to debate it again?

Before I go any further, lets just say I love the art of the non-binding resolution. It is so tactful, so safe... so much bullsh*t. Here are our newly elected Senators, who might I remind you ran on platforms of CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, voting on and debating resolutions that in effect accomplish NOTHING! Oh, but it sends such a strong political message... yeah, and so do the obscenities I shout from my couch at various politicians on TV every night.

Ultimately, all this resolution is going to do is give Senators one more chance to stand up and express their disapproval of the war on Congressional Record before ELECTION 2008 roles around. We ask for change... and we get more rhetoric. Here's an idea, if you want to send a political message how about voting on something that might actually change the President's plan - like removing funding!

Secondly, what the threshold for bipartisanship? Because you get someone of the opposite party to agree in writing a bill - does that make it bipartisan? One person, two? How many does it take? What meaning does this term have left? It seems to me that bipartisanship requires a little bit more muster than we give it on Capitol Hill to be meanigful. Bipartisanship engenders a sense of cooperation between the parties on a much larger scale than simply a few republicans or democrats crossing the line. Rhetoric used in the Times article characterizing the resolution as bipartisan I think misses the point. When only 2 republicans voted for the bill, it says something. The bill is partisan! It divides the Senate. This is not a bipartisan issue. If it were bipartisan politicians would not be arguing so fervently. So lets not sugar-coat it. This is a bitter partisan struggle.