MCCAIN | Trump "Abased" before Putin "Tyrant"

SASC CHAIRMAN JOHN McCAIN 

ON TRUMP-PUTIN MEETING

Senator John McCain, Chairman,
Senate Armed Services Committee

Washington, D.C.  July 6, 2018 – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today on President Trump’s meeting and press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki:

“Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.

“President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world. 

“Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

###

Permalink: https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/7/statement-by-sasc-chairman-john-mccain-on-trump-putin-meeting
See also: http://www.businessinsider.com/mccain-trump-remarks-with-putin-press-conference-statement-2018-7

BRANDING | Will Obama Skill Rub Off on USA?

Will the American brand improve under President-Elect Obama? AdAge is running a poll right now. Positive responses are sweeping the field. And why not? We know Obama is tremendously popular overseas. He's a citizen of the world.

More than that, Obama has shown he knows how to handle his own brand. He stayed on message, whereas McCain's Most Vicious Attack Was on His Own Brand Name (Bob Garfield, 11.10.08):

Country second. Political expediency first. Strategic rigor about 18th. My friends, what a terrible campaign. John McCain lost the election for many reasons: Bush's failed presidency, the economy, the Wall Street meltdown at the most inopportune time, the disastrous bet on towering ignoramus Sarah Palin, and not least the lavishly financed, nearly flawless campaign by his opponent, already a singular figure in American political history. Still, strategically and executionally, it was not merely a disaster; it was an embarrassment -- whatever "it" was, because "it" was a moving target. Over the course of two months, McCain's marketing messages were, variously: 1) Country first. 2) Maverick. 3) Don't listen to those ridiculous, un-American, liberal, intellectual, coastal elites. 4) Barack Obama is a superficial celebrity. 5) Tested. 6) Change. 7) Obama is a dangerous unknown quantity. 8) Obama is a socialist. He should have stopped after No. 2, exactly as Obama never stopped talking about the economy, health care and education over and over and over and over no matter what flak the Republicans were shooting in his direction. He was relentless, McCain was reactive.

McCain’s agency was Foxhole Productions in Arlington, Va.

Obama Fundraising a First, Says Election Commission Chairman

Thanks to Congressional Quarterly for noting today ("Obama’s Operation May Become the Model of Fundraising") the comments of former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith in a Washington Post op-ed piece a week before the election.

Brad Smith was commenting on the fact that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain had exceeded $800 million in combined spending two weeks before Election Day. The CQ story emphasizes that "It’s not just the amount of money that was spent but also the way it was raised — much of it online, in small chunks and, in Obama’s case, completely independent of the public financing system for the first time in the post-Watergate era."

Smith, in his op-ed, says: "I’ve studied all the great fundraisers of the past, from William McKinley to Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. American politics has never seen anything remotely like this before.”

Smith is overtly partisan - he was a Republican appointee. The online discussion of Obama's citizen "juggernaut" is all the more interesting. He thinks the system has worked, even though his candidate was losing. Here are some excerpts.

Arlington, Va.: Just to counter some of the paranoid posts -- I'm one of those small donors that you fear so much. In <> early September I became so disgusted with the McCain/Palin campaign that I went to Obama's Web site and made a donation. I since have made two additional donations. All three were responses to something that was said by the McCain/Palin campaign. In all I've given less than $100. I was born in the U.S. and have lived here all my life, and despite various Republican's claims I'm not a communist or anti-American. I'm just a regular person who has every right to vote and to support a candidate with my time and money.

Bradley A. Smith: I wish more people thought like you -- not your support for Obama ;-), but regarding your motives for supporting Obama and your willingness to back up your beliefs.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: McCain keeps saying that Obama is trying to buy the election. Isn't it more like the citizens are? They're the ones contributing the money.

Bradley A. Smith: Right on!

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: "Former FEC chairman." Given your obvious political leanings, I must say I find that very disturbing. Is that a partisan political post? Should it be?

Bradley A. Smith: The FEC has six commissioners, with no more than three from any one political party. Four votes are needed for most action. So one party can't dictate outcomes. I found that the Commission worked pretty well. But you've really hit the nail on the head -- how can you maintain over time a truly unbiased political police? That's why I generally would deregulate the system, or at least start in that direction. We need separation of campaigns and state, you might say.

_______________________

Maryland: The other day a friend and I were having a friendly argument. He was saying there should be more rules to limit how much a campaign can spend because $200 million is outrageous. I said "$200 million is rock-bottom cheap for a good presidential administration!" It's just a fifth of a billion dollars -- compare that to the cost of the Iraq war. Just saying.

Bradley A. Smith: You are right. Political spending needs to be kept in perspective. Americans will spend about $12 billion on potato chips this cycle. Coca-Cola will spend more on advertising this year than will be spent by all the candidates who have run for president combined. Auto makers will spend more than twice as much this year advertising cars as all political spending for federal office. It cost money to communicate, whether you are talking about cars, cola or politicians.

AdAge: Obama Makes Marketing History

On October 6, I posted on Huffington Post an analysis from my friend Patt Cottingham that impressed me. She limned seven cogent reasons why the Obama brand was better than McCain's. See Brand Expert Scores Obama v. McCain 7 Ways.

Now Obama has been elected President and AdAge announces today that November 4, 2008 is the biggest day for marketing in universal history. President-Elect Obama's "Change" theme gets this all-time cosmic award. Here's the picture (as if you need to see another) and what AdAge had to say about it.

Take a relatively unknown man. Younger than all of his opponents. Black. With a bad-sounding name. Consider his first opponent: the best-known woman in America, connected to one of the most successful politicians in history. Then consider his second opponent: a well-known war hero with a long, distinguished record as a U.S. senator. Obama owns the 'change' idea in voters' minds. It didn't matter. Barack Obama had a better marketing strategy than either of them.

Barack Obama used "Change" as the "big truth."

If you tell the truth often enough and keep repeating it, the truth gets bigger and bigger, creating an aura of legitimacy and authenticity. Hillary Clinton first tried "experience." When she saw the progress Mr. Obama was making, she shifted to "Countdown to change." Then when the critics pointed out her me-too approach, she shifted to "Solutions for America." What word is associated with Ms. Clinton today? I don't know, do you?

AdAge gives three marketing reasons for the triumph of Obama's campaign:
1. Simplicity. About 70 percent of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction. Hence a smart focus on "change."
2. Consistency. Most advertisers try to "communicate". They should be trying to "position" consistently.
3. Relevance. "If you're losing the battle, shift the battlefield." Obama forced his opponents to devote much of their campaign time discussing changes they proposed for the country and showing why they were different from Obama's.

STATE AND LOCAL FINANCE | Critical Federal Reforms Needed

Whether Obama or McCain gets elected on Tuesday, an early issue for the new president is the fiscal crisis facing state and local governments. Beleaguered officials have watched July-September revenues come in lower than expected while financial markets have become more risk-averse. They have been trooping to the Congress already - expect them to start pressing the President-elect after the election.

The fact is, the Federal Government is the only one of America's 87,500 governmental units that can print money. A Federal response could be to provide short-term fiscal assistance in exchange for commitment for structural changes that will bring state and local revenues and expenses into balance and will bring debt service below a reasonable ratio to a multi-year average of tax revenues.

It's not just that states and localities have seen revenues decline. Many pension funds that have invested heavily in equities and appeared to have adequate funds to pay pension obligations now look grossly underfunded. The loss in value of pension-fund assets invites further questions about pension-fund accounting. In many cases the answers to these questions will distress pensioners, taxayers and investors in municipal debt. When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions.

In New York State, Gov. David Paterson has a clear understanding of New York State's fiscal outlook. He has just raised his forecast of the budget gap facing the state this fiscal year to $1.5 billion from the $1.2 billion the state projected weeks ago. States and localities are not permitted to run deficits, so Gov. Paterson has asked the state legislature to meet Nov. 18 to close the budget with decisions that will raise more revenue and cut spending. He says nothing will be off the table and he sounds as though he means it.

New York State's problem is huge and gets worse next year and the year after. Borrowing to fund current deficits faces (appropriate) legal obstacles and would be a hard sell. Muni markets are opening up again, but with the loss of credibility of the mni bond insurers, rates are higher.

The only options seem to be to cut budgeted expenses or raise taxes. California is in a similar bind and, despite budget cuts made earlier this year, more than 20 states have identified budget gaps that combine to exceed $11 billion.

The U.S. Treasury is an attractive option for budget-closing loans. States and localities cannot run deficits but Washington can. State and local officials and their Congressional allies can argue that their problems stem from failures of Federal regulation of financial markets and that if banks can be bailed out, why shouldn't Washington provide short-term help to state and local governments?

I imagine the National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are working hard on this question right now.

Washington's challenge - Obama's or McCain's challenge - will be to respond in such a way that the short-term pain of state and local fiscal adjustments is reduced while changes in long-term fiscal practices are made. Federal crisis assistance to state and local governments should come with conditions that are as thought-through and as tough as new regulations being prepared for the financial sector.

Poll: McCain Is Losing Because of the Economy

2 a.m. EST: An AOL poll shows a majority of more than 200,000 respondents saying that John McCain can still win on November 4, eight days from now. The poll asks: "What should a McCain comeback strategy focus on most?" Of the 160,000 respondents, 54 percent believe that he should focus on economic solutions. Only 20 percent say McCain should focus on his experience, only 18 percent say he can succeed by attacking Obama. (Only 8 percent say there is some other formula for a McCain victory.)

Comment: As forecasts of a deep global recession grow and some sober economists (like Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw in Saturday's But Have We Learned Enough?) say an economic downturn rivaling the Great Depression can't be ruled out. McCain needed to position himself as a leader offering different economic solutions from the Bush Administration. The AOL poll suggests that McCain's inability to cobble together such a plan is Obama's greatest strength. If he is so experienced, the electorate seems to be asking, why isn't McCain able to explain what he would do differently from George W. Bush about the economy?

6 a.m. EST: More than 183,000 responses. Economic solutions, 54 percent. McCain's experience, 19 percent. Attacking Obama, 18 percent. Other, 9 percent.

Brand Expert Scores Obama v. McCain 7 Ways

Pat Cottingham

The Obama and McCain brands have been rated by branding-strategy expert Pat Cottingham of Genuine Imprints, Ltd. Her paper "Brand Obama or Brand McCain?" is featured this week on brandchannel. It's astute. Here's a summary she wrote for me:

On November 4 the American people will buy the Obama or McCain brand. I think the Obama brand is winning on seven criteria:

1. Logos. The Obama Campaign chose an icon that captured the feeling of sunrise over a field of red and white stripes. There is also a subtle "O" for Obama that is in play here though the name Obama is not used in the icon. This makes it a universal logo/icon to which anyone can bring his or her own meaning. It also communicates the Obama brand style. The McCain Campaign chose a logo that comes directly out of his family heritage of three generations in the U.S. Navy, as well as his prisoner-of-war-hero-status political leader. The colors of blue and gold are the U.S. Navy colors, the star icon comes directly from military-rank designations on uniforms. Graphic icons are more new-school in the branding world, indicating change. Names on logos are more old school, indicating traditional values.

2. DNA. The Obama brand has a clearly defined brand code delivered in a simple three-word line. "Yes We Can". McCain has not clarified his brand code. His brand has delivered multiple messages - "Change You Can Believe In", "Country First", "Reform Prosperity Peace", "Don't Hope for a Better Life, Vote for One", "Courageous Service. Experienced Leadership. Bold Solutions".

3. Benefit. Obama has a clear product benefit. "Hope". It is hard to discern from the variety of McCain's brand messages what his product benefit actually is.

4. Positioning. The Obama brand positioning is We/People based. The McCain brand positioning is more Me/McCain based. If you would like to see evidence of this go to the Brooklyn Art Project site and see their Visual Word Maps. These word maps reveal the Obama and McCain campaign strategies by the top words used.

5. Values. If a brand is to be trusted it has to shed light on its values. Obama conveys the values of hope and unity. The McCain campaign has attempted to undermine these values, starting with exploitation of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermon on YouTube. This inspired Obama to give a well-regarded speech on race in America on March 18 at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. This strengthened the Obama brand, as Obama showed he could stand up to adversity. McCain has clearly communicated that he values country and service but it's not clear how this message relates to current economic, energy, and environmental challenges facing America. Television coverage today showed Palin with "Country First" in the place of McCain's name on the campaign logo. These two words sound like implicature - a new word for the ancient practice of implying or suggesting something more than what it said. Saying that McCain puts his country first implies that Obama does not. It's as if Coca-Cola advertised "No Arsenic Added" - a statement that is surely true, but carries the (false) implication that other brands of soda do add arsenic. Sarah Palin at the same time was suggesting that Obama "pals around" with terrorists, the evidence being a long New York Times story on Bill Ayers that in fact concludes that the connection between Ayers and Obama, who both served on the Chicago Annenberg Project, was not very strong.

6. Mission. A brand must have a clearly defined mission so that its messages flow in one direction. Obama's mission is to bring "Change to America". The fact that he is the first African American running for the president of the United States is the embodiment of this mission. There could be no bigger change than an Obama administration and the Obama family in the White House. McCain's claim that he will bring reform to Washington with bold solutions is harder to buy into, no matter how much he positions himself as a maverick. The McCain brand simply hasn't demonstrated that his administration would be different from the last eight years under George W. Bush.

7. Vision. Finally, every great brand must have great vision. The Obama brand's "One Nation" vision is wrapped up in his quote "There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." This viewpoint is the uniting principle that the Obama brand has promulgated throghout the country. The McCain brand vision is a world that is more threatening and fear based. He says: "We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home." A vision of fear in how we face our challenges here and around the world will diminish us. It will make us smaller and this is not the America that we want to see at home or how we want to continue to be seen around the world.

For a longer version of this post showing the logos and including links, go to HuffPost.

POLITICAL ADS | Obama v. McCain

July 31, 2008–Blake Fleetwood has posted a sharp take on the last two elections, arguing that Karl Rove succeeded in painting a picture of:

• Al Gore as an egghead with delusions of grandeur (Image: Jerry Lewis as the mad professor) and
• John Kerry as lying about his bravery under fire (Image: Pinocchio).

Both images were travesties but they played their part in bringing Dubya to the White House.

Using Blake's flashlight we can read the first McCain and Obama ads as similar snapshots:

• McCain announces in the "Celeb" ad that Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world, up there with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Message? Obama's popularity is not based on anything but appearance and that being opposed to new offshore drilling means he is responsible for higher oil prices. Image: Obama as empty-headed star.

• The Obama "We Believe" campaign ad starts with an image of McCain with Bush and Cheney, then goes to Obama's uplifting "we believe" followed by enthusiastic applause. Image: A vibrant challenger, facing up to the nation's economic problems, subverted priorities.

McCain's proposed "drill and nuke" solution to the energy crisis is not likely to have any effect on balancing energy supply with needs during the next eight years. A real solution to the energy crisis requires changing the incentives and behavior of the American people, which is Obama’s focus. That's why the Sierra Club has endorsed Obama.