What's the Deal With....?

Welcome back;
It's been a busy week or so since our last post. Since then, Laura and I have done seminars in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, conducted our Thursday night course in Political Management and the Media at Carleton University's Riddell Graduate Program, and helped a few clients manage their crises. But it wasn't all fun, we had to work too!
What's the Deal with Piers Morgan? 

Has he jumped the shark?

Generally, I'm a fan of Piers and his show. He is quite fearless on subjects and usually doesn't suck up too much to the powers that be. Since the Sandy Hook massacre, however, he has decided to turn a large chunk of his prime time CNN show into an ongoing tirade on assault weapons. What do you think of that? I'm certainly in favor of sensible gun control and I don't believe that all rights are absolute. There are reasonable limits on weapons as there are on other 'rights'.
While one may applaud his passion and even his goal, I can't help but think that his single-minded 'mission' has created a 'jump the shark' moment in the life of his show. Hardly a night goes by without Piers Morgan Tonight hitting the subject. The danger zone is that people will start tuning him out as soon as they feel he is too predictable and too focused on driving his opinion vs. drawing out the views of his guest.
The fact that he plays up his British citizenship while debating Americans' Second Amendment rights doesn't help his case very much, but again, he doesn't let that faze him. Unless CNN intends to turn itself into MSNBC or Fox News, one would have to wonder what he's thinking? Can viewers now expect Piers to turn his program into a soapbox for some of his other 'passions'? Having said that, one does have to hand it to him - that at least he gives his opponents an equal chance to combat him and to state their cases (even the looney conspiracy nut, Alex Jones). It's a big departure, and Piers is a smart guy, so one has to figure he knows what he's doing.

What's with the Three Amigos - Senators Brazeau, Harb and Duffy?

Sens. Brazeau (CPC), Harb (Lib) and Duffy (CPC)

Given the mounting media coverage of the Senators' declaration of the location of their home residences, one has to wonder what they're thinking? The rules of the Senate are, that if their official residence is far enough from Ottawa, then they can claim expenses on their (second) home in Ottawa. However, all three Senators have declared that their main residences are not in Ottawa and, thus, they qualify for their claimed expenses. Hhmmm. All evidence seems to undermine those claims.Now it is reaching ridiculous lengths with stories about Senator Duffy asking for an expedited health card from the P.E.I. Minister of Health's office - triggering even greater media coverage.

What should the Senators do?
First, they should declare that they believed they were operating under the Senate rules as they apply to one's residence. Second, they should apologize and state that they now realize their claiming of expenses was not in compliance with those rules. Third, they should issue a cheque to the government to put the situation right. Finally, they should do it before the Senate Internal Economy Committee rules later this month. End of case!

I guess the lesson here is that people have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again.
Until next time......

Has Rush Limbaugh Jumped the Shark?

Welcome back!

Political Advertising: New media trends and do attack ads work?

I just got back from a working trip to San Francisco and British Columbia. I was blessed with sunny (but cool) weather, but caught up with family and friends and it was all wonderful[in spite of the anti-customer attitudes exhibited by certain cable car brakemen]. A relaxed outdoor lunch in San Francisco's Union Square was interrupted by a megaphone-shouting group of protesters against the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Signs that read "U.S. baby killers out....". I felt like suggesting they add the phrase "Taliban in" but they probably wouldn't have got the sarcasm. Why can't the protesters do an honest job of raising concerns rather than indulge in such a dishonest harangue? They just do the anti-war side a disservice.

In case you were too busy enjoying your Sunday/Thanksgiving/Columbus Day dinner with your family, and missed my appearance on October 11th's broadcast of CPAC's Nik Nanos Report, here it is (about five minutes in):
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=3179

Has Rush Limbaugh Jumped the Shark?

I admit to having long enjoyed Rush - in admittedly small doses - particularly as he has skewered the MSM (mainstream media) and various elite political targets over the years. However, Rush may well have crossed an invisible line - not with his failed attempt to be in on a St. Louis Rams football franchise - but with his admission in a rare interview on - yes- the MSM that he is doing it for the money. Rush may have thought he was just being 'honest' in his admission, unlike all the other shills on radio, I guess. However, the moment someone who has espoused his conservative beliefs for over two decades, and is widely seen as the heart and 'soul' of the Republican Party, that is a disaster, which will come back to haunt him far longer and in more damaging ways than his Oxy-Contin problem of years past.
Check it out here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33273166#33273166

Why, you may ask?

Well the millions of 'ditto-heads' that follow 'El Rushbo' religiously have just discovered that he's essentially nothing more than a money-grubbing 'entertainer'. It raises profound questions about Rush and his views? If he's doing it for the money, does he really believe what he is saying? If it started to lose him the precious advertising dollars, would he start to change his views? If money is his God, does that mean his views and beliefs are secondary?

IMHO, the public is looking for a vision that is larger than oneself. They are tired of selfishness and greed (if you don't believe it, recall the outrage over banking and insurance executive compensation revelations - let alone Bernie Madoff, today's Adolph Hitler).

Sean Hannity 'Owned' by Michael Moore

Check out Sean Hannity and how he was 'owned' by Michael Moore [Capitalism: A Love Story]in a recent broadcast of Hannity's show.
http://current.com/items/91120594_michael-moore-and-sean-hannity-face-off-did-hannity-fib-about-going-to-church.htm

Elsewhere in the face-off, Sean makes it clear his real interest is that he should be paying less than the 60% tax rate that he currently claims to pay. When he asks Moore what would be reasonable, Moore replied that perhaps 50% would be about right. And besides, Moore added, that he didn't believe that Hannity really paid 60% in taxes. Sean refused a third party look at his tax filing. Then he mounted his attack on Moore, claiming that unless Michael Moore gave up 95% of his earnings then he is a 'hypocrite'. Huh?

Although I am not a fan of Michael Moore, I have to admit he came off looking a lot more reasonable than the completely self-interested Sean Hannity. [Maybe Sean, once again, has taken a page from his mentor Rush, and thought that somehow people were going to support him in his purely selfish look at public policy. Sorry Sean, imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it was a PR disaster for you too!

Until next time.....