Running for president: Mundane and boring discipline

By Ken Feltman

Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas – only I don’t exactly know what they are.

- Lewis Carroll

Surprised that Mitt Romney is headed to the Republican nomination? Surprised that Newt Gingrich is reacting like Captain Ahab chasing the whale? Surprised that Rick Perry seems all hat and no cattle? Surprised that Rick Santorum crash landed in New Hampshire after his excellent showing in Iowa? You are not alone.

Presidential campaigns are not what we read in the papers and watch on television. Presidential campaigns are much more mundane. We get the impression of randomness, of chaos, of debate questions and answers that zap one candidate or another. But the best presidential campaigns are disciplined, very disciplined.

Many people see campaigns as a horse race. Handicappers try to figure which horse has the best bloodlines, among other attributes. But some horses lack the desire to race, a few are skittish and have trouble getting out of the gate, others suffer injuries. No matter how much you know about a horse you never know enough to be sure of your wager. Running for president is not a horse race. Presidential campaigns are more predictable.

Candidates who do the things that must be done have a greater chance to win. Spot them early and you spot the leaders. The candidates who never learn the “unwritten rules” of presidential campaigning, or scoff at them, usually get left beside the road somewhere between Iowa and Super Tuesday. Here are my unwritten rules, compiled after four decades of working in presidential politics.

The early bird gets the worm

One year ago, Sarah Palin was the most talked-about possible Republican candidate. Although Palin had huge success making money and friends by traveling the country and making television appearances with friendly hosts, her presidential campaign was soon becalmed. She lacked the discipline to contact key Republican leaders across the country to ask for support. Perhaps she feared that they would say no. If you want to be president, you must learn to ask for help; the party big shots do not seek out the candidates. They are poobahs waiting to be asked.

Palin’s moment passed. She violated the “early bird” rule: If you want to run, start yesterday and be wherever the media and voters gather. Start before other candidates pick off some of your best supporters, staff and volunteers.

Years ago, I was working with a challenger against a popular Illinois congressman. We asked everyone we could think of to help. We gave them specific assignments. The governor lived in our district and was running for reelection. He was very popular in our district. But he soon started complaining that we were “stealing” his volunteers. We won. He lost.

Shortly after the November 2008 election, Mitt Romney started to let people know that he was running. Supposedly, Rick Perry expressed dismay that some of his strong Texas supporters committed to Romney long before Perry decided to run.

Most of life is showing up

This variation of Woody Allen’s rule is especially true in politics. Once you decide to run, show up where the media and voters are. Romney, Paul and Santorum did. Jon Huntsman decided to skip Iowa and campaign against Romney in New Hampshire. Perry did not like his chances in New Hampshire so he headed to what he hopes are friendlier conditions in South Carolina.

What happened? Iowa sent Rick Santorum to New Hampshire as the designated challengerto Romney. Think his third place finish in New Hampshire puts Huntsman in third place nationally? No, as Huntsman heads to South Carolina, he leaves behind his New Hampshire infrastructure. He must build a South Carolina campaign structures on very little foundation. Romney, Paul and Santorum have been building in South Carolina for some time. Beside that, when asked why he did not contest Iowa, Huntsman quipped that Iowans pick corn while New Hampshire picks presidents. Think Iowans will remember that in 2016 if Huntsman runs again?

Being there at the right time means being there all the time

Tim Pawlenty behaved as if he believed that he could turn his campaign on and off. He wanted time to himself, time to study issues, time to relax. Once the campaign starts, there are no time outs. That is why some potential candidates delay announcing.

A few think they make the rules. Just before the caucuses, Newt Gingrich left Iowa to join his wife for her book signing near their Virginia home. Later, he was spotted grocery shopping near their home instead of meeting voters in Iowa. Gingrich has always had his own priorities and timetable. Kings and despots can get away with that. But it irritates volunteers on the campaign trail. While Gingrich shopped, reporters and voters talked with his competition.

Donald Trump flirted with running. He was never taken seriously by people experienced in presidential politics. A person with Trump’s ego and resources is unlikely to want to meet 30 people for breakfast in a diner in a small town in Iowa. Instead, he may plot bypassing the gauntlet of retail politics through an independent campaign.

If Trump does run as an independent, he will not have honed his campaigning skills the way candidates who slog through countless meetings in the early states polish theirs. Remember Ross Perot? An excellent businessman, he will be remembered as a weird candidate. People like Trump can be spoilers but because they skip the important little things, they are unlikely to be winners.

Asking for money is crucial

Mitt Romney has a fortune but he still asks others to help financially. Anyone who makes a campaign contribution – especially when asked directly by the candidate – tends to stick with that candidate and line up friends to help. Fundraising leads to the next rule:

Early contacts become lasting ones

Some candidates dither and do not make the early contacts. Rick Perry got off to a late and slow start. He did not contact key party officials across the country. He did not reach out to the national media. He has a good staff but, even when he was leading in the polls, he had not put together the infrastructure that a national effort requires. After the learning experience of 2012, he could be ready for 2016 or beyond.

Drafts and brokered conventions are rare and unplanned.

Some people keep hoping that another candidate – a candidate they like – will jump in and sweep to victory. Knights galloping to the rescue usually are dispatched quickly. A brokered convention is so unpredictable that no candidate would think of it as a strategy.

Politicians who wait for a draft invariably wait in vain. In presidential politics as at the local watering hole, the only genuine draft is a beer.

Discipline counts

If you want to be president, the tried and true path is through Iowa and New Hampshire. This time, Romney checked off the boxes, efficiently and without fanfare. No other candidate has done as many of the “must do” things. Should we be surprised that Romney is the leader?

With limited resources, Rick Santorum has done his best to check the boxes. Ron Paul has checked them off but has the burden of being a cult-like candidate. They almost never win. The three candidates who did the mundane little things as early as they could and as efficiently as possible have done better than their opponents. Newt Gingrich remarked years ago that he found the details of running a campaign “boring.”

Running for president requires a discipline that reporters cover only when the discipline is lacking. Romney started in 2008 doing those things that successful candidates do. His lead is no surprise. The current nominating system favors the most disciplined candidate.

Interestingly, after President Obama defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, several analysts cited his discipline and the surprisingly lack of discipline in the Clinton campaign.

Bill Daley departs the White House

By Ken Feltman

William Daley’s departure as White House chief of staff may signal that the reelection campaign of President Obama will make a hard left turn. Daley sought consensus not confrontation, solutions not advantage. That put him at odds with others in the White House or close to the president.

Who wins a dead heat?

By Ken Feltman

Rick Santorum ”wins” the dead heat with Mitt Romney, no matter what the final totals are. Retail politics prevails. But will Santorum have the resources and organization to compete in New Hampshire and South Carolina? Probably not. Ron Paul will have problems repeating his Iowa performance. So Romney remains the favorite, despite a performance that does not justify a big celebration.

Newt Gingrich is the wild card – perhaps with the emphasis on “wild.” He seems so bitter that he may determine to take Romney down, regardless of the consequences to himself and the Republican Party. If he acts on his anger, Gingrich will reveal much more about his vindictive side than we want to know. It is time for Gingrich to fade away quietly. Can he? Or will he destroy any remaining good will?

Dumbest Comment by a Politician in 2011

Although it will be hard to select just one grand prize winner from among the hundreds of dumb statements that politicians made in 2011, the crew at Radnor Reports stands ready to try.

Please leave your nominee as a comment. Be sure to include a link to the DUMB comment.

We will announce our winner in early 2012. So there’s still time for your favorite politician to say something SO DUMB that he or she will win! Here’s a leading contender, Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) – Multi-Millionaire Rep. Says He Can’t Afford A Tax Hike Because He Only Has $400K A Year After Feeding Family.

And, now, here’s presidential candidate Jon Huntsman with a late entry. Huntsman wants to win something and it does not look as if he’ll win Iowa or much of anything else on the campaign trail.

Thanks for the help in finding the Dumbest Comment of 2011!

Of Pharaohs, Kings and Generals: What about the Egyptian People?

By Michael Granger

On February 11, 2011, after the Egyptian Military turned the barrels of their guns away from the protesters in Tahrir Square, Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down as president of Egypt and the world was moved by the restraint shown by the military. It was seen as a gesture of love of country and respect for the Egyptian people and not a ploy to wrest control of the revolution from the intrepid protesters. There was a universal feeling that Egypt had crossed the Rubicon, away from dictatorship and rule by force to that of the people through the rule of law.

Instead, they were changing the figurehead of what essentially remains a military dictatorship. Less than a year later, the junta installed to transition Egypt to the democracy the people were desperate for has broken the promise and has betrayed the trust. Instead, and once again, the cries of the Egyptian people for democracy have been met with brutality.

It must be difficult for a country with such a rich history, reaching back 5000 years, a pioneer in agriculture, architecture, mathematics and even the first known treaty, to shift its paradigm of governing from dictatorship to democracy, away from being ruled by pharaohs, kings and generals, to the rule of the people. It is truly amazing how tone deaf the generals have been to the will of the people. They have betrayed the sacred trust of the revolution and it is doubtful that the current leadership can ever be trusted to be shepherds to take their citizens to a new Egypt. It seems that democracy is not in their DNA.

It is quite disappointing to see Egypt’s military leadership behave this way. How can they possibly ask their people to return to the past and reject the self-evident truths that form the basis for democracy: All men are created equal and are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, once tasted, leave an unquenchable thirst in the human spirit. This thirst cannot be quenched but is rather increased by dictatorship and despotism.

In the age of its primacy, long before the birth of Christ and preceding the rise of the Greeks and the Romans, Egypt was a center of enlightenment. We all desire to visit the pyramids and to marvel at the great examples of human advancement Egypt showed the world. Dictatorial leadership in the age of democracy is at best a throttle on that kind of progress.

Like any other difficult situation, there is a positive side, however short-term, to the military being in charge. It is that they are the best equipped by experience to manage relationships with allies like the United States and Europe without injecting sectarian politics into the equation. This, however, cannot long prevail over the necessity of bringing Egypt to democracy.

The question now is that given the broken trust, can the various parties work out their differences without bloodshed. Because if the military turns its guns on Egypt’s citizens in a wholesale fashion, the society will forever be scarred. When a government turns its guns on citizens who express legitimate yearnings for democracy, it changes into a totally different animal. It becomes a retched, despotic regime unworthy of governing.

Much of life is about choices and the military junta in Egypt has a choice to make. They must choose between a democratic Egypt and a discredited Egypt.

The Egypt we hope and pray for is the former. The Egypt we dread is the latter.

To the Junta in Egypt: Your Time is Up!

By Michael Granger

On February 11, 2011, after the Egyptian military turned the barrels of their guns away from the protesters in Tahrir Square, Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down as president of Egypt and the world was moved by the restraint shown by the military. It was seen as a gesture of love of country and respect for the Egyptian people and not a ploy to wrest control of the revolution from the intrepid protesters. There was a universal feeling that Egypt has crossed the Rubicon away from dictatorship and rule by force to that of the people through the rule of law.

Instead, they were changing the figurehead of what essentially remains a military dictatorship. Less than a year later, the junta installed to transition Egypt to the democracy the people were desperate for has broken their promise and has betrayed the trust. Instead, the cries of the Egyptian people for democracy have been met with brutality.
It must be difficult for a country with such a rich history to shift its paradigm of governing from dictatorship to democracy, away from being ruled by pharos, kings and generals, to the rule of the people. It is truly amazing how tone-deaf the generals have been to the will of the people. They have betrayed the sacred trust of the revolution and it is doubtful that the current leadership can ever be trusted to be shepherds to take their citizens to a new Egypt. It seems like democracy is not in their DNA.
It is quite disappointing to see Egypt’s military leadership behave this way. How can they possibly ask their people to return to the past and reject the self-evident truths that form the basis for democracy: All men are created equal and are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, once tasted, leave an unquenchable thirst in the human spirit. This thirst cannot be quenched but is rather increased by dictatorship and despotism. In the age of its primacy, before the birth of Christ and preceding the rise of the Greeks and the Romans, Egypt was a center of enlightenment. We all desire to visit the pyramids and to marvel at the great examples of human advancement Egypt showed the world. Dictatorial leadership in the age of democracy is at best a throttle on that kind of progress.
Like any other difficult situation, there is a positive side, however short-term, to the military being in charge. It is that they are the best equipped by experience to manage relationships with allies like the United States and Europe without injecting sectarian politics into the equation. This, however, cannot long prevail over the necessity of bringing Egypt to democracy. The question now is that given the broken trust, can the various parties work out their differences without bloodshed. Because if the military turns its guns on Egypt’s citizens in a wholesale fashion, the society will forever be scarred. When a country turns its guns on citizens who express legitimate yearnings for democracy, it changes into a totally different animal. It becomes a retched, despotic regime unworthy of governing.
Much of life is about choices and the military junta in Egypt has a choice to make. They must choose between a democratic Egypt and a discredited Egypt. The Egypt we hope and pray for is the former. The Egypt we dread is the latter.

Britain adrift or Britain prescient?

By Ken Feltman

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says that Prime Minister David Cameron’s veto of the European Union treaty changes designed to save the Euro is “bad for Britain” and could leave the United Kingdom “isolated and marginalised.” Clegg heads the Liberal Democrats and is considered more pro-European than Cameron, the Conservative Party leader.

Because the Conservatives did not get an absolute majority of seats in Parliament in the last election, they had to include the Lib Dems in their governing coalition. Generally, the coalition has functioned well. But the ambitious Clegg sees an opening: He believes that the British people see their future as part of the European alliance.

Did coalition politics in Britain lead to a veto in Brussels?

Many members of the Conservative Party disagree and Cameron must be mindful of the Euro-skeptics in his midst, just as Clegg must listen to the pro-Europe faction within his party. I forecast the now-revealed split on November 22 in The European Autumn.

Meanwhile, reaching across the Atlantic…

While the news coverage is about Greece or Italy, Spain or France, and whether to allow defaulting countries to remain in the eurozone, people at think tanks and institutes in the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Canada are beginning to talk again about an old and often-abandoned idea: Stronger ties of unification between the U.K. and her former North American colonies. Discussions of this type seldom get beyond the talk stage, of course, and last heated up about 30 years ago, only to die out as the EU took form.

The British who met with their ideological counterparts in Washington last week had an interesting message: We notice that the U.S. is once again looking across the Pacific for partners and alliances. Why not look again across the Atlantic? This may be the last chance before the U.K., the U.S. and Canada settle into other long-term relationships.

The pot will stir more as the agreement worked out in Brussels last week is studied. What strikes me – and I could be wrong – is that the agreement (probably unintentionally) will put Germany at the head of an economic union that may begin to freeze in place the role of the 26 European nations agreeing to the pact. As often seen with European treaties, France appears to occupy the “keystone” position: If at some future point, France becomes unhappy, Germany will have to accommodate the French concerns or the whole agreement may unravel.

Germany gave up more than any other country to put together the proposed Brussels agreement. Germany is the economic engine that Europe must have to succeed. Chancellor Angela Merkel has demonstrated consummate political skills in balancing internal German concerns and the needs of Europe. But German leadership also raises old concerns that are not yet far enough in the past to be forgotten, or even ignored. The ghosts of Europe’s past may cause the UK to draft westward in search of a more amenable alliance.

Where is France when needed?

Thus far, France – with that keystone position – has not risen to the occasion and mediated with Britain and Germany. The Germans cannot do that alone. This is France’s moment, just as the past several months have been moments for German leadership. But President Nicolas Sarkozy showed his frustration and created an awkward moment when he ignored Cameron as the leaders gathered after Cameron’s announcement that he could not support the agreement.  

The British will not join any agreement that puts the Germans in the leadership position. The British will not join any agreement that puts France is a superior position. Old balance-of-power politics is on display. This is about national egos as well as the egos of particular politicians. This is typically European.

Meantime, apparently those Britons who want a closer economic relationship with Canada and the United States are rumored to have presented their ideas to sympathetic politicians in Mexico. This is very British: (1) Exercise power in Europe by finding and exploiting those divisions to achieve and maintain a position of influence, even power; (2) Seek influence outside Europe to supplement British power within Europe.

The British are not amateurs at politics. They are where and what they are because they are very good at it. Everyone else should take note of the British uncertainty about the eurozone and the European Union.

Turn Down the Sound

By Ken Feltman

If you turn down the sound while watching the Republican presidential candidates, you may get a different impression from the one you get with the sound on. What that means is not clear without a lot more research, but it is intriguing. A woman in California concluded, “Without the voices I took an instant dislike to (one candidate) and I watched the facial expressions and their eyes. That was very revealing, weird in a way, like they were naked.”

Here are reactions to the GOP candidates:

Mitt Romney: “This guy has a mean streak.” “I liked him but now I see something and I don’t like him.” “He has this glare.” “His eyes show he is cold.” “Not real friendly, is he?”

Newt Gingrich: ”He appears to be pompous.” “He thinks he better than us.” “He’s sure full of himself.” “He thinks he’s special.” “He’s lecturing … and he needs to be in a classroom.” “He’s got a very strong opinion of himself.”

Ron Paul: “He just looks confused.” “His arms, like he’s getting ready to flap off to another planet.” “It’s scary to see how stupid he looks without sound.” “I just got this uncomfortable feeling.”

Michele Bachmann: “Her eyes.” “She looks like she has trouble understanding what’s going on.” “Vacant.”

Rick Perry: “The way his mouth is open a lot when he’s listening, as if he doesn’t follow it.” “He’s arrogant.” “He doesn’t look like he gets it.” “He’s pushy.” “He shows up as real cocky.”

Jon Huntsman: “He has a noticeable smirk.” “He shows his boredom.”

Did any Republican candidate fare better without the sound? Herman Cain ran away with the soundless debates. Voters mentioned his “presence,” “smile,” and his “clear eyes” or “intelligent eyes.” Rick Santorum was the only other candidate who got more favorable than unfavorable comments.

The Democrats would not be pleased with the reactions to soundless speeches by President Obama. Some voters used words and expressions such as “preachy,” “arrogant,” “talking down,” and “pointing and blaming us.”

Do these impressions come through, however filtered and diluted, to voters who watch and listen while distracted or preoccupied, as many of us do much of the time? One thing is sure: If party leaders come up with anything close to these unscientific findings, they are going to think twice before again exposing presidential candidates to the close-up scrutiny of multiple and frequent debates.

If they decide there is any truth in the research, party professionals will work first to limit the damage. They will want to know whether everyone is diminished by debate-style exposure to the camera. Then some will try to take advantage of the situation by coaching their candidates.

Whatever happens, someone will be elected. A good question: How damaged we allow the candidates to become before we must elect one?

Also published in Politico.com and Inside Washington’s Headlines

The tweet that turned a governor into a bully

By Ken Feltman

Jack Sharkey (the playwright, not the prizefighter) told the tale of a king with guards so ferocious and mean that no one could ever get past them to see the king. Then one day, a man just stumbled through the web of security and happened upon the bored and lonely king twiddling his thumbs. The king was overjoyed to see another human being and asked all sorts of questions about what was going on in the outside world. He was sad and perplexed to learn that his subjects considered him aloof and unfriendly. Why, he asked, did they think such a thing?

Enter Emma Sullivan, a high school senior from Kansas. While listening to a speech by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, she sent a Tweet to her 61 Twitter followers – mostly fellow students and family – claiming “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person” (sic). We can criticize her choice of words. She used the vernacular of her generation. Brownback’s office sent a return message using a different technique. Brownback’s staff monitors Tweets containing the governor’s name. When they read Sullivan’s tweet, they reported Sullivan to school authorities. The authorities came down hard on Sullivan and demanded that she write an apology to the governor.

As Sullivan contemplated the demand, her Twitter followers increased by the minute. Ultimately, she decided that the whole episode had been blown up all out of proportion. She wanted to move ahead and put the incident behind. She resented but did not dwell on what she considered intimidation by Brownback and school officials. But she concluded that the incident was a free speech issue and she would not apologize. Soon, she was getting more media attention in a week than the governor could manage in months. She was all over radio, television and the Internet. Positive publicity for Sullivan was negative publicity for Brownback.

As Brownback and his staff waited for Sullivan’s capitulation, the governor’s Twitter account filled with negative messages from around Kansas, the country, indeed the world. Facebook was ablaze with indignation at the governor’s thin-skinned reaction to a Tweet from an 18-year-old who is looking forward to an enjoyable senior year and college next fall. When it was clear that Sullivan had a lot more people on her side, Brownback issued an tepid apology, blaming staff overreaction and agreeing that “freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.”

The final score? That will come when and if Brownback seeks reelection. At this point, his Twitter account has 3,441 followers. Sullivan is approaching 16,000.

The lessons?

 1. Politicians should never let themselves be perceived as attacking high school (or lower level) students. That looks like bullying.

2. When something gets into the social media, it takes on a life of its own. This makes it especially dangerous for public officials who try to deal with social media through staff and other filters.

3. Politicians should lighten up. Otherwise, a dumb statement by a teenager can make a governor look dumber.

(Also published in Politico)

Arrogance Will Trip Them Up Every Time

by Mark Rhoads

Well that didn’t take long. Not a single vote has yet been cast in any primary election, but Newt Gingrich could not help himself and on the basis of just a few good poll numbers, he told ABC News that he will be the nominee. I completely understand that anyone who runs for president has to have a fairly healthy ego to start with. But just an ounce of humility wears so much better over time.

Reality check: Newt Gingrich has never in his life been elected from any geographic area larger than a small congressional district in Georgia. The biggest worry about the Gingrich statement to ABC News is that it harkens back to the Gingrich who became the new Speaker of the House in January of 1995, taking over after 40 years of Democratic majorities. It is fundamental in public relations that you only get one chance to introduce yourself for the first time. Gingrich imploded in ego stroking.

In 1962, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who certainly had a large ego himself, told the cadets at West Point that they should always be serious in their profession of arms, but never take themselves too seriously. I am tired of candidates who only can offer a résumé, a mastery of policy wonk papers, or spell binding oratory without a record to match. I would like to see a humble servant with a servant’s heart share a vision for America as a special place as it has always been in past times, even when it fell short of the highest goals that were set. One reason Americans preferred Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley to MacArthur and George Patton was that Ike and Bradley wanted their troops to get the credit but MacArthur and Patton often were seeking glory for themselves on the dubious theory that they could be a better leaders if people were in awe of them.

If you sum up the total accomplishments in life of all these GOP candidates, including the business accomplishments of Romney, they do not amount to enough to be arrogant about. But they do amount to much more than the total accomplishments of Obama and Biden.

Arrogance will backfire on candidates every single time.

(Published in longer form in Illinois Review.)