The day after President Obama's press conference this week on the debt ceiling—in which he repudiated talks with Republicans and denounced them as not wanting to help "kids in poverty" get "enough to eat"—there were news accounts of the event atop the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. The New York Times front page bannered a 4-by-7 inch photograph of Mr. Obama, beaming beneath a White House chandelier. The Republicans' congressional leadership and Mr. Obama's nominal opponents, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, floated deep down in the stories in thin paragraphs, like presidential pilot fish.
Media bias? No, media reality.
The whole wide world is living in an age of always-on messaging, and the Republican Party is living in the age of Morse code. It isn't that no one is listening to the GOP. There is nothing to hear.
Smarting from defeat by Barack Obama's made-in-Silicon-Valley messaging network, congressional Republicans in Washington are getting tutorials to bring them into a Twitterized world. I have a simpler idea: First join the 20th-century communication revolution by creating an office of chief party spokesman. One for the House and one for the Senate.
Presidents figured out the utility of a prominent, unelected spokesman about 80 years ago, when Stephen Early did it for Franklin Roosevelt. The current incarnation, Jay Carney, may be the most phlegmatic White House spokesman ever. But on any given day on any issue, he commandeers airtime across the cable TV and media universe. With a personality flatter than a cold pancake, he simply states the president's position. Reporters for media outlets around the world restate that position for their audiences. You don't have to believe it or like it. But from Jay Carney's lips to your screen, inbox and RSS feed, you get it.
read more here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245770087839486.html
Very good information. That does seem to be a big issue with the Republicans. It is not that they are doing nothing, as they really are. It is that they don't have a central person that releases the information to the public and press; they have to start getting their informaiton out there; they have to let the people know who and what is stopping progress, the Democrats and Obama himself. And they have to start doing it now.
I read the Speaker's blog and know that there is a great deal happening but we are not hearing of it and then, like our dear John, it leaves the impression that the Republicans are worthless and doing nothing at all. It is all about communication and they are not communicating in a day and age where that is what makes things happen and gets a person elected both to Congress and to the Presidency. It is not weakness it is lack of utilizing all communication avenues. Again, the internet is where things are happening; Twitter, Facebook, etc. and until the Republicans start to utilize these resources and to do so constantly and wisely, they will get no where; they will elect no one to the presidency.
I realize that you, John, will again maintain that the internet does not reach that many but in that you are so wrong. Even those living in poverty have a computer these days. There are even agencies that allow them free internet service and a free computer or both on a sliding fee based on ability to pay. I know that this is true, I have known of people that got this as much as 6 years ago. Kids need the access for school these days, so there are all kinds of programs for the poor to have a computer and internet. They use it as much as anyone else and maybe more. So that argument is not valid.
Internet communication is the way of the times and the Republicans have not yet mastered the use of it the way the Democrats have. They need to step it up and get there.
Sorry, one more comment on this. Remember who pushes entitlement programs; the Democrats. So if they want to use a form of communication to reach the people, especially those that are desiring entitlement programs, would it not make sense that they would be responsible for seeing that these very people were to have the means to this form of communication. I can tell you right now that they went to Bill Gates, for one, and got his help in this. I am from the State of Washington and have many acquaintances that work for Microsoft in Redmond, WA, home of Microsoft and I know when this program to get computers to low income families started and how they began doing this. That program has flourished since the inception. It started with getting computers into schools so all students would have access; then to libraries so that patrons of the library would have access, old and young alike. Then it moved to low income families with children to meet their need in school and studies. And the Democrats were the ones that went to Bill Gates with the request for help and the Gates Foundation were more than willing to step up and meet this request. I can supply names of recipients of the computers as well as names of Microsoft employees that were involved from the inside in accomplishing this if anyone is desiring that information.
Does the GOP press secretary have to be someone in Washington?
Perhaps we should delve into the GOP hiring a press secretary from outside the Washington compound.... someone who can insult, dismiss and discuss what's wrong in Congress -- someone with no ties to the present Congress. Someone who can really fling it out there and not give a da**. I vote for......................
Any other ideas.
Someone like Dana Perino....this really is a very good idea. Newt Gingrich would be great at this because he is one of the smartest men in Washington DC. He can also stay calm while taking reporters down at the knees.
And, that evil, knowing little smile!
I am in favor of this one, too. So, how do we get him hired? He knows the Constitution, as well, and would put the cattle prod to all of the Republicans in Congress. What a good idea.
During the Bubba years when the GOP held the Legislative Branch, Tony Blakely, Newt's chief of staff usually went out on the TV circuit to give the GOP position on issues. Whoever does this type function (and there may need be someone who can also communicate on the internet as well as print editorials). Internal communications that don't reach non Party members really will not get the message out nor will just using friendly media. That means the media spokesman must be aggressive in pushing the GOP points including shutting down the media talking heads who are pushing the Dems agenda by pushing their taking points or trying to change the subject when the left is loosing the argument. Dana isn't one to do that since she has been too long dealing with some of these media types and doesn't have the aggressiveness.
Good points, John!
John, I would agree about Dana; your points are well taken. It will have to be someone that can look them in the face and not back down one bit and aggressively. That is one thing that we can give Newt Gingrich, he does not back down and is aggressive.
How about a woman? Michelle Malkin is an excellent choice. No baggage, already a reporter, shoots straight and knows her way around. How many of the media are going to trash a lady or ignore her?
Margaret, unfortunately a good many of them. It is still very much a man's world and women are still the window dressing. They like to pretend it is the other way around, but it is not. Men can still say and do much more than a woman. I heard an interview with Barbara Walters (who I do not agree with all the time but do have to say have some respect for the fact that she got more attention for women in broadcasting) and she very much said it is still very much a man's world. I do believe politics makes this even more the way it is. There are women in Congress, yes, but they are used to be the scapegoat more than really given much credit. Very few get that position. Pelosi is a scapegoat and used by the Democrats as is Feinstein. They think they are "top dogs" but they really aren't; the men just give them a position to make it look like they are supportive of women.
As for a woman president; don't think that this will happen for a while yet. Men are not ready to make that happen and it is going to have to be one dynamic woman; Hillary is not that woman either. She makes them seem to be involving women and considering it, but men will not let it happen yet no matter what women vote. Smart women know this and will not push it and wait for the right time as it will eventually come.
I do like Michelle Maikin, though and she is worth considering.
I mentioned Michelle as a reporter prospect. I don't know of any woman right now that could run for president. Not that there aren't some that are qualified. It is a man's world there and they will fight to keep it.
You are correct on your assessment of Pelosi (who bought her way into the Speaker position) and Feinstein and you can add Boxer to that mix too. They are really nobodies that had the money and contacts thanks to their husbands.
Oh Margaret, sorry, I did not mean to infer that you were considering Michelle for president. That ran together and was not meant to.
I was meaning that as much as I would like to see someone like Michelle Maikin speaking out as a Republican spokesperson, I don't think that the men will allow it. That was all. She has a good head and really knows her stuff and I do like her; it is the men that have the problem there.
Hope that I stated that better this time.
Margaret -- Michelle Malkin is a good idea -- and, if we are talking about another female straight shooter -- how about Ann Coulter!
K T McFarland and Liz Trotta are two of my favorites. They're older and respected. And I think they could keep their cool under fire from liberal media.
Tara, while Ann is good she is too emotional and "showman-like" to do the job that's really needed. She also carries a lot of baggage with others in the media.
Linda, no apology necessary. I was just a bit confused by it that's all.
You're right - men are going to stay in control as long as is possible.
ElizabethM - I'm not familiar with these two ladies. Where do you see them or their work?
K T is a FOX news analyst with a background in national security. But I think she could speak well on all things politic.
Liz Trotta is also a FOX news contributor with a background in journalism.
I also like Monica Crowley, another FOX contributor. She would be awesome....very cool, calm and collected, and can speak extemporaneously like no one's business. Mary Katherine Ham would be amazing too...very likable and smart as a whip.
Since the purpose of having a GOP spokesperson is to reach out to minorities and independents, commentators like Malkin and Coulter, who 'take no prisoners' , might turn those groups off a bit.
Elizabeth, thanks for the info. I got so tired of FOX news I have not been watching it for quit some time. O'Reilly has really gone downhill. I guess I'll try to catch it to see if I can hear some of these ladies. It would be refreshing.
Thanks, Elizabeth. I'll tune into these two women. I probably know their faces but wasn't able to place the names.