MetaBatty

Missing the point about missing the bus

The New York Times reported today that legislators and environmental advocacy organizations are up in arms over a disparity between two federal regulations - one that urges commuters to reduce the amount of time they spend in their cars, and one that simultaneously gives them incentives (tax breaks) for driving to work. If you missed the article link in the first sentence, here it is again.

This is exactly why I can be an advocate for states rights so often...  These policymakers and talking heads don't think (or, perhaps, care) about local issues in all of that overlooked space between New York and San Francisco.

The Denver-Metro region was planned, designed and built for cars and the drivers who love them. It is an expansive, spread-out city built at the intersection of two major interstates, with wide roads connecting flat neighborhoods that stretch from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains to the ranches and farms of the Eastern Colorado plains. 

On top of that, we have downtown parking fees that are on par with most major Midwestern and Pacific metro regions (Chicago, etc), but virtually no equivalent rail system, and only a sub-par bus systems, to bring commuters to and from their jobs in the city (like the CTA, BART, Metro, etc).

We may drive because we want to - but we drive to work because we have to.

Our nascent rail system, the RTD Light Rail, serves only a small fraction of suburbs and outlying areas that house Denver's Commuters. And it would be faster for me to crawl on my lips than use RTD's convoluted and disjointed bus system.

But legislators and, worse, interest groups, on both coasts (but especially the East) decry commuter tax breaks - like allowing employees to use pre-tax deductions from their income to pay for the high cost of parking in downtown garages to get to work every day - as "perverse" in the face of carbon emissions, higher gas prices, and congestion.

All I ask of them is that they spend one month in Denver, commuting from the suburbs to downtown, before they try to pass Federal legislation ending tax breaks for commuters. They might direct their attention to more useful endeavors that ultimately support their cause - like expanding the Denver light rail system to more areas in less time, so we actually have the option of taking the train to work, before we lose a tax break that is just as important to the middle class as flexspend for health care.

(Yet Another) Final Straw

Found this compelling op-ed on Google News this morning. Caught my attention because the author's political leanings and background, and his switching from Republican to Independent, mirrors my some of my own beliefs, as well as the rationale behind my defection to Independent status one year ago this week. I don't think that Bush's commuting Libby's sentence is tantamount to Ford pardoning Nixon (which was a wise, necessary decision) or the outcry it caused at the time, but it certainly is one more nail in the coffin that will hold the failed Bush presidency.

Cheers, Tony

For months we knew it was coming, and today it happened. Tony Blair resigned after more than 10 years as British Prime Minister.

I have to say, I will miss him. Over the last decade Blair was a major political figure around the world and even here in the U.S., where we have our own share of larger-than-life politicians (good and bad). He was a central player in so many of the biggest global and Western developments of the last 10 years, it will be strange not seeing him as often in the media spotlight, flashing that reassuring smile and somehow always knowing exactly the right thing to say (they guy had some excellent PR people...)

From the moment he took office and instilled his "Third-Way" of political thinking (not unlike Bill Clinton's less partisan, more moderate form of leadership), Blair put a modern face on Britain and helped re-invent its image from that of a stodgy, conservative country where everyone wears tweed and boils their meat, into that of a vibrant world power that is at the center of global commerce, innovation, fashion, food and more (thankfully the pubs didn't change...).

His was not a perfect tenure - payoffs for titles, the war in Iraq, etc. - but, in comparison, it stands well above those of most of his contemporaries with some shining examples of success - strong economy, improved education, a renewed sense of global standing, peace in Ireland. I would like to think that he is leaving his post with his country and the world in somewhat better condition than when he stepped in, all things considered.

Blair stood by the U.S. during some very difficult times, often at the expense of his reputation and popularity at home. After 9/11 he let us know that we weren't alone in the world. And when our heads of state were caught up in their own scandals and mistakes, we could always look to Tony Blair to remember that leaders of the free world could maintain some semblance of tact, class, compassion and clear thinking.

And I have very real hopes he can bring that compassion and clear thinking to bear in his next job - Peace Envoy to the Middle East, representing the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

But change is always good - even if the party in control remains the same (Labour). Looking forward to getting to know the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and seeing what's next in Anglo American relations. The first place most people will look is Iraq, and what Britain might do next. Should be interesting...

For those still wondering why Cheney isn't running for president...

...aside from the whole health issue, check out this article from ABC News today. This should clear up any confusion on why you don't see him in the GOP candidate line up (10 strong, and growing). It's almost comical.

Dick's not stupid, he knows no one likes him. And he's going to ride that horse all the way to the finish line. You have to at least admire the complete and total disregard he has for the will of the people, much less the constitution or rule of law. This is one guy who could never be called weak willed, or a flip flopper.

Almost makes you miss John "I voted against the Iraq war before I voted for it" Kerrey.

Almost.

(Separated at birth?)

Presidential campaign as Game Show

If anyone else thinks it strange that presidential campaigns are not only starting WAY too early, but that they are becoming nothing more than talking heads relaying the same sound bites over and over (and I am talking about the candidates, not the pundits) you are not alone.

Today I heard the whole situation described with intelligence and brevity by none other than Newt Gingrich. Here's how he characterizes the recent GOP debates, which, like the earlier Democrat debates, happened about 1 1/2 years before the next presidential election.

"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer non-answers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work. ... This idea of demeaning the presidency by reducing it to being a game show contest ... is wrong for America, and I would never participate in it." (Source: AP, May 17 2007)

Of course, he was referring to the process, not the elections. I have no doubt in my mind Newt will throw his hat in the ring and be in the running for the Republican candidacy by the end of the year.

He just has to wait for some of these game show contestants to get their parting gifts, first.

Snow job

Before anyone gets up in arms that Tony Snow - a US journalist and Fox News personality - most likely will be the next White House press secretary, a quick look at his background and experience should explain everything.  It should come as no surprise to anyone, Republican or Democrat, why this broadcast journalist was given and accepted the offer to replace former press secretary Scott McClellan.

Some might have a problem with a journalist becoming the spokesperson for an administration. After all, aren't journalists are supposed to be the objective and unbiased voice of the people - the fourth estate - not the 'mouthpiece' of a president?  Not neccesarily. It's important to note that the job of press secretary has been filled by respected journalists in the past.  And, some press secretaries also have gone on to careers in journalism (George Stephanopolous and Pierre Salinger, among others). A press secretary's number-one job is to communicate clearly and effectively with the press, and serve as the face and voice of the adminstration to the world through the media. Who better to do this than one of their own?

It is almost common knowledge that many news outlets and those they employ no longer aspire to being objective as much as they do to fanning the flames of one ideology or another to secure ratings and ad revenue (people in the US believe that Fox News favors conservsatives and the Republican party, for example). From that angle this appointment starts to make even more sense. Some may even have the notion that there is a Fox News/Bush Adminstration conspiracy theory brewing behind the scenes, but that's just not the case. For the majority of his career, Snow was not neccesarily an "objective journalist" as much as he was a commentator and observer, nor was he always in the field of journalism. He shares their views and vision, and has the right resume for the job.

Most notable among Snow's career moves prior to joining Fox News were those of Deputy Assistant to the President for Communications, Director of Speechwriting, and Deputy Assistant to the President for Media Affairs - all for the first Bush administration from 1991 - 1993.  Although he cut his teeth as a reporter and editor throughout the South and even Detroit, Snow has generally been very open about his political inclinations. This new job is surely an honor for him, and a pinnacle in his career (save the 20 hours a day he will be working, every day, through the mid term elections).

Let's see if Tony Snow can make it all the way until the end of Bush's second term.  I think he will, but it will be "hard work," as he new boss likes to say, frequently. With grim mid-term election forecasts, the war in Iraq, a lumbering deficit and Iran and North Korea making more headlines by the day - not to mention the glut of domestic issues (medicare, gas prices, social security) - it will, no doubt, be a demanding job to toe the line to a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week news cycle, and endeavour to improve the image of a president who's job approval rating is at it's lowest point ever. If Snow can be honest, forthright, on the level, and serve the interest of the national security - all while forming a trusted bond with the press corps that covers White House news - he will be more than deserving of the flack jacket that McClellan might be handing over to him as soon as tomorrow morning.

I like Mike, but there's another option

When I heard today's news that Scott McClellan was resigning his position as White House press secretary, the first thought I had was "MAN I hope Bush hires Mike McCurry!"

Wishful thinking, at best.  McCurry was President Clinton's press secretary from 1995 - 1998 (I still credit him for his prescience for resigning just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal *really* broke).  In my opinion, he was the best press secretary of our generation, maybe of all time, since Stephen Early invented the job as FDR's press secretary back in 1937.  Yes, it takes a PR nerd like me to say something like that, but it's true. I also met and had drinks with McCurry shortly after he left the White House so, in the interest of full disclosure, I am somewhat biased.

There is no other person on the White House staff who takes more heat, more metaphorical bullets, more public exposure and more flack from the media (who allegedly represent the voice of the people) than the White House press secretary.  It's so bad that WH press secretaries have a tradition of handing down a flack jacket to their successor once they retire from the office.  And, just like McClellan, McCurry, and many others, most of them retire after only 2-3 years on the job.  It is literally a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week job that is immensely taxing on your health, your family, and your sanity.  Anyone who can do it with poise, humility and humor - all while representing the office of the president in a positive manner with integrity - is at the very top of their profession.

Mike McCurry easily meets and exceeds all of those definitions.  Like only a few press secretaries before him (Marlin Fitzwater, James Brady, Pierre Salinger and others), McCurry was respected by both the press pool and the White House staff, cabinet and administration - he had the trust of the media while also toeing the line of the administration.  I can't imagine a more challenging - or more rewarding - job. He knew when to be in the loop, when to be out of the loop, when to level with the press, when to protect the national security, when to admit faults, and when to tell a reporter they were getting out of line (yes, I have a book about McCurry's tenure - the chaotic and engrossing Spin Cycle by Howard Kurtz).  And he was always credited with having integrity - the most important quality in building trust with the media.

I don't think McClellan ever quite had those credentials, although he did an admirable job, and that is why I believe that he is "resigning" in the midst of a new chief of staff coming on board.  And, I have resigned myself to the fact that McCurry is living comfortably in the private sector, making a lot more money and working far fewer hours than he did when he was press secretary - so much so that he would be smart to never come back to that job (much less for someone on the other side of the aisle).

So, then I consider this fact - in almost 70 years of White House press secretaries, there has only been one female press secretary.  That was Dee Dee Meyers, who was Clinton's first press secretary (Jan 93 - Dec 94....yes, I have a book about the history of the press and the office of the president).  She made it almost two years - again, about the usual tenure for a press secretary.  But her performance has satisfactory at best, and her legacy is not a strong one.

Bush has a track record of tapping minorities, women, and others that don't fall into the "white upper class male" definition to fill key roles on his White House staff.  So, why not take this opportunity to look to a woman to replace McClellan?  I am a career PR practitioner, and know for a fact there are many women out there who have the potential to re-define, as I believe Mike McCurry did, the role of press secretary in the White House. It's not about being an insider or "good old boy" as much as it is about being savvy, smart, humble yet aggressive, quick-witted, on message - and a person with integrity. I believe the right woman - possessing those talents, coupled with professional experience in PR - could be a groundbreaking White House press secretary.