True story: I worked for the South Carolina operation of Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign in 2007-2008. At the time, I embraced Mitt’s candidacy because of his strong economic credentials, his success in the Olympics, and perhaps ultimately, his moderate stance on social issues. He was an especially fresh face amongst the other candidates — so much less divisive than Huckabee, less one dimensional than Giuliani, less old than McCain. Of course, Romney ended up dropping out of the race in February 08′ and I became enchanted with the Clinton/Obama fracas.
So you might ask, am I supporting Romney in 2012? And the answer, well, it isn’t so simple. Did I vote for him in the South Carolina primary? No. Would I vote him in the general election? TBD.
Romney has the most ignorant communications staff in the history of presidential politics. It’s frustrating to observe really. For all intents and purposes, he’s had the nomination locked up since Florida, yet has continually engaged in a pithy war of words and action with the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns that has derailed his campaign and left him with a message that is punchless. I cannot stress enough: this is a man that must PIVOT to economics at every possible interlude. Each time Mitt gets swept up into a debate over conservative social issues (abortion, immigration, health care) he comes out looking like a sheep and reeking of opportunism.
The Obama campaign is going to make mincemeat out of his record of ‘flip-flopping’ this fall, but the fact of the matter is, they are going to be hard pressed to get under his shell on the economy OR health care. The Romney campaign needs to step to a hard line, right here, and right now, and that means bringing every single topic of discussion full circle to improving the economy because that is unequivocally Obama’s soft-spot.
Yesterday, David Axelrod, Obama’s top political advisor, sent a pre-emptive shot across the bow of the Romney campaign over consultant Eric Fehrnstorm’s comment that his candidate could be reset “like an Etch-A-Sketch” for the general election in the fall. Instead of sticking to the truthful realities behind that statement, staffers having attempted to run the story back and, again, managed to make Mitt look clueless.
What’s so bad about being an Etch-a-Sketch? It is one of the most creative toys of all-time and familiar to virtually every American. Heck, turn it into an attack Obama: “Well, I might be an Etch-a-Sketch but atleast I’m not a Magna Doogle” and then leave it up to the press and public to decipher that the Magna Doodle is a cheap, smearing copy-cat of the Etch-A-Sketch (I’m not saying those are my views on Obama, by the way.) Or, heaven forbid, be truthful with the populace: “I’ve run a different campaign to highlight my distinct differences against fellow Republicans, but where I contrast to Barack Obama requires a unique blueprint.”
It’s true, and the first step to getting those elusive Southern conservatives on your side.
At what point do we become concerned about the Braves chances this coming season? Their Spring Training record is dismal, Chipper Jones looks bloated and discontent, Arodys Vizcaino’s arm is falling off, Jair Jurrjens is barely hitting 90, and the young shortstop apparent, Tyler Pastornicky, doesn’t look like major league material. Did I mention that Tim Hudson is hurt, Martin Prado is coping with an entire offseason’s worth of trade rumors, Freddie Freeman has a fractured kneecap, and Jason Heyward has to prove to the world that last season’s sophomore slump was nothing but a huge aberration? And what about the looming Michael Bourn and Brian McCann contract sagas?
I know it’s just Spring Training — but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
It’s unfortunate that a car (and concept) with so much potential is being as politicized as it is. That mess aside, the Chevrolet Volt itself is pretty cool. I’m a big fan of the exterior — it has a smooth futuristic look, but also manages to maintain the appearance of a traditional sedan (whereas the Prius, which looks … odd … does not.) However, the real treat, the homage to geekdom, is the excitingly and elegantly refined interior.
I want one. The problem: MSRP of nearly $40K. Supposedly there are tax breaks and rebates galore that are available, but even if they knocked $8-10K off the MSRP that’s still a significant chunk of change for a vehicle that only has a 35 mile per gallon all-electric range. Adding gas to the equation (the Volt still has a 9 gallon tank that only takes Premium) allows you to attain an incredible 95 MPG. But still.
Caveat emptor: the national average for premium gas is a hair over $4 a gallon, and the cost of actually charging the vehicle varies nationally (some forward-thinking states, such as Michigan, have rolled out ‘Electric Car Tariffs’ that either a) cut the price of electricity if it is used to charge the vehicle during off-peak hours b) or offer a flat rate [$40] for unlimited monthly charging.)
I think, without a doubt, that electric and hybrid vehicles are the future. I mean, they really have to be. But the real question remains: is buying one now a truly viable economic option? Environmentally, there’s no argument that these vehicles are king, but are Americans really willing to give up gas in exchange for a sedan that offers rather modest savings overall? I don’t think so. At least not yet. Bring the price down by about $10K (and still offer the federal financial incentives) and you’ll see more sales. But make the car an overwhelmingly appealing alternative to gas-only and you’ve got a tide that won’t turn back.
Full disclosure: I’m abstaining from delving into the exploding battery issue.
Related linkage: GM’s Buyers Reject ‘Obamamobile’ Volt as Campaign Heats Up
Last night as I tried to go to sleep I imagined the changes I would implement if I were suddenly to become president of CNN. Unfortunately, I do this. I’m fascinated by network television, but intrigued to an even greater degree by the chess game of on-air personalities between the major networks that seems to have no real checkmate strategy. The stable of anchors and commentators that CNN possesses is superb and difficult to match in terms of its depth, experience, and diversity. Anderson Cooper is the uncontested centerpiece (although ambiguously weak,) flanked by John King, Erin Burnett, Wolf Blitzer, and to lesser extents Soledad O’Brien, Susanne Malveaux and Piers Morgan. Of course that’s to say little of the sparingly used fleet of commentators.
All things considered (perhaps save reality,) If I were the man making decisions at the top I would implement a wholesale suite of changes to the network, subtly realigning the focus of programming from ‘hardcore’ news to ‘mid-core’ cultural programming — with a few exceptions.
1) Recast the primetime lineup:
OLD:
- 6:00 PM: John King USA
- 7:00 PM: OutFront with Erin Burnett
- 8:00 PM: Anderson Cooper 360
- 9:00 PM: Piers Morgan
NEW: The biggest change I’d make, immediately and without hesitation, is canning Piers Morgan. I don’t care how much he’s being paid (a reputed $6 million,) he’s gone. Ratings are down and will only continue to slide because Morgan just isn’t an affable guy. He has image and identity problems — a British guy atop an American news network who clearly loves to hear himself speak (watching an interview he conducts is truly painful — it’s almost as though he is begging to field the questions he asks,) when he does ask, he doesn’t posit the hard-hitting questions. At root Morgan can’t seem to find a real balance in the content and talent he broadcasts. The experiment was a worthy one, but it has failed.
So, who replaces Morgan? To me, that’s the easy part: Anderson Cooper. I know AC loves news, but I find his personality extremely likable although far, far from compelling. I rebrand Anderson’s show, changing the timeslot from 8-10 – and then slowly begin to close the news curtain, ever so slightly; Anderson still front-and-center, the discussion becomes less ‘hard’ and more ‘soft’ … less Washington/Wall Street, more American zeitgeist.
Anderson is in a really unique position as an anchor because he commands the minds of a younger generation of Americans than his competition on other networks does. He has the fan-base of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart without the partisan centrism and lack of real respect based upon the comedic theme of their respective programs. Most people turn politics into comedy when they can’t (or won’t) delve into its minutiae, but that doesn’t mean they are ultimately averse to respecting the institution. I believe Cooper could be the imminent balance between entertainment and news if given the (precisely) right format.
From 10PM to midnight, I would launch a new experimental show designed to compete directly with the nightly ‘Big 3′ network programming. The show would have no standing host. Instead, celebrities, politicians, and other popular talent would take the (full) helm for an entire show in a format totally immersed in technology. There is no program out there that does a good job truly involving and incorporating the Internet with its content – Tweets on the bottom of the screen aren’t enough. The experimental show will feature live chatting, skyping, and viewers will have the opportunity to influence EVERYTHING, from segments to commercials.
Skipping back to the 4/6/7 PM timeslots, I cancel Erin Burnett’s “Outfront” and reposition her to another role in the network (more on that in a second.) John King and Wolf Blitzer’s programs merge, re-slotted from 4-6:30. Wolf would host from the New York studio, John King from Atlanta, and I would … wait for it … import Robin Meade from CNNHN to host the show from a West Coast angle in Los Angeles. Renamed as Headlines, the anchors would cover news that is regionally specific not just in terms of geography but also culture (ie. Hollywood, Sports, and Entertainment would generally go to Robin, Politics to John, and financial and domestic/international News to Wolf.)
2) New light during the day:
Now, back to my love, Erin Burnett. I like her not only because she is positively alluring (the brown hair and blue eyes make my knees buckle,) but also, more importantly, because I believe her to be extremely intelligent — informed in a unique way that causes viewers to want to engage in what she is reporting on because it comes across as a sincere journalistic pursuit. Most heavy-hitting journalism that is seems to be bourn from a highfalutin approach of, “This is the news and it is serious and bad.” Burnett doesn’t emanate that. Demure, she leans into the camera at an odd angle, asks questions inquisitively and insightfully, and reports from the heart.
CNN is doing an exceedingly poor job utilizing Burnett’s skill and personality. Ratings for Outfront are poor, and understandably so — it’s like AC 360 Jr. The network has also tried to utilize Erin on its Elections coverage and likewise failed. Although she was in-studio for an entire night of Super Tuesday coverage, her on-camera time had to have totalled less than a minute, a minute during which she made a useful point about the new money flowing from PACs not necessarily having a great impact on the Republican presidential nomination fight at-large. She was met with blank stares from her tablemates, Gloria Borger and David Gergen, the conversation shifted, and Erin disappeared.
I would make Burnett my daytime Queen, putting her on air from 11AM until the beginning of the new “Headlines” program at 4. Susanne Malveaux and Soledad O’Brien would be transitioned to mornings, a show for which I would rehire Rich Sanchez.
The aforementioned daytime programming would be called “Your Day with Erin Burnett” and would focus on the full daily news cycle. Many forget, or don’t even realize, that Burnett came from CNBC’s financially themed ”Squawk Box,” and I would take the opportunity of possessing a reporter with those chops to partially reinvigorate CNN’s virtually deceased television relationship with Wall Street. To keep things even keeled (again, back to the ‘mid-core’ theme) I would hire Erin Andrews away from ESPN/ABC to bring SPORTS back into the fold too. Mainly because watching Susanne Malveaux try to talk about the Peyton Manning free agent saga was just … painful.
So, the NEW daily lineup would look a little something like this:
6:00 – 11:00 AM – Morning program with Soledad, Susanne, Rick, and others.
11:00 AM – 4:00 PM – Your Day with Erin Burnett and contributors.
4:00 -6:30 PM – Headlines with John King, Wolf Blitzer, Robin Meade.
6:30 PM – 8:00 PM – CNN Newsnight with ***
8:00PM – 10:00 PM – Anderson Cooper 360
10:00 PM – 12:00 AM – Experimental Program
*** Here’s the clincher and one of the key ingredients in a plan I believe would blow CNN’s competition out of the water; hire away Brian Williams from NBC to operate as the new patriarch of the network’s news division. I know NBC probably has him locked up tight, but I think it would be a gamble well worth taking. He salary stands at $10MM per year, and I think CNN would have to double that to get him. Certainly not chump change, but when Christina Aguilera is also getting $10MM to appear on The Voice it seems a smidgen less preposterous.
I could go on and on about my plan for CNN Weekend (Frontline-esque HD specials, documentaries, investigative specials, REALITY TV !!!) … but I’ll save that for another blog and place.