Ineffective Messaging

August 24, 2011 in Montana

by jhwygirl

JC had a post a while back – “You Can’t Have Compromise Without Intransigence”; A Shout-Out to the Left – which is one of my more favorite b’bird posts of late due to the subject of messaging.

My writing focus varies over time just as much as, probably, my writing signature. It’s just the way it goes…. parallels life when I think about it.

Along with all that writing comes some analysis of others and their messaging, whether it is the written or the spoken form. Sunday mornings are for news shows. It’s a race to the bottom often, depending on the weekly tragedy or crime or attack or stock market crash or sex scandal. With that comes lots of messaging.

I’m not talking the content of that messaging – not the obvious point they’re trying to get across. I’m talking the method by which they are attempting to get their message across. Is there an overall consistency? A focus? A goal? What is what they are saying doing for me? What impression am I left with overall?

David Axelrod was on CNN’s State of the Union with a one-on-one interview. Sometimes you get the talking heads, sometimes you get a round table…but this was one-on-one, and the topic was Obama’s jobs plan. You know – the one he has, but he’s not going to tell us any more until sometime in September.

Wouldn’t want to be trying to fight for attention with congress…who…is… Wait. Congress isn’t in session?…

Anyways – the question is posed:

Well, and — but one could — a cynic might also suggest, and let me suggest it here, that you are all are putting things out there that you know, particularly the House Republicans will not go for so that you can then have that to run on.

So you know, there’s politics kind of at both ends of this spectrum, is there not?

I sat up….”aww..come on Axelrod – don’t blow it,” I thought.

Know that the odds most Sunday mornings, unless the @RaginCarville or @DWStweets are on the odds are 50/50.

Candy, I think what you will find when the president unveils the entire program is that there is nothing in there that reasonable people shouldn’t be able to agree on. And if we make the House Republicans, and particularly that Tea Party faction, if we make them the standard, we’re in deep trouble. This is the group that almost brought us to the brink of default.

And one of the problems that I have right now is too few Republicans are willing to stand up and say to that group back off, let’s do what is good for the country, let’s not be so partisan, so ideology that we can’t come together and solve our problems.

Steeeerike!

Once again I get the overall message from the chief talking head of the Democrats that crazy people, because they talk loudly, are what we’re concerned with. Not jobs.

Me? What would I have said? Something like this: “Look. President Obama is going to do what is best for America. And what is best for America is jobs. We need Americans working and we need them working now. And we’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure that each and every American that wants a job has a job. A good paying jobs. We’re going to look at policies that attract American jobs right here. We’re going to stop rewarding those that take American jobs overseas. That’s what we’re going to do.”

They never like anything too specific on Sunday morning, pre-brunch….otherwise….

~~
I get campaign emails. If you’re reading this blog, you probably get ’em too. One particular candidate sends me requests fairly regularly. Twice a week, I’d say, on average. Never once – never once – has this candidate or his campaign or his supporters asked me to donate because of something he has done. Every request is paired with the “My opponent is evil” message. “If you don’t vote for me xyz will happen.”

Terrorizing me to donate…and to vote, I suppose.

One message is getting out there loud and clear. Why? Because it is being validated continually by the opposite side. Daily. Hell – on Sunday? Axelrod was on at least two shows as I recall and was asked essentially that same question both times. Which is probably why his reply stuck with me.

In some ways I think it’d be different if Democrats weren’t – message wise – sitting in the audience waiting to see what they need to reply to. Me? I want to know what they are going to do for me.

That message isn’t getting out there. Some apologist can come in here and beat me the head with what he’s done – but what’s done is done. What is this candidate going to do? Will he vote to increase government revenues by cutting tax breaks for bit oil and gas and coal? Hell if I know. I’ve tried to pin him down on student loans and the reply letter will make your head spin.

Instead, what I know from the Democrats messaging is that I need to fear the Tea Party. The truth is, I don’t need the Democrats to tell me that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and Denny Rehberg are dangerous. I’da figured that out on my own.

Pretty sure about that.

But hey – if we’re going to allow them to drive our agenda, we may as well fully embrace that idea instead of playing this wimpy game of pretending to be in charge while failing to push forth any semblence of leadership I can trust.