We’re Baaaaaaack!

We’ve spent long enough in the storm cellar. We’ve crawled up and out and by god it seems Donald Trump is actually president. And will be for some time. (Although I predict he’ll resign after the midterm elections at the latest, tired of the criticism and frustrated that not everyone tells him how wonderful he is, as he’s been used to. He’ll declare victory — the country is safe all the jobs have come home we’re all prosperous  there are no bad people coming over the border ISIS is utterly defeated and IBS has been conquered [the only true part of that will be that his constituents, the one percent, are more prosperous] — and say “my work here is done.” And he’ll go.)

Jon Austin and Bruce Benidt, at least, are back. There are just too many lessons to be learned from the Trump kommunications cyclone, and, really now, just too many fish in the barrel to resist.

For example, any of us doing crisis communications work has had attorneys tell us that what’s said in the media can come back to bite you in court. And, ta-da, exhibits A and B are the courts knocking down Trump’s travel bans 1.0 and 2.0 because of what he said on the campaign trail and what his lackeys like Rudy Giuliani said. As crisis counselors we know that what’s said today has to protect the organization’s reputation now and down the road, and has to protect the organization’s legal position now and down the road. But Trump and his minions have made their intention clear, no matter what the language of the executive orders say. And so the courts have done their job.

So, we hope to consider what’s going on in this political carnival not with just dropped jaws and shaking heads but with some thoughtful analysis. And, yes, we’ll vent because, well, just look and listen to what’s out there.

We hope we’ll pull some of our readers back. And we’ll have some fun. Thanks for dropping by now and then.

BB for The Management, such as it is.


15 thoughts on “We’re Baaaaaaack!

  1. Dennis Lang says:

    Hah! Except you folks are like the Sirens of myth, luring the faithful back–then once we return, shipwrecking us and disappearing again.
    Just kidding. Welcome back. So much to discuss and rail about. Really, everything playing out as such a bizarre fiction, one has to suspend rational thought to believe what’s happening to us.
    Very much looking forward to the revival!

  2. pm1956 says:

    Well, cool!

    There will certainly be plenty to talk about.

    I am particularly interested in our communications experts opinions about Trump’s theory of never admitting that you might be wrong, never saying apologizing. It sort of seems to be working for him–at least with those who already support him. They see it as an expression of strength. Will it bite him on the ass some day?

    1. So far the normal conditions and consequences of communications haven’t applied to Trump. Let’s keep trying to figure out why together. His not apologizing to the Brits for blaming them for the wiretapping that didn’t happen has so far only hurt America and our reputation as a steady partner who can be trusted. So he’s hurt all Americans but maybe not yet himself. Over time all his selfish childish oafish behavior may hurt him. I think every day some thousands of people who thought he might be ok are seeing that he’s screwing them and harming us all. But I thought his character flaws would cost him supporters every day during the campaign, and he still conned enough people to get elected. Against Bernie or Warren I think he would have lost. But I was wrong then and could be now.

  3. Janey Palmer says:

    Glad you’re back! I’ve missed you all. The Same Rowdy Crowd is an island of sanity and thought in a carelessly fact-free world.

  4. Dennis Lang says:

    Yes, especially since his most provocative behaviors and declarations, from Obama not being a citizen, to the extreme urgency of the Muslim ban, to the wire-tapping claim, on and on and on, just have a way of evaporating over time in a way I can’t imagine corporate crisis surviving. His advocates remain undeterred in their support.

  5. To be a Democrat or not be a Democrat, that is the question:
    Whether ’tis nobler to say outright, “I am a Progressive.”
    The Bernies and Hillarys now graze in the pasture.
    Oh worry of plenty, there’s those dastardly, bastard Russians.
    And by bitching about Wikeleaks, we forget, they should be leaking in our favor.
    No more; the media is so slanted, in the end, they will do us no good.
    There are few fools among the deplorables who admire that man Trump.
    His flesh is real, occupying the Oval Office, thumbs up, smiling.
    Collectively, a hopeful wish is: He resign and he be gone.
    To do something at least, perhaps to start chanting “resist ,”—ay, there’s the rub.
    For in that liberal void, what new form of governing will be brought forth?
    And to resist with no leadership, no vision is no resistance at all.
    So whom among you rowdy crowders, so firm and resolute in your beliefs—
    Are ready to step forward wearing the leader’s crown?
    To speak highly of purpose and vision, attracting a crowd of like-minded rowdy folk?
    Or is it simply easier to vent; and so, as things will turn out.
    Open your windows wide and let out a hearty shout.
    Oh those sweet ruminations about that foul President Trump!

    1. Well said. And good challenge. Who is an effective leader against the incompetent petulant child in the White House. Who would be a strong leader of the opposition? I’d suggest Gavin Newsom of California.

    2. Dang! Thats great and so poetically sonnet-like. Maybe Lin Manuel-Miranda could use it to create a cool rap for his next musical – in which a modern day Hamilton emerges from the Same Rowdy Crowd, speaking Shakespeare-rap prophetically to the 1%. OK, well, probably too much imagination there but anyway, nice.

  6. Steve Poulter says:

    Dude (or dudes), close your parens and mind your commas (Oxford, or not). Other than that, sock it to ’em.

  7. Steve’s got a point. I tend to be a commaholic. So, I need to recheck my own thinking on parens and comma usage. But first, I need to recheck my thinking on this thing called FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). We are about to be witness to, hopefully with great transparency, one of the best political whodunits in recent times. Russian Bear Hugs and Post-Snowden “Wiretapping” or Survellance Antics.

    May be this is what everything will boil down to:

    A New York Times Jan. 20, 2017, story Mr. Trump referred to did use the word “wiretap” but it did not assert that Mr. Obama had ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump, nor did it even mention Mr. Obama. Rather, the story referred to intercepted information collected overseas.

    The headline in print read, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.” And the word appeared twice in the text of the article: “intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” and “If Mr. Sessions is confirmed, he will for a time be the only person in the government authorized to seek foreign intelligence wiretaps on American soil.”

    Foreign intelligence wiretaps=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

    In the two NYT paragraphs above: Who ordered the wiretapping and for what purpose?

    Is it how the news was reported yesterday–word parsing. over modification, and cutting to the story’s core from a reporter’s personal perspective–affecting how the news is reported tomorrow?

    Trump’s team is just saying, in essence: We’re just repeating back to you what the media has been telling us for the last several weeks.

    1. Gary you could take Spicer’s place when he takes a day off to dryclean his soul. It’s completely irresponsible of the president to translate surveillance of Russians into wiretapping of him by the previous president. And he didn’t just repeat. He called the former president a sick man. That’s the pot calling Obama black.

      1. Dennis Lang says:

        Was Trump attempting to diffuse the wire tapping accusation by attributing it to the January 20 “NY Times” piece and the Fox News hypothesis in the Tucker Carlson inteview? If so, does make, as some suggested, a case for libel against him. While claiming he acted on information he “believed” to be factual in order to survive the “actual malice” standard in a lawsuit, hard to imagine he could survive acting “recklessly and negligently” when he had immediate access to the intelligence community to validate his statements. Not that this would ever happen but interesting conjecture.

Comments are closed.