Saturday 28 January
Jill Bader as Communications Director
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Monday, 22 November 2010 11:12
1 Comment

A Campaign of Communication

The age of modernity has changed the face of political discourse.  There has never been a time in the world of politics where information was so accessible.  A simple tweet from a candidate or conversations secretly recorded by an Iphone can wreak havoc on a political campaign.

Campaigns have always utilized smart messaging to gain popular support.  Back in the 1860s, President Lincoln believed the Civil War took a toll on the American people making his reelection chances problematic.  Making his weakness into a strength, his campaign slogan became, “Don’t change horses in the middle of a stream”.  It worked and Lincoln was reelected with 55% of the vote.

We’ve come along way since the 1800s.  The Internet began reshaping the political terrain, making effective communication strategies of one election not so effective in the next. The communications director must accurately gauge the electoral market and make a message determination in advance.  To put it one way, if campaign experts believe that communications is the heart of a political campaign, then the communications director must be the coronary arteries.

Jill Bader Becomes Communications Director for the Walker Campaign

In August of 2009, Scott Walker’s campaign manager Keith Gilkes began calling around for a communications director.  The Governor’s Association suggested Jill Bader, a young press secretary of the Senate Republican Conference and Aid to Senator Lamar Alexander.  Given her campaign experience with Bob Corker and serving as a spokeswoman for Lamar Alexander’s reelect, offering Bader the job was simply a wise choice.

Walker’s election success was predicated upon the campaign’s ability to stay on message.  Across the country, the GOP used a cookie-cutter theme of fiscal responsibility at a time of economic drought and increased government spending.  What separated Scott Walker from the pack, beside his uncanny ability to do what he says, was his executive record of real budgetary shrewdness.  Fiscal responsibility, captured by the Walker’s brown bag theme, connected him with Wisconsin voters – a message executed skillfully by Jill Bader.

Jill Bader was in charge of the general messaging for Scott Walker’s campaign.  Her job, a critical one, was to interface Walker with the public.  She did this through speech writing, press releases, website content and campaign advertisements.  But she was more than just a media handler, Bader was a go-to person in the strategy room.  She staffed the campaign, executed the famous “Brown Bag” theme and briefed Walker on developing news.  In retrospect, it’s an impressive story for a 27 year old.

Some Background on Jill Bader

From all accounts, Jill Bader is the picture-perfect southern-bell, but without the accent.  From high-school to college, Jill was active in charities and non-profit organizations.  When she wasn’t serving in the inner city, she was involved in student government and international relations.

Jill graduated from Wake Forest University with a B.A. in Communications and double minors in Political Science and International Studies.  Jill even made her way to London to continue her studies through the Syracuse University communications project.

Her first experience with the real world of politics was in 2002 as a campaign intern for the former Governor of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander.  In 2005, after Lamar Alexander won his Senate seat, he hired Jill on full time to work out of Washington D.C.  In the four years she worked for Senator Alexander, she honed her communication skills and earned herself a promotion to his leadership office, becoming a press secretary for the Senate Republican Conference – not bad for a 27 year old girl from Nashville.

A Future Unwritten

For many of us, our future is unwritten.  I’m a firm believer that the stars don’t align without a little help.  In just 27 years, Jill Bader advanced quickly through the political landscape.  She did it because she kept her mind focused and her feet busy.  But what stands out the most is not Jill’s determination, but her personality.  Psychologists that study organizational behavior note that openness, agreeableness and extroversion often opens the door to success.

Jill, known for her “happy-go-lucky” disposition has an unyielding ability to keep a smile.  When I interviewed Scott Walker during his gubernatorial campaign, he said that Jill Bader was one of the happiest people he knew.  And in a world where communication is becoming so ever important, adding a smile to good field experience and political expertise goes a long way.

 
Tisk the Season of Racism
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Thursday, 07 October 2010 04:43
No Comments

Race-Baiting is not Solely a Liberal Phenomenon

Illegal Aliens

Sharon Angle, a Tea Party candidate from Nevada, released a television ad criticizing Senator Harry Reid’s vote to give “special tax breaks” and “preferred tuition rates” to undocumented immigrants.  And although a tough stance against illegal immigration is no surprise for the GOP, Angle’s most recent ad has some serious racial overtones.

Anyone who knows me personally, knows I rarely throw around the term “racist.”  In fact, I’m proud of the fact that I rarely apply the term to anyone unless there is good evidence.

However, the commercial that Sharon Angle ran in Nevada is, quite frankly, racist.  The ad begins by saying Harry Reid voted for to give special tax breaks to undocumented immigrants.  The picture they showed of “illegal aliens” showed Hispanic men wearing wife-beaters, backward baseball hats, and skullcaps.  They were creeping along the border fence in the dead of night looking like burglars with their flashlights and black outfits.

A reasonable question is why Angle didn’t show a more realistic picture of immigrants crossing the border, a picture of say, desperate mothers carrying their young children.  Or would this not convey the same hoodlum-like effect that Angle was trying to achieve?

The ad gets worse.  It said that Reid was trying to give preferred tuition rates to illegals, but in doing so, they showed more unkind imagery.  First, they showed a glimpse of 11 white students gathered together in their graduation gowns.  The idea was to convey a group who rightfully deserved preferred tuition rates.  The second image showed three Hispanic men wearing clothing typical of gang members.  In other words, white students that progress from high-school to college look like classy graduates.  Undocumented Latinos that migrate from high-school to college, however, tend to look like street-dwelling troublemakers.

Scary Elements of Angle’s Advertisement

I’ll try not to make too much of this analogy, but I feel it’s worth a mention.  When Arizona first passed its immigration law, some of my friends compared it to what the Nazis did in Germany.  Of course, the comparison is ridiculous.  However, there is one component that sticks out.  When Hitler effectively programed German citizens to detest resident Jews, he ran ads comparing them to brute animals.  Hitler’s ads attempted to dehumanize and desensitize the public to a particular ethnic group.

Sharon Angles’ ad accomplishes a similar goal, albeit with less offensive imagery.  By depicting undocumented people as gang-bangers and troublemakers, Angle is attempting to desensitize the public to a segment of the Latino community for a singular purpose, and that is to turn the people against Harry Reid.

Keep in mind, this is the same segment of people that come to this country with a gleam in their eye and an entrepreneurial spirit.  They chose to sacrifice familiarity for a pursuit of happiness.  And much like our European ancestors that crossed an ocean before us risking their lives to come to a foreign land, undocumented immigrants only want what’s best for their families.  We may argue about the ethics of illegal entry or even the necessity to protect our borders from terrorist networks, but it’s not right to singularize a particular ethnic group in the process.

To be clear, I am not an open-border advocate.  I do not side with liberal organizations like Voces de la Frontera on what they consider comprehensive immigration reform.  I believe that government has an obligation to follow the law, but I also believe that the people have a right to change laws they consider to be inept – including immigration laws.

What Angle did in her ads was deplorable, but Democrats often do the same thing.  When they study Tea Party rallies in order to find that one racist sign sign, they are seeking to turn the public against a diverse group of people for political gain.  It’s wrong no matter what side of the political isle does it.

Conclusion

It seems that every step forward the GOP makes with the Hispanic community is followed by two steps backward.  If the GOP wants to stay a viable political party, they will have to learn how to deal with illegal immigration with wisdom and practicality.  Too often, Republicans do what’s politically profitable in the short-term (e.g., Brewer’s introduction of Arizona’s immigration law), but by doing so, they risk a relationship with the Hispanic community for the long term.

At this juncture, the Democrat party has taken the Hispanic community for granted.  Even with a massive majority in both houses of Congress and control of the White House, they have proved impotent in keeping their promise to implement comprehensive immigration reform.  Harry Reid, a key leader of the democrat party, pulled a gimmick by attaching a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to the DREAM Act essentially killing them both.  The GOP has an opportunity to capitalize, but it looks like they are more interested in November’s election.

 
Being Pro Life is not Extreme
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Saturday, 02 October 2010 17:59
No Comments

Abortion advocate criticizes Patrick McIlheran

Life in the wombLisa Subeck is the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin.  Earlier this week, she criticized columnist Patrick McIlheran for calling 87 year old Anne Gaylor, who funded and coordinated nearly 19,000 abortions, a “sweet little old granny blood money“.  Subeck called McIlheran’s article an example of “extreme rhetoric” that gives license to the “extreme and violent” element of the anti-choice movement.

In other words, Subeck’s point is if you refer to abortion as murder, the blood is on your hands when violence occurs.  Thus, in the interest of public safety, mainstream news outlets have an obligation not to publish McIlheran’s “anti-choice” rhetoric.

Subeck says she respects the right for pro-life advocates to express their views, but places arbitrary restraints on what they can and cannot say.  If pro-life advocates listen to Subeck and don’t use terms like “murder” when discussing the extermination of human life, then doesn’t it, in an way, legitimize her cause?  After all, if abortion is not murder, then what part makes it morally wrong?  As an aside, I’ve  always found it fascinating that Democrats talk about reducing the frequency of abortions while never explaining why they think its so important.

The Real Debate

The real debate is not about rare instances of violence that is or is not incited by rhetoric, but why Anne Gaylor aided in 19,000 abortions when there is a myriad of childless couples desperately waiting to adopt babies.  Hell, there are even some couples willing to adopt disabled babies.

This reminds me of the powerful testimony of Gianna Jessen.  Gianna was the providential survivor of a botched abortion.  Her 17 year old mother chose to undergo a third trimester abortion by way of toxic saline injection.  When ingested, saline burns the baby both inside and out causing a dead delivery.  But to the nurse’s surprise, a frail 2 lbs. baby was born alive.  The nurse immediately called an ambulance, which transported little GIanna to a local Emergency Department.

Of course, the botched abortion caused some health complications.  The abortive procedure starved Gianna’s brain of needed oxygen.  This caused permanent cerebral palsy, which serves as a reminder to Gianna how lucky she is to be alive.  Later, Gianna Jessen was adopted by a loving family.

That was 33 years ago, and now Gianna Jessen is a powerful spokesperson for the pro-life movement. She thanks God for the gift of life and the freedom of choice – a freedom she uses to live productively.  During her life’s journey, she has encountered other survivors of abortive procedures, some who weren’t as fortunate.  Recently, she met a 2 year old survivor of a saline abortion named Sarah.  Besides facial disfigurement, the procedure caused permanent blindness, severe seizures, and cerebral palsy.  Much like Gianna, Sarah never got a choice.

Conclusion

This is the sort of testimony that encourages the same vigorous debate Lisa Subeck has underhandedly requested.  How many unborn babies like Gianna could have lived an industrious life if given the choice?  And why do pro-choice advocates believe that the mother is the ultimate authority of the baby’s life?

The biblical story of Jeremiah should serve as a good reminder of this point.  As the story goes, God knew Jeremiah before he was conceived and set out a prophet’s life before he was formed in the womb.  What if Jeremiah’s mother chose to abort him?  Wouldn’t she have usurped God’s authority?

As a whole, the Hispanic community is pro-life.  They are more likely to support candidates who are pro-life than candidates who are pro-choice.  We have elections coming up on November 2nd; make sure you know where candidates stand on the issue of life.