The Syrian Tinderbox

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB MEDIA ALERT

The Syrian Tinderbox:

A psychological profile of Assad and best bets for putting out the fire

WHAT: Release of psychological profile of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and panel discussion

WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th St. NW, Washington

WHEN: Wednesday, March , 2012, 12:30 p.m.

WHO:

· Walid Phares, PhD, advisor to the US House Anti-Terrorism Caucus; Author, “The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East”; Washington

· Ekaterina Egorova, PhD, Political Psychologist & Consultant, Personal political consultant to President Boris Yeltsin; Consultant to corporations and political campaigns; Washington and Moscow.

· Magistrate Wolfgang Sobotka, Deputy Governor of the State of Lower Austria

· Michael Granger, Founder & Chairman, Capital Access Forum; Board Member, e-Lynxx Corp.; Serves on a White-House panel of industry leaders convened by the President’s Chief Economic Advisors; Chicago and Washington.

· Ken Feltman (Moderator), Publisher, Radnor Reports; contributor to Politico; past president, American League of Lobbyists and International Association of Political Consultants; Washington.

TOPICS TO BE EXPLORED:

· Will Assad bend or break?

· Is Syria providing a smokescreen to Iran’s ambitions?

· Which opposition parties offer the best bet for regional stability and protecting Western interests?

· Could Syria trigger a slide into global recession?

· Will the Muslim Brotherhood seize political control, as it has in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya?

· How is the Syrian opposition currying favor in Europe?

· With the killing of journalists in Syria and the levying of criminal charges against and departure of US NGO employees in Egypt, is any hope of transparency, human rights, and liberty slipping away?

CONTACTS: Elizabeth Kelley Grace, 561-702-7471, elizabeth@thebuzzagency.net

Ellen Yui, 301-270-8571, ellenyui@yuico.com

BACKGROUND: Not groomed as heir and ascending to the Syrian presidency only after the early death of his elder brother, Bashar al-Assad had difficulty reproducing his father’s model of hard leadership. After an early attempt to modernize the political system, he found many citizens unwilling to live in the Assads’ empire and drew a conclusion typical of politicians with low self-esteem: deadly enemies pose a threat to everything that is dear to him, including the cause of his father, his clan and the party. Steeped in paranoia, a high need for power, a strong sense of danger and no fear of rejection, Bashar al Assad’s psychological profile mirrors those of some of history’s most brutal dictators.

Bashar al-Assad’s regime has massacred more than 5,400 Syrian citizens since March 2011, and the estimated number of political prisoners is reaching 40,000. In her Jan. 31 statement at the United Nations, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the world faces a choice: stand with the people of Syria or be complicit in the Assad regime’s brutal violence. On Jan. 24, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Charles Schumer introduced a bill imposing sanctions on Syria titled The Syrian Human Rights Accountability Act. Sen. John McCain has recently called to start supporting the Syrian opposition against Assad. “We all know that change is coming to Syria,” Clinton told the UN Security Council. “The question is how many more innocent civilians will die before Assad bows to the inevitable, and how unstable a country he will leave behind.” Hosted by Radnor Reports. For more information, visit radnorreports.com.

Posted in Controversial

Romney and the Frick and Frack Rule

 By Ken Feltman
 
One of the worst habits of political consultants is our tendency to criticize other consultants. This is especially true when the criticism involves a candidate’s behavior. Often, no matter what the consultant advises, the candidate does something else. If disaster results, media coverage zooms in on the candidate. But we consultants tend to rip into our consulting competitors.
 
Legendary political consultant Joseph Napolitan, co-founder of the International Association of Political Consultants, once remarked on the “vulture inside every consultant.” He and I sometimes did a “Frick and Frack” show in presidential election years. First, he discussed the Democratic candidates and appraised their chances and I examined the Republicans. Then, we switched and he took after the Republicans and their campaigns while I dissected the Democrats.
 
We noticed that both of us were more brutal in blaming our own party’s consultants for what may have been sins of the candidates. Initially, we concluded that this was a result of familiarity: We knew the consultants in our own party better than those of the other party and, therefore, could make more insightful judgments about practitioners from our own party. Soon, we concluded that we were wrong.
 
Within a few days, we gave very similar presentations to a group of young corporate CEOs in New York and then to our consulting peers at a meeting in Europe. The CEOs focused on issues and the candidates. In a dispassionate and analytical way, they probed what we knew about the budgets, fundraising, advertising and strategies of the candidates. The CEOs wanted to find out which candidates, because of their skills at building strong campaign staffs, had the inside track on victory.
 
The European meeting was different. Almost immediately, the consultants – from all across the world – delved into the personalities and past successes and failures of the consultants for the various campaigns. The consultants at the international meeting from parties on the left were much harsher on American Democratic consultants. Those from right-leaning parties were tough on Republican consultants. Whether from actual knowledge or just plain jealousy, the folks on both the left and the right bashed their ideological counterparts in the United States. Joe and I decided that competitive juices were at work. Joe commented that there is a vulture inside each of us. We cannot help ourselves. But each of us can be aware of our own frailties and our own human nature.
 
I was reminded of this a few days ago when I joined some GOP political consultants, media producers and pollsters gathered in a Washington watering hole with a couple of political reporters. Quickly, the discussion was directed by the reporters to what they called the troubles with Mitt Romney’s campaign. Like vultures, the Republican consultants descended on their prey.
 
Wait a minute! These Romney consultants did not just happen to fall off a turnip truck as Romney was driving by thinking that he needed to hire a few folks. They are seasoned, capable, respected men and women. Maybe Romney is making their job harder. We have all had our share of “difficult” candidates. Maybe Romney is a dream to work with. In the end, that does not matter. Only the winner from among all the candidates who had the nerve to put his or her name on the ballot will be sworn in next January. The consultants do not even hold the Bible or stand beaming close by as the oath is administered. At best, they are in the background and usually not even there.
 
Some of them will move on into the White House with their winner. All of them – whether with the winner or one of the many losers – will have learned a great deal during this cycle’s campaign. They will know things that cannot be taught in grad school. They will know people who you meet only on the campaign trail. They will get the phone calls in four years from wannabe candidates.
 
The Frick and Frank rule applies: Candidates win or lose but political consultants gain invaluable experience no matter what happens on election day.
Posted in Elections, Geopolitical, Ken Feltman at Politico, Politics | Tagged , , , ,

Blah candidates? What do we do now?

 

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

- P. J. O’Rourke

By Ken Feltman

Did you ever feel that the problem with elections is that somebody wins? If you feel that way this year, you are not alone.

Radnor research indicates that none of the presidential candidates – neither President Obama nor any one of his potential Republican challengers – can convince a key segment of centrist voters that he can handle the job. The research raises more questions than it answers: Is President Obama still vulnerable? Why is Mitt Romney having trouble closing the sale? Can Rick Santorum win? Could Newt Gingrich come back again? Can Ron Paul make enough of a fuss to get on the Republican ticket?

Radnor looked at comments from 843 participants in focus groups across the country. All participants stated that they were Republicans or independents who tended to end up voting for GOP presidential candidates but broke their pattern and voted for President Obama in 2008. Often, they call themselves moderates. They are not swing voters. However they label themselves, they are right-of-center voters who strayed from their normal voting pattern in 2008 when they voted for Obama.

Please understand that making projections based on focus groups is chancy at best. These comments and conclusions are not meant to be scientifically valid. They do suggest that Ron Paul might not be a good choice as a running mate, despite his rabid followers, and that Rick Santorum will have difficulties with moderate women. The focus groups reveal five candidates who must overcome significant personal challenges to be credible with the voters in November. What is it about these five guys that makes voters wary of giving them the car keys?

Obama has lost support, probably permanently

First, President Obama has lost the support of this group. It seems that those voters who may be returning to the Obama fold as the Republicans scramble and the economy gives signs of improving are mostly Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008. Only about 14 percent of the Republicans and independent voters we talked with in these focus groups said that they would vote for Obama or could be convinced to support Obama again this year. That is a surprisingly large drop-off. Those who said they would vote for Obama were critical of the Republicans’ negative campaigns or found fault with specific GOP candidates. Many listed Obamacare as a reason for their disenchantment. Others have concluded that giving speeches is Obama’s best attribute; however, they saw little implementation of ideas and programs that were making a difference in their lives or communities.

It seems that the president has lost a chunk of moderate voters who cast their ballots for him four years ago but may return this year to the Republican candidate. Not only has Obama lost them, he seems to have disgusted many of them.

  • “Obama is all speeches and talk. He is good at that. But you have trouble finding anything that has improved where I live.”
  • “Embarrassing, incompetent, hopeless. He’s got to go.”
  • “Remember the expression ‘flim-flam’ man? That’s Obama.”
  •  ”Obama is overmatched by the job.”

The more people learn about Romney, the more questions they have

Mitt Romney continues to spiral downward among this group. Recently, people have expressed concerns that Romney may not be as bright as they assumed. This attitude is tied to some of the comments he has made, such as the ones about firing people and not being concerned about the poor. These participants understood that Romney’s comments were taken out of context, but they still expressed amazement that Romney was so “clueless,” “above-it-all,” “arrogant” or “rich.” A continuing concern is that Romney seems uncomfortable as a candidate: He conveys the sense that he does not understand or relate to ordinary people. Often mentioned is Romney’s awkwardness when trying humor. A growing negative is the increasing awareness among these voters of “Romneycare.” Any good news for Romney? Yes, if Romney is the nominee he can expect support from about four out of five of these voters. 

  • “Romney keeps saying things that get him in trouble. He does it all the time. That makes me think that’s the real Romney.”
  • “He’s not a fast learner and I worry about him dealing with a crisis.”
  • “He lost me somewhere along the way. It’s a surprise but he’s pretty clueless.”
  • “Romney probably doesn’t understands what it is about him that has turned so many of us away.”

Santorum has limited appeal and may not wear well.

Rick Santorum is very popular among about four in ten of the focus group participants. They are the most enthusiastic participants. Balancing that, about one in three say they believe that Santorum cannot win and women are increasingly concerned about his views on issues of importance to them. If Santorum is the nominee, he should get the support of about two of three of these voters. 

  • “Santorum doesn’t have shelf life. It was supposed to be about the economy, not birth control.”
  • “He may be a moth drawn to a flame, like all these social issues.”
  • “No matter what you say, I believe Santorum would work to take away my right to choose.”
  • “He was dumb. He will never get elected with those views. We all know that he would try to change things with contraception. It is so important to him.”

Gingrich: Dead man walking?

Newt Gingrich has worn out the patience of the participants. They believe that he is self-centered to the point that he is the wrong choice for president. They have concluded that he is petty and, recently, they have expressed more concerns about his business dealings and marriages. They think he wants his way or he will take his ball and go home, ruining the game for everyone else. His nomination would cause just over half of these voters to stay home or reconsider Obama. 

  • “Newt is like that dead man walking. Halloween every day.”
  • “I came to dislike him as a person.”

Paul gets no respect

Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of this election. He is considered too extreme, especially in foreign affairs, for these Republicans and independents. They see him as a protest candidate, not viable in November. His ill-fitting suits still provoke comments, with many seeing them as emblematic of careless thinking. Even when they credit Paul with loyal followers and good debate performances, these voters see him as an oddity, on the fringe. Interestingly, if he were on the ticket as the candidate for vice president, he would cost Romney and Santorum votes. He would not strengthen Gingrich but would do no harm. 

  • “Can you imagine him in a showdown with Iran or Russia? Disaster.”
  • “I started out supporting him but he’s a joke in a cheap suit.”

One general finding with these focus group participants is that it takes time for issues and negative attacks to make a difference in participants’ thinking. Take Paul’s suits: Despite the fact that many participants said his attire had improved or was of no consequence, discussion of the suits increased over time, perhaps as a way for people to dismiss him as a candidate. The same happened with all the candidates: One thing, one statement, one impression came to symbolize everything negative about a candidate.

In that sense, President Obama may be in trouble because of one big thing: Nearly eight in ten of these voters do not think he will perform better in a second term. They want Obama replaced. Those who identify as Republicans who strayed in 2008 are nearly unanimous in wanting to defeat Obama. About six in ten of those who identify as independents say replacing Obama is most important to how they will vote.

This dissatisfaction with all of the declared candidates is the big reason why there is increasing speculation about another candidate entering the Republican race. But is there a knight in shining armor out there – or simply another teenage boy with some whiskey and the car keys? More and more, that answer rests with women. We will examine the dynamics of gender on this election in a future newsletter. 

 A version of this newsletter was published February 18, 2012 by Politico.com.

Posted in Controversial, Elections, Ken Feltman at Politico, Politics, President Obama, White House | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways

By Mark Rhoads

I cannot explain any of this using the normal logic of money and politics, but Rick Santorum now leads the GOP field in every national tracking poll. It makes no sense at all, even on the momentum of a three-state sweep for Santorum in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado on February 7, because that did not make any sense either, especially in the latter two states where Romney had all the money and endorsements. On Thursday, February 16, Rasmussen released a poll for Ohio GOP primary voters that gave Santorum a lead of 42 percent to 24 percent over Romney in that state.

Santorum now leads the field in the same rust belt upper midwest states where Obama is weakest, which adds another wrinkle to the Santorum electability argument. Ohio is the most populous of the ten states that vote on Super Tuesday (March 6). Santorum also leads in all the polls in Romney’s “home state” of Michigan which votes along with Arizona on February 28. Romney has led in Arizona but the data is now more than a week old and events are moving fast and momentum can change direction just as fast. Gingrich leads in Georgia, which also votes on Super Tuesday. But according to Rasmussen, even a majority of Santorum supporters think Romney will eventually be the nominee so it is clear that the Romney campaign of psychological warfare against his competitors - that his nomination is inevitable - has worked up until now. But it cannot continue to work very long if he loses real states in real results to Santorum. We will start to find out in about 12 days.

There is no obvious event that would account for the Santorum surge since Florida voted, except for the fall of Newt Gingrich to less relevance in the race and the fall of Romney due to his own campaign choices and lack of any vision that ordinary voters can relate to besides his own resume. David Ogilvy, the founder of modern advertising, often said, “It is not your grass seed they care about, it is how their lawn will look.” Romney wants to sell us grass seed but we have no clue how our lawn will look if we buy it from him. His ability to sell the seed is not all that interesting to us because we have our own lives to care about and do not have a lot of extra time to devote to worrying about which GOP politician gets to live in the White House - apart from the fact that many of us want the current residents to move back to Chicago or Hawaii.

At root, the Romney problem is a lack of vision for us. He is not Obama and that is good as far as it goes. But Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are not Obama either. I think it was just really swell that Romney was able to make the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City such a nice event for those who attended or watched on TV, but they did not really affect my daily life then or have any impact on me today, ten years later. But the precedent of Romneycare in Massachusetts in 2005 - including an individual purchase mandate - set the stage for Obamacare with an individual purchase mandate on a national basis, and for that I am not grateful to Romney at all.

So how is it possible that Rick Santorum with so little money or endorsements is doing well enough to challenge Romney’s millions of dollars and paid organization in so many states? How does any of this make any sense? For one thing, there is such a thing as too much money in politics. When the press says Romney has all the money and organization, what they really mean is all the money. The Romney organization is only money because it is paid staffers in most states and very few real volunteers. Why would even someone who likes Romney volunteer their time after work or outside the home to work at a phone bank? Romney does not need more volunteers because volunteers are an extra element to worry about. Volunteers are not predictable and they can confuse the campaign message about how successful the Winter Olympics were ten years ago and why we should all be so grateful for that now.

Rick Santorum has very little money, he needs money and he needs volunteers to do the work the Romney paid staffers do in most states. When a small donor gives to Santorum, he or she will not forget that investment and will not forget to vote on election day. If they say prayers for Santorum and his family, they will get others out to vote as well. That is why the Santorum v. Romney battle now seems to echo the battle of David against Goliath. The giant has all the money. It might not stay that way very long because Romney can still buy a lot of TV time to boost himself and attack Santorum. If  I promise to send another contribution to Santorum when I see a Romney negative ad, and if enough other people feel the same way, the smug Romney campaign staffers will not serve their otherwise decent candidate very well because Santorum has a message and the Romney machine does not seem to have found a compelling message. We will know very soon if money alone can trump every other element of a GOP national primary campaign.

Whenever I am tempted to think money is all there is to politics, I remember the famous campaign of Jane Byrne for the Democratic nomination for mayor of Chicago in the winter snow storm of 1979. Her total budget was $100,000 to defeat Mayor Michael Bilandic and the Chicago Democratic machine. She spent almost all of it on one TV commercial that showed her standing in the snow while the City Council was praising Bilandic for the great job he was doing cleaning up the storm. In fact, people were miserable and could not get to work because the side streets never saw snow plows. Byrne beat the machine for the fist time since 1931 when Anton Cermak beat the Al Capone-tainted GOP machine of Big Bill Thompson.

But only four years later, Jane Byrne had done such a terrible job in office that even after she raised $10 million she could not win renomination and was defeated in the 1983 Democratic primary by Harold Washington, who had far less money but far more popular support.

So money and TV ads are not everything even in politics.

A version of this article was published simultaneously in Illinois Review

Posted in Controversial | Leave a comment

Anthony Shadid: The Brown of conflict zone journalism

By Ken Feltman
 
Two-times Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Shadid of the New York Times died today in Syria. He was 43 and cannot be replaced.
 
Anthony Shadid did his job so well that, realistically, no one can replace him. Someone will get the tough assignments that Shadid got. But let’s face it, no one can replace Shadid.
 
Ninety-two years ago, advertising executive Robley Feland wrote about a man named Brown, who had just died. Possible replacements were being interviewed by his former bosses. Feland concluded:

Don’t they know that Brown’s chair and his desk, with the map under the glass top, and his pay envelope, are not Brown’s job? Don’t they know that they might as well apply to the Methodist Church for John Wesley’s job?

Brown’s former employers know it. Brown’s job is where Brown is.

That is how it is with Anthony Shadid.

You will find Anthony Shadid’s obituary here.

You will find the Feland piece about Brown here.

 

 
Posted in Controversial | Leave a comment