Historically Failed PR Strategy Adopted for Presidential Campaign

By Ned Barnett
© 2004

Just heard this unanswerable question on Matt Drudge's talk radio program that got me thinking about the role of prior military service on a Presidential candidate's electability – and what I realized is surprising. Since 1960, honorable military service has had no positive impact on Presidential electability. Surprised? Me too.

But that's not a "hidden" fact - anybody who's looked at post-World War II Presidential campaigns will draw the same conclusion after not much more than five minute's study.

So why would a campaign base it's primary PR thrust, it's primary campaign message, on combat experience?

Here's the question:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

As a frequent "historical expert" (their term, not mine) on the History Channel, I decided to take a historical perspective view of that question – you might be surprised to find out what the answer was – I certainly was.

Since Ike defeated Stevenson in 1952, there has been no obvious link between honorable service and electability – and since 1968, Vietnam has been a deadly "third rail" – nobody who tried to make the war a big issue has won the Presidency.

Item: Navy veteran John Kennedy beat Navy veteran Dick Nixon in '60 – but both served, and their service was not a decisive issue in the election.

Item: Navy one-mission (as an observer on a milk run) "veteran" Lyndon Johnson beat Air Force General Barry Goldwater – and even this early, the issue was Vietnam, and Goldwater (who wanted to either get out or capital-W "win") lost on his perceived stance on Vietnam.

Item: None of the several prominent Democratic anti-war candidates in 1968 could even get nominated. The election in November was won by nominal (not particularly a hairy-chested combat vet) veteran Richard Nixon, who defeated non-veteran Hubert Humphrey. In that election, the decisive issue wasn't war service, but Humphrey's defense of the Johnson failed Vietnam war policy.

Item: Nominal Navy veteran Nixon easily beat legitimate combat-pilot war hero George McGovern, over McGovern's strong anti-Vietnam war stance – once again, Vietnam proved to be a deadly "third rail" for those who made an issue of it.

Item: Decorated Navy combat veteran Gerald Ford lost to former post-war Naval officer Jimmy Carter. Combat service clearly wasn't significant as a benefit for Ford.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan (he was an actor-in-uniform, and didn't consider that "real" military service) easily defeated Naval Academy graduate Jimmy Carter.

Item: Nominal veteran Ronald Reagan defeated post-war Army corporal Walter Mondale.

Item: Combat Navy Pilot George H.W. Bush defeated Dukakis, who served in the Army and was stationed in Korea after that war – both served honorably, and the varied nature of their service was not an important political issue.

Item: Bill Clinton admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, but in 1992 he still beat decorated combat pilot George H.W. Bush – avoiding Vietnam was not a dominant negative issue for Clinton, though Bush tried to make it so.

Item: Bob Dole has a crippling war wound, earned in heroic service against the Nazis, and he couldn't get to first base against admitted Vietnam draft dodger Bill Clinton. Again, dodging Vietnam was not seen as a liability, though Dole tried to make it so.

Item: The Other Kerry (Senator Bob Kerrey) won a Medal of Honor in Vietnam – where he lost a leg – yet he was a non-starter in the Presidential sweepstakes four years ago.

Item: George W. Bush's relatively anemic National Guard record, vs. the almost equally anemic service record of nominal Vietnam non-combat veteran Al Gore (he was a reporter for Stars & Stripes) was a non-starting issue in 2000. Gore tried to make Bush's Guard service an issue, but it didn't prove decisive.

Item: A more recent election was not Presidential, but it’s still related. Triple amputee Max Cleland, after a long and honorable career in the Senate, was voted out of office in 2002. Georgia’s voters realized that his many years of voting in the Senate (badly, apparently, from conservative Georgian's perspectives) trumped his unquestioned heroism in Vietnam. That voting record also trumped his unquestioned sacrifice (his horrendous wound). As Dole had learned before him, honorable wounds – even visible wounds – do not make a winning election issue.

Here's the bottom line. History has shown that Vietnam is a third rail in Presidential politics, and has been since 1964. Time and time and time again, Vietnam has proved to be an attraction – seductive as an issue (to candidates who think they can exploit it), but ultimately Vietnam has always proved to be a fatal attraction for those who think they can exploit it. Candidates who tried to make Vietnam, including opposition to – or service in – Vietnam, an issue ALL failed.

Beyond that, history has shown that heroic service – and heroic wounds – are not significant assets in Presidential elections.


Which brings us to this 2004 election. Given all those facts above, let's consider that provocative question again:

"Who was the genius who sold Kerry on the idea of talking about Vietnam in 2004?"

Who's "bright idea" was it to bet the farm, in 2004, on making a 35-year old war one of (if not the) major issues in this campaign?

Especially when Kerry's combat record has been controversial at least since 1971.

As a historian, and as a long-time political campaign speechwriter, media handler and strategist, I have got to ask, "what were they thinking?"



About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications

The Candidate's Crucial PR Challenge - Stay On Message

Ned Barnett
(c) 2004

Senator Kerry is facing a serious PR-related problem – fringe stories are dragging Kerry "off-message" when he desperately needs to stay on-message. During Convention Week, there are three glaring media distractions: the NASA Bunny Suit photo op/flop, Teresa’s "shove it" dust-up, and the "salute." None of these is a big issue, but each is an unwelcome distraction – and they’re coming at a time when Senator Kerry cannot afford distractions.

The NASA photo flop was just bad campaign management (I know, I've been campaign media manager before). The Kerry campaign knew that both NASA and media pool photographers were there taking still and motion pictures – one look will show Kerry posed for them. But beyond that, EVERY event a candidate attends is photographed – that’s SOP for campaigns, and the media, and the Kerry Campaign’s managers know this, as does the candidate himself.

Afterwards, NASA submitted the photos to the campaign before they posted them. There were no problems until the media started to make fun of the photos, and of Kerry in his “bunny suit.” Some said he looked like a Saturday Night Live-skit “human condom;” others thought he looked more like Woody Allen’s “human sperm” from his “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex” film. Regardless, the candidate was being made fun of, during Convention Week!

Immediately the campaign's chairwoman, Mary Beth Cahill, went on Brit Hume’s Fox News Channel program, where she charged that this photo op was a Republican set-up. She claimed that the campaign knew nothing about these "surprise" photos. This was blatantly false, as NASA proved and Hume pointed out, but Cahill’s “conspiracy” claims kept the story alive for another news cycle. Then NASA was pushed to take the photos off their official website (Kerry’s campaign complained that the Hatch Act, of all things, was being violated), which kept the story alive for yet another news cycle. The next day, NASA's attorneys said "this is no Hatch Act violation" and told NASA to put the photos back up, keeping the story alive for a third extra day. At a time when Kerry needed to stay on message and focus on his candidacy, his campaign self-inflicted an annoying PR screw up, keeping this minor story alive for three extra days, and making it seem far more significant than it really was.

The "shove-it" comment by Teresa Heinz-Kerry was, in itself, is no big deal; however, in the middle of a dull campaign, you just know that lots of reporters (especially those covering Teresa) suddenly realized that she's got a thin skin and a quick temper. From now on, they'll be "gunning for her," trying to provoke her into making more on-camera (or on-mike) angry statements – not because those statements are momentous news stories, but rather to get themselves a quick 90 seconds on the national news. This will prove to be especially true for local-market reporters wanting a bit of national exposure. From now on, Mrs. Kerry is a "target-rich" environment for reporters on-the-make. And each time a reporter succeeds in provoking the now-famous Teresa temper, the story itself will be a small thing – but each incident will once again distract the media away from covering what Kerry wants them to cover.

(However, there is one balancing factor for the campaign out of this – see Kerry finds an Attack Dog Surrogate blog for details)

The third annoying distraction – the one Kerry could have prevented all by himself – is the "salute." Every veteran and many other citizens know that the US military has a very specific way of saluting. Each raw recruit has had this salute drummed into his head, and every veteran recognizes the difference between a real salute and a bogus one. I had the only official salute drummed into my head in ROTC, and I have never forgotten it. However, for whatever reason, US Navy veteran John Kerry saluted the convention (and the world) in a way that is nothing at all like a US military salute.

Now, at a time when the Senator is trying to win over veterans, and many of those veterans feel insulted by his non-regulation salute. And, at a time when more Vietnam vets oppose him (the last numbers I saw were 48% against and 42% in favor), at a time when the campaign is vigorously pushing Kerry's Vietnam record, this kind of simple-to-prevent dust-up is just exactly what Senator Kerry does not need. Not only does “salute-gate” distract at least some of the media from his message, but it risks tearing down the one element of his record that Senator Kerry most wants to promote ... his role in the military.

Bottom line for Kerry – in a very tight race, coming out of a convention that yielded – at best – a dead-cat bounce, the Senator just cannot afford these kinds of distractions.

This election is just as tight for President Bush, too, but – after a dropped-ball winter (with his endless ROTC-record “problem” which went away as soon as he released his records), and after a dismal three-month run of news in Iraq and on Capitol Hill, the President (for the moment) seems better able to keep things on-message. That could change tomorrow, but for now, the President seems to be winning the “on-message” competition.




About Ned Barnett:

Ned Barnett, the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications (http://www.barnettmarcom.com), is a 32-year veteran of high-stakes crisis-management public relations, and is a frequent “source” for print and broadcast journalists. Barnett has advised many corporate and personal clients on effective crisis relations – often stopping a crisis in its tracks, even before it gets started.

As a political consultant and speechwriter, Barnett has worked for candidates and officials from both parties, as well as for public interest advocacy groups in areas involving the economy, the environment and healthcare. As a historian, Barnett is widely published in military history magazines, and has appeared a number of times on the History Channel, discussing military technology.

Barnett has taught PR at two state universities, and has written nine published books on public relations, marketing and advertising. He’s earned PRSA’s coveted Silver Anvil, two ADDYs and four consecutive MacEacherns; in 1978, he was the youngest (to that time) person to earn accreditation from PRSA, and in 1984, he became the first person to earn a Fellowship in PR from the American Hospital Association. But mostly, Barnett provides PR counsel to a range of corporations, authors and advocacy groups.




© 2004 – Ned Barnett
Barnett Marketing Communications