Media Attache

In Case You Were Wondering.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:59:00 +0000

It's been about a year since we were first introduced to Ted Williams, the homeless former radio announcer from Ohio, who burst onto the scene when a reporter videotaped him panhandling.

I was wondering what ever happened to him and found he has had some ups and downs. He's been sober for almost six months and he's got a few voice over jobs that have helped him get back on his feet.

We hope he can keep moving forward.

Call the Governor.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:45:00 +0000

Attention frequent fliers: Next time call the governor. Really.

This weekend, according to reports, passengers on at least four planes belonging to major American airlines were stranded on the tarmac - in one case for at least seven hours. The passengers had no way to deplane; limited food and water and - after a while - the toilets began to back up.

It was misery. Audio tape is available of the pilot of one Jet Blue plane begging the tower to do something to end the agony.

The planes in question had been diverted to Hartford, because of the unexpected snow storm blanketing the northeast. Runways in New York and Newark, where the flights had been scheduled to land, were unavailable.

This isn’t supposed to happen. In 2010, the federal Department of Transportation imposed new regulations allowing for hefty fines of up to $27,000 per passenger any time an airline left passengers stranded on a plane for more than three hours.

It is hard to imagine circumstances under which passengers should be forced to sit on a plane for an hour let alone three hours, but those are the rules. The rules have exceptions however and since April of 2010, no airline has been fined.

There may be a more effective way for passengers to pull the ripcord.

Here is my advice. The next time you, or someone you know, is stuck on a plane at an airport anywhere in the United States call the governor of that state immediately from the plane. His or her number is in the book, or on your smart phone.

Tell them you are on a plane, you have been stuck on the tarmac for more than an hour, there’s no food, water or air conditioning and the toilets don’t work. There’s a child next to you who has been crying. There’s an older woman in front of you with asthma. You want off now. No excuses. This is an emergency situation.

Make sure the governor’s office also knows that your next call is to the local television station. Make sure when you call the local television station (also on your smart phone) that you mention you called the governor’s office. This will set off a chain reaction.

First: Whoever answers the phone in the governor’s office will see your situation both as a problem that needs to be solved and an opportunity. They should do everything in their considerable power to contact the airport and demand that they get you off the plane. If the governor is within driving distance, he will probably be there just as you are getting off the plane to have his picture taken with you.

Second: Just in case whoever answers the phone in the governor’s office is a bit slow, the call from the television station to the governor’s press secretary is like a little insurance policy. Surely the press secretary will see this as a crisis to be exploited or an embarrassment to be avoided. Either way, the most powerful person in the state you are stranded in will soon be on your side.

Third: If there is one thing airlines, or any business seeks to avoid, it is interference from the government, or scrutiny by the news media. Under this plan they are getting both in the worst possible combination. It is easy to ignore the pleas of a pilot over a two way radio from the safety of a detached control tower, it’s another to ignore the demands of a governor on live television.

I have complete confidence this will work, because if it doesn’t, your problem becomes the governor’s problem.

If all else fails; call the attorney general.

Originally published on GovernorsJournal.com

Amanda Knox.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:55:00 +0000

They say the camera doesn't lie.

I have not been keeping track of the Amanda Knox case for the last four years as many have. I've only been paying attention over the last few days following the dramatic verdict in her appeal and her return home.

Observing her behavior in the courtroom and at her brief news conference in Seattle Tuesday night, I sense a big difference between Knox's emotions and those of others who have only "claimed to be falsely accused" in high profile cases.

Having been an observer in courtrooms as jury verdicts come in, I can say based on my own experience that her near complete emotional meltdown Monday night was about as real as it can get. The way she handled her brief statement to the news media Tuesday night also seemed genuine.

In the cable news culture, we have become used to people claiming to be victims and turning out to be perpetrators. In those cases there's often something about the presentation that seems a little off. A little too contrived to be real.

Although Knox is likely to always live with the stigma of a person once accused of murder, her reaction to this week's events does not come off as rehearsed, or phony.

Three Rounder.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:52:00 +0000

Here's my latest quick analysis of the current series of Republican presidential debates as published on Governors Journal.com.

The best site in the nation for a laser like focus on the 50 governors.

Trends, analysis, news summaries - daily.

Check in two, three, four times a day.

www.GovernorsJournal.com

To Beat A Dead Horse.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:47:00 +0000

As you might suspect, MSNBC set itself up for ridicule when it launched its current "Lean Forward" ad campaign featuring Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell and now Chuck Todd.

At the Daily Caller, they've taken up the cause. No need to wait for Saturday Night Live.

Make sure you check out both spoofs.

Good Point.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:33:00 +0000

In a previous post I offered my criticisms of MSNBC's nauseating promos featuring the network's night time line up. (As I write this post I don't have time to look up the spelling of their names - so I'm just going to refer to them as "the night time line up." Chances are, if you are reading this, you know who they are).

Now, Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review offers his critique. Like me he focused primarily on the promos featuring Rachel Maddow at the Hoover Dam in which she is blinded by her own superior knowledge.

Goldberg makes a very good point. While Maddow says the country needs to start building projects like the Hoover Dam again to recapture its greatness; if such a project were proposed today it is quite likely - in fact it is guaranteed - the project would be opposed by liberal groups as an assault on the environment. It is one of the reasons we are over reliant on foreign sources of energy.

By the way - Ms. Maddow does not look any smarter, or more blue collar in a hard hat.

Hurricane Comms.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:39:00 +0000

Hurricane Irene could have been much bigger than it was, but it still left behind considerable damage and a number of fatalities.

The death toll could have been higher if not for efforts by government at all levels to convince the population to take precautions. Still, there are those who will criticize the hurricane hype and there did seem to be a different ring to what we hearing last week from the White House on down.

Political leaders seemed to be motivated both by public safety concerns and fear of the possible political fallout.

Retired Rescue Dogs.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:39:00 +0000

As the ten year anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, Osama bin Laden is dead and we are still here. Construction continues at the site of the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon has been rebuilt.

Immediately following the attacks, massive rescue efforts were launched including search and rescue and cadaver dogs.

In dogs years, September 11, 2001 was a lifetime ago and many of the dogs that helped find survivors and victims are now in their old age, or have passed on.

The New York Times Magazine had a photo essay on some of those dogs this past weekend. Their gray whiskers tell a story.

Newsweek.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:59:00 +0000

Newsweek editor Tina Brown was on MSNBC last week defending her cover shot of Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman on grounds of pure journalism.

The shot showed her intensity, she said. The "Queen of Rage" was a reference to Bachman being "all the rage," she added.

Proving once again that journalists generally are the worst when it comes to their own public relations.

The cover is a shot of Michelle Bachman, as she often appears. It's why many people, seeing her for the first time, sense she is a little off balance. Bachman's main approach, is to rage against the federal government she is a part of. It arguably makes her the queen of rage.

Just say it. Own it. And get it over with.

Brown was hired to save Newsweek from almost certain collapse. With the Bachman cover she succeeded in making Newsweek one of the most talked about magazines of the week. There's no need to apologize.

The Final Hours.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:45:00 +0000

In an article that reveals extensive new detail, The New Yorker, has an excellent story this week on the hunt and final take down of Osama bin Laden.

The story begins with the start of the Obama administration and the president's determination to find the guy who started it all. It also includes new first person detail of the raid on bin Laden's compound and President Obama's private "Mission Accomplished" moment with the Seals who fired the fatal shots.

Choppergeddon.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:18:00 +0000

We are all familiar with the cable news car chases brought to us on a regular basis thanks to the omnipresent news helicopters on patrol over southern California.

Now those copters are causing their own concern. The skies are getting crowded with choppers owned by the police department, fire department, news media, tour companies and those that are privately owned. And there appears to be nothing anyone can do about it.

An interesting account from the New York Times.

Tea Party On Wheels.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:16:00 +0000

I'm still relatively new to the Washington, D.C. area so it's still fun for me when I see a motorcade go by.

Not just the presidential motorcade, but all the little ones for all the lesser officials that need to get around Washington on any given day.

I've been stopped for the First Lady and the Vice President. In my neighborhood, the local police force gets lots of practice escorting bus loads of foreign dignitaries and staff from a nearby hotel to meetings and sight seeing trips in D.C.

I've noticed that what makes you a local is when motorcades cease to become an entertaining curiosity. People who've been around D.C. for a while begin to act like annoyed New Yorkers when the mini motorcades carrying congressional leaders and cabinet members speed through traffic and block intersections - three and four cars at a time. Sometimes they aren't even big cars - they're just shiny and black. With flashing lights and sirens. I'd like to see one consisting of three black VW Beetles, with two Mini Coopers at the front and back.

I have to think that the current state of government affairs has something to do with the level of annoyance people feel when they are inconvenienced by an official motorcade. Since no one in government seems to be doing their job, the idea that working people would have to get out of the way, step back on the sidewalk, or otherwise take a detour for one of these clowns is distasteful.

In D.C. motorcades are supposed to be about providing security, but for the average person trying to grab a sandwich at lunchtime it's about nothing more than the haves vs. the have nots. And it is not lost on the crowd who is paying for it all.

Mark Halperin.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:25:00 +0000

"Dick" is not one of George Carlin's seven dirty words you cannot say on television, but longtime political analyst Mark Halperin has discovered Carlin's list is not all inclusive as to context.

On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Halperin, egged on by host Joe Scarborough, took a chance Thursday morning and said President Obama came off as "a dick" at his news conference the day before. The set immediately erupted into juvenile laughter and some - limited - phony outrage and then Halperin was allowed to go on and make his adult point.

But before mid-morning MSNBC suspended him indefinitely and he apologized to anyone who would listen, including; the president, Joe, Mika, the audience and management at MSNBC.

A couple things.

Back when Don Imus was hosting the morning slot on MSNBC he would have gotten away with calling the president a dick, because he is a comedic entertainer. Imus is not a pundit, he is not a former congressman, and he is not a newscaster. He could get away with it - Halperin, Joe and Mika cannot. There are different standards for a guy who normally wears a suit and tie to work.

That was Halperin's miscalculation. In the brief moments he had to decide whether it was a good idea to use that word - he made the mistake of thinking he was on a "cutting edge" morning show dedicated to telling it how it is. The unvarnished, politically incorrect truth.

His new world standards, ran smack up against the old world standards that still cling to life at places like MSNBC. The cable network is the offspring of NBC News with its proud traditions rooted in the days when the nightly news was the broadcast equivalent of the New York Times.

When Halperin used the offending word he was only guilty of not knowing where the line is. The opinion he expressed was his own and the only difference between the opinion he expressed today and the ones he has expressed in the past was brevity. Today he got right to the point. He said what he thought and that is what he is being paid to do.

Everyone involved - not just Halperin - is to blame, because the path to success in cable news is to be edgy. To go right up to the line as often as possible.

This is evident by the fact that over the last year at least a half dozen hosts, sidekicks and analysts have had to apologize for remarks they've made on the air and/or taken temporary suspensions for something they've said.

Scarborough himself had to apologize when he used one of Carlin's seven dirty words - spontaneously - about a year ago. It led to the institution of the 7 second delay on the show. The delay didn't bleep out Halperin's remark this morning, for one of two reasons:

Either the person with their finger on the button didn't see it as a problem, or the person responsible for pushing the censor button didn't know how to use it (the unofficial company line).

In either case it proves the point. Halperin's discipline is disingenuous, because he's being punished for doing exactly what is expected of him. Alternately, MSNBC isn't worried about inelegant language slipping onto the air from time to time, because it makes for a good show; therefore no one bothered to learn how to use the seven second delay. Yes, we have one, but we will take our chances.

On Twitter.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:18:00 +0000

I have taken to Tweeting as a means to raise interest in www.GovernorsJournal.com.

As of this writing, I am far short of being an all-star Tweeter and in terms of what I am trying to accomplish, probably never intend to reach the numbers some Hollywood/celebrity Tweet stars reach. I am after a specific audience with a specific interest and if the mass of humanity has no interest in following me, that’s fine. I encourage humanity’s other interests.

When you join Tweetville you have two primary goals; to build followers and to follow others. It’s the following others I’d like to talk about.

Naturally, given my topic of interest (politics and governors), I tend to follow local and regional commentators who may have some local news angle to impart that the rest of the media world has missed, and national news people and commentators who are trying to frame the big picture.

In doing so I’ve picked up on a few bad habits that I am trying to avoid:

The status Tweet. Ex.: “I’m at the airport in Green Bay and I can’t believe there is no Starbucks.”

First of all, this is not useful information. Second, Tweets like this are meant to set the Tweeter apart from the rest of us. "I am a special person with special requirements. My life is very difficult right now because I am unable to pay five dollars for a dolce vita latte with creme. You wouldn’t understand, because I’m cool and you’re not."

The ‘I know better’ Tweet. Ex.: “Haley Barbour hasn’t used ‘the main thing’ quote yet. Oh - here it comes.” Or, “I know the GOP hates telepromtrs, but really, they are useful.”

As someone who has been both a journalist and a political operative, it is annoying when journalists, with no personal experience in politics, or government presume to be able to tell the rest of the world “how it’s done.” Observing politics and government is not the same as being in either, I can assure you. If observing = doing then why is it I can’t hit a 90 mph fast ball? I’ve seen it done.

The Pure Snark Tweet. You know it when you see it. Presumably these tweets are sent to be entertaining and therefore increase the audience. I see them as nothing more than high schoolish whispers behind your best friend’s back done in a very public way.

There are lots of people out there who are on Twitter because they think they have to be on Twitter. But if you are in the news business and you are on Twitter to enhance your professional reputation engaging in status, I know better and pure snark - doesn’t help your cause. Please stop. Thank you.

Follow Me @GJournal

Mugshots.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:23:00 +0000

This is a very brief commentary.

Whoever came up with the idea to have clients smile when they have their mugshot taken is brilliant.

The effect completely negates the media/prosecution's intent to humiliate.

The latest to turn the table: John Edwards.

Not Worth It.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:54:00 +0000

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is once again under fire for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This past winter he faced severe criticism for being out of state on vacation as a winter storm hit.

Now he is facing scrutiny for using a state police helicopter to catch his son's baseball game. For a governor who has made a reputation of going after wasteful government spending - this was a big mistake. And the details, as they are emerging, make it worse.

Witnesses say when the helicopter landed on a field next to the one his son was playing on, state police used a shiny black car, with tinted windows to drive him the extra 100 yards. The state police will probably be asked to take the fall for this decision. The administration is likely to say it's up to the governor's security detail to determine the best way to transport the governor according to his schedule, but in the end the decision to fly, or not, is really his and this time he should have stayed on the pavement, or skipped the game.

There's nothing that stirs up the emotions of over-taxed constituents more then politicians who fly first class, cut lines, or use the trappings of office to make their lives easier than the average guy. A helicopter also happens to be one of the most expensive modes of transportation around.

Pictured: A N.J. State Police helicopter. Neither of the two men dangling below is Christie.

Preaching to the Choir

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:29:00 +0000

Like lots of talk radio and some cable television, hosts micro-cast to a small audience.

Some to the political left, most to the political right.

MSNBC's prime time line up is mostly left leaning and they now have a new series of promos running that speak to that segment of the larger audience.

The style of the promos, by Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, is condescending and elitist. They represent the worst caricature of liberal thinking. Let me explain to you, the little people, how the world works as you recognize my superior grasp of history and all it means.

Maddow's promos are particularly gag worthy as she stands in front of a bridge and explains there are some things - like building infrastructure - that only government can do. No company would build this bridge behind me "on spec," she says. And in another, standing before a large dam, she talks about how our parents and grandparents thought about us when they invested their money in big projects that would someday serve us all. What are we doing? - she concludes in an accusatory manner.

The not so subtle message behind these two promos is that anyone who takes a more conservative approach to government spending is a know nothing, selfish and therefore, probably mean. Bad. Certainly dumb and un-enlightened.

Let's begin our analysis with a popular phrase among chronic condescenders:

"The notion" that all conservatives hate government spending is wrong. They hate wasteful government spending. And it's important not to assume all Republicans are conservative when it comes to spending as Maddow and others on the left often do.

"The notion" that all conservatives would oppose building Maddow's bridge, or dam is also wrong. And "the notion" that there is no wasteful government spending can only be taken by someone who has never really looked.

The idea that only government can build big public works projects is dead wrong. Some of the first turnpikes in America were privately owned toll roads. And if a private company believed it could make money by building or maintaining a major road - it would. See: Indiana.

As for the dam, Maddow's parents and grandparents built for us - while it is true it has benefited several generations of Americans (presumably it is a hydro-electric dam) it is also true that it was probably built to fulfill an immediate need at the time. So Maddow's parents and grandparents were not entirely altruistic when their tax money (or electric rates) was used to build it.

Finally, "the notion" that our immediate ancestors sat down and actually decided together which public works projects would benefit future generations, before they were built, is fanciful and simplistic in the extreme. Maddow's parents and grandparents had no more say in the construction of the Hoover Dam then you and I have in the construction of the next high speed rail line - which is to say - except in very local circumstances - not much.

I think the promos probably run :30 each. How someone, so smart can be so wrong in the period of a combined :60 seconds might be the topic of a future Keith Olbermann - Special Comment.

Three Facts.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 03 May 2011 18:16:00 +0000

In the understandably frenzied coverage following the killing of Osama bin Laden there are many unanswered questions. There is also evidence of government and diplomatic spin and the echo chamber.

1. The U.S. claim that U.S. forces were prepared to take bin Laden alive if he did not resist. This requires further explanation since it has now been revealed that bin Laden was unarmed. If he was resisting, how was he resisting in a manner that threatened a Seal team? It is unclear.

If the order was to kill on sight - the administration should have just said so. No one would blame them.

2. The Pakistani claim that it had no idea bin Laden was in the country. How is this possible? The building he was hiding in was constructed in 2005. Someone must have asked what the building was for, who was going to use it, or who was using it. And it would be difficult to make those questions go away without compelling people to stop asking by threat, or some other means. It would be difficult to keep such a secret for this long.

3. The media insistence on calling bin Laden's hideout a mansion. A million dollar mansion specifically. From the pictures we have seen, it is not a mansion. It may have cost a million dollars, but if that building is what passes for a mansion in Pakistan, it would appear the best Pakistani architects have moved to neighboring countries.

Cooler Heads.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:53:00 +0000

There is nothing like a major media circus to prompt an immediate knee-jerk political response in many cases, but over the last year a number of highly publicized tragedies and calamities have not necessarily led to irreversible over-reaction by government.

Politico reporting last week that Congress has been slow to act in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill. While the White House has slowed down the approval process for off-shore drilling, Congress has not stepped in dramatically.

The near fatal shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, similarly, has not led to a surge in new anti gun laws across the country.

And the disaster in Japan has led to a muted response in this country toward the future use of nuclear power. If anything, public opinion surveys (Rasmussen) show people are still willing to bet on nuclear power as part of the U.S. energy mix as long as it is done safely.

Perception has a lot to do with it.

In all three cases the casual observer can write off each instance as an aberration rather than a trend that requires an immediate government response. The Gulf oil disaster was horrible, but it doesn't happen every day - it doesn't even happen once a year. The shooting of Giffords and close to two dozen others was tragic, but pinned quickly on a lone individual with obvious mental health issues. And the Japan nuclear disaster was brought about by the highly unusual combination of a major earthquake and tsunami. Hardly something most nuclear power plants ever have to consider as a possibility.

Chipping Away.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:48:00 +0000

The most fruitful negotiations usually occur when at least one side has its back against the wall.

Setting aside the countdown clocks on cable news there was never really any chance Democrats and Republicans were going to let the government shutdown this weekend. There was nothing in it for anyone.

But what was accomplished, by waiting until the last moment to make the deal, was agreement on a higher level of spending cuts and that is the point Republicans are ultimately trying to make here.

$40 billion is just a start. The GOP argument going forward needs to be centered on a clear choice: Do you want more of your money going to fund the government, or do you want to keep more of your money to use as you wish?

Democrats believe it is their job to protect programs, losing sight of the fact that the programs are paid for by taxpayers. In the course of the argument, taxpayers forget it's their money too. Republicans were right to frame this latest battle in terms of spending, rather than specific programs. It is about forcing government to spend only what is necessary and leave the rest with the people who earned it.

Stop Wasting Bullets

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 16:42:00 +0000

It just occurs to me that the Libyan rebels would be much more effective, as a fighting force, if they stopped firing all those bullets into the air in celebration.

First of all, what are they celebrating? They haven't won anything yet.

Second, someone is going to get hurt by all those stray bullets and history shows it's usually the people on your side.

Third, why should we even consider arming the rebels if they are going to waste all that ammo?

Churchill said, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." Libya must be a very exhilarating place.

The End As We Know It?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:34:00 +0000

With reports that Katie Couric will leave the anchor desk of the CBS Evening News later this year a round of speculation has begun about the fate of the network newscasts in general.

Does it matter who anchors these programs? Is the audience worth holding on to? Are the evening newscasts irrelevant?

Until about a year ago, I had stopped watching the evening news. It didn't fit into my schedule. Now I do - and I kind of like it.

Regardless of the answers to the preceding questions, I think the concept behind the programs is neat. The concept being: Every day, a group of broadcast journalists at the top of their game, look at the world and make their best effort to sum it all up in 22 minutes.

They use the latest technology and the latest story telling techniques. They are aware that lots of people already "know what the news is" and are looking for "the rest of the story."

Whether the format has long to live on the broadcast networks seems to be an open question, but the idea that there should be one, or two, or three, or more programs based on the general premise that this program is the destination program for anyone who wants the news of the day all wrapped up in one easy to swallow show, is one that ought to survive somewhere. On broadcast, cable, the web,or your cell phone.

The evening news should find a place to survive. Even if it becomes, the late night news, the early morning news, or the hourly news available for download whenever it's evening for you.

Timing Is Everything.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:18:00 +0000

Whenever President Obama has a chance to make his case in a formal setting, he succeeds in putting forward a strong argument. That was the case Monday as he addressed the nation on events in Libya.

But the tone and content of the speech was not all it could have been because the president waited too long to make it.

More than half of the speech was devoted not to his vision of the use of U.S. military power in the tumultuous Middle East, but to his defense of steps he has already taken. Without naming names, Obama spent most of the first half of his 30 minute address, rebutting the arguments of his critics rather than delivering his own message. On top of it all, he once again displayed a level of impatience with those who have failed to accurately interpret his actions and explanations over the last two weeks. He was on the defensive - which is never a good place for a leader to be.

This would all be different if the president had engaged directly with the American people as events were unfolding. At the very least, by telling his story first, the critics would have been reacting to him rather than the other way around.

The policy the president is trying to sell is loaded with contradiction and inconsistency. And that is not a subjective statement. The fact the president felt compelled to explain himself through a national address only proves that the American public, and leaders in Congress, don't entirely understand the nuance of our policy toward Libya.

This can't be blamed simply on partisanship. A large part of the president's problem can be blamed on his own failure to communicate in a timely manner, when he had the advantage. In hindsight, it was wrong for him to leave for South America without addressing what was about to unfold. At worst it would have delayed his trip by a few hours. Now he is left trying to manage military operations and cobble together domestic political support that could have been his from the start.

Something Missing?

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:11:00 +0000

With regard to the current military action in Libya, some argue President Obama needs to, and has a responsibility to, make a formal speech explaining exactly what he - and we - are doing over there.

It is hard to argue that point, but it is worth noting most of the people making it are "of the media." They view the world through the media they are a part of and therefore they believe the rest of the world does as well.

From my own perspective, I think the president has so far missed an opportunity to tell us why American troops are being used to provide air cover to Libyan dissidents, how long they are going to be involved and all the rest. He can still do it, but it won't have the same effect and it will also appear that he is reacting to criticism. When you are in a leadership position you never want to look as if you have been prodded, you want to lead the parade.

Having said all that - it is interesting to see a president try to buck the media. To, through his refusal to play by media rules, send the message that; "I am in charge, I have made my decision, and your only role in this is to tell people what I've done." It's good to see a president willing to make that point. To refuse to allow the press to set his agenda.

Like everything - there is a time and place to send that message. Now, however, does not seem to be the time.

TV Worth Watching.

noreply@blogger.com (Dean C. Pagani) — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 14:36:00 +0000

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York is the next Chris Christie.

The question is; can Democrats accept him and his message. He held a news conference this week to discuss on-going budget negotiations and the video (distributed by his office through email) is TV worth watching (Cuomo video).

You can learn something from how he handles the news media and its questions and you can marvel at how much he sounds like a 1990's Republican. Pay particular attention when he begins defending cuts to the education budget in the last 3 minutes of the video. Cuomo is making a Republican argument that resulted in most Republicans who made it being laughed out of the room in state capitols across the country, as recently as the last five years.

Budget realities have now changed the rhetoric and shifted the balance.

Editors Note: The AP Stylebook was revised this week to make email the accepted standard rather than e-mail. Make all previous copy conform.