 and welcome to Think Tech Hawaii on this Veterans Day, Thursday, November 11th, 2021. You're watching a weekly discussion show. It's labeled Politics for the People. I'm your show host, Stephanie Stole-Dalton. Today, let's talk about evidence of Democratic silence-breaking pushback and some PR efforts and what can work in spite of Republicans' relentless disparagement and the new reality of really historically soaring inflation. So, we have some interesting questions about all these things and we have some guests on the show to talk about the topics. And these are Jay Fiedel and we have Tim Apicello. So, welcome, Jay. Good morning. Oh, yeah, welcome to the show. You know, I've got a picture here because I've been so taken aback by Dem's offering, kind of a compelling, if it's compelling to everyone, I don't know, but a compelling ad, Eric, if you could show the ad. And this is a parody, obviously, okay, on a particular topic that's been well publicized and since the last Senate leader, Bob Dole, I think, began this topic for the nation to be talking about non-nury conversation. But according to the the Rachel Maddow show, where this has been shown and also introduced as coming on everywhere else, but it is about summoning attention. Everybody's attention, which we don't see the Democrats doing as much in any tantalizing ways like this, but because they want to attend to passing the Freedom to Vote Act, okay, the FTVA. And so when you take a look at this ad, have you seen the electoral dysfunction ad, it is very edgy. So if you could show that second picture up there again, yeah. So I mean, it mentions things like disappointing performance, electorally, of course, it mentions, do you have premature capitulation? All right, legislation compromising, of course. And the act demands safer and more satisfying elections that are also available all day, even though the act itself takes only a couple of minutes to vote, right? So what I want to start out with is this is a novel approach for Democrats. I'm hoping that it is their approach, I'd say anywhere else, but let's look for it. But I wanted to ask, is this type of approach a winning tactic, do you think, this kind of parody and edgy approach? What do you think, Tim? You're on a roll with talking today. So why don't we've been talking? Alrighty, well, you know, sometimes parody isn't parody. And I'd be very careful to go down the parody road for these kind of ads, because people might just say, I fail to see the parody, I see the reality. And, you know, they need to get serious. And as we did a little discussion about this yesterday, is that they need to take on and attack the misinformation and the information tags, the, you know, the tags that say, you know, critical race theory being taught in school and defund the police, the things that were never really reality, but yet the Democrats now own them because they've been tagged with them. So it's taking on those type of issues that the Democrats need to be quite serious about and laughing your way through this stuff won't win the day. In fact, it will really backfire on you. I'd be very cautious if they continue on with this kind of stuff. Well, Jay, do you agree that taking on a different tact in presenting their issues or trying to make the topics more compelling to the audiences out there? They've historically not really done much. Like they did very little with the Obamacare. I mean, we never heard, you know, advertisements and every and everybody was left not knowing how it all worked or what it was or what it was supposed to do. And so they got a really big F for absolutely nothing there and got the consequences of that. So do you think that this is the kind of thing that they ought to be trying to do? Or is this not serious enough for you? Is this not a serious substantive enough approach for the Democrats to take? The words plural come to mind. The other word that comes to mind is sophomoric. Not only is this not going to advance the Democratic cause, it is going to lose voters. We are in the most serious time our democracy has ever had. And this is a sophomoric, humorless joke. I wouldn't talk about it, actually. I wouldn't talk about this. I would rather talk about something that Tim touched on the show yesterday. And that is, what do the Democrats do to deal with an increasingly sophisticated public relations campaign by the Republicans? I was mentioning yesterday that I got an email. They must think I'm a Republican, which was well written, which was psychologically oriented to pace the Democrats on all those arguments you've heard, but well expressed. And I'm sure that's going around the country. The Democrats, instead, I get from them, I get these multicolored, outrageous, bold font emails that are not accurate, I'm sorry, that make ridiculous statements and plural, sophomoric statements. And I'm thinking, gee whiz, is this the right approach? Who's in charge here? Where is the strategy coming from? Is there a strategy? The Democrats could and should have this next election, but they are blowing it because they don't have a public relations strategy. So can we move on to something else? Because it's not worth talking about this sophomoric approach. Even though Rachel discussed it, that would be enough as far as I'm concerned. I do want to jump in just a little bit on this last point. If they want to be edgy and something different and something that maybe goes after the millennial voters or the Gen Z voters, fine. Leave that to the Lincoln Project. But there are amateurs at this, and it looks bad. And I agree with Jay. They need to move on to the more serious things if they want to retain the midterm elections and if they want to prevail through that. Well, do you think maybe they had second thoughts on running it? Because this was the ninth that it showed, the ninth of November. So it was supposed to be out the very next day. And I just wonder if- Oh, once you pay your money to have an ad produced, you know, they've spent the money, maybe they had second thoughts and they say, let's just slap, throw it against the wall and see what sticks, but put it in the late, late night hours and just see what comes of it. Maybe it'll go viral. Maybe it won't. Yeah. Okay. Maybe they got some feedback, right? Obviously it didn't go viral. Well, then let's just talk about what Nancy Pelosi has done. Now, one of the things that she has done is she has taken all of the local newspapers that are reporting on the passage of what I agree with Jay's old news now, that's passed the infrastructure bill. But what Nancy Pelosi has done in all these newspapers front page reporting the win to people in states where representatives, their representatives and senators did not vote for it. So for instance, like in Louisiana, they received over $7 billion benefit that only the Democratic representatives voted for. And she has taken those newspapers and sent them to the leadership and to other people in those states. She also did that for Florida over 7 billion benefit that only Dems voted for. And of course, South Dakota and North Dakota received large benefits for what they desperately need and for which only Dems voted. So the front pages of their local newspapers make it very clear who voted and who didn't make a big deal out of it. Now, what about this kind of tactic? Will this be a tactic Jay that helps voters understand that Republicans standing at ribbon cutting ceremonies and leaving workers did not support these benefits? And is it important to make the point to the people? My reaction to that is, yes, it's important to make the point. That's an important point. But that's Nancy Pelosi. I mean, she's supposed to be running the house. Why is she doing that? I mean, what about the Democratic Party in general? This should be happening all over by many people, many commentators in every media you could think of. And the Democratic Party should have a Democratic National Committee and the like that would do this sort of thing on a regular basis, a sustained basis, not a grandstand basis like this, where she publicizes what she's doing. That doesn't help. In fact, Nancy is being pasted by the Republicans and her credibility is at issue. This has got to come from the Democratic Party in general. Yesterday, Tim and I were at a function where we talked to a couple who I would like to get on the show who plan to go to the mainland and talk to voters in states where voting has been suppressed and help them educate them on how to get around the suppression. Now, that's very good. These are dedicated Democrats going to do this at their own expense. And what we need is grassroots people like that going all over the country and helping out. And that's different. But that's what we need. And we need a movement, not just a self initiated, you know, maneuver like that on a part of one couple. We need thousands of people who are doing that. And we need, I'm not sure what the situation is, I recall the in the case of the hanging Chad, there were lawyers on both sides of that issue by the thousands, both sides, Democrat, Republican, Bush, Gore, what have you, and they were all out there in the courts ready to go. I don't know if that's the case now. But if the Republicans insist on taking everything to court, up to the Supreme Court, the Democrats should be prepared to meet them with as much or greater legal strength. So we need a sweeping grassroots strategy workforce to get this done. And I don't think the Democrats have that. This email I was telling you about and so much other rhetoric that you hear makes the Democrats look like clowns. And this electile dysfunction thing makes the Democrats look like clowns. We have got to be serious and make those points. And it should be across the board with thousands of people speaking on that issue and on the issues that Nancy Pelosi has selected. It should go far beyond her. Clearly, it's not a funny comical topic. But so good points. I also think that the piecemeal nature of it, you know, that it's kind of a selective thing as to it's not a big, huge, like a Lincoln project, big topics, big thematic topics come out. But for instance, with this Nancy Pelosi thing, you're looking at making it clear who is voting for and who's not voting for. Meanwhile, at the federal level, this cognitive dissonance where here are all of these people that didn't vote for these wins in these states and across the nation, then at the federal level, you've got all the people that did vote for it on the list of those who will be punished and lose their committee assignments and other privileges in the Congress. So what about, is that the kind of a large issue, a thematic approach to point out this cognitive dissonance? How does this work at one level and work at this level? And why is that anything that's okay? How are people supposed to manage that? What do you think, Tim? Well, first off, I'm going to take a little issue of something I thought you said is that, okay, infrastructure's over. You know, the Republicans, like Republicans, they can get 50 miles out of a 50 meter story. You know, they're still harping on Hunter Biden and Benghazi sometimes. But that's what they do and they do well because they all focus and they're very, very, they lockstep march together. They don't have this scattered gun approach. So to get to your point about how to address the infrastructure bill, number one, I'd sell the benefits. If I was out on the road and Joe Biden has put the agency heads out there on the road, agency heads do a horrible job of persuading people. They're very policy wonkers types and they just don't do well of really energizing people and getting them excited about something that's been passed. But be as it may, I would put a lot of energy selling the benefits. Number one, number two, I would do what Nancy Pelosi is doing and saying, who voted against it and who's trying to take credit for it in your district? And number three, I'd really hit a home run with saying, and by the way, your own party, the GOP party, is castigating those 13 representatives that wanted to improve your communities. What's wrong with your party and why should they be taking the task? The Democrats want to bring good things to you. And please remember that when it comes time to vote in 2022 and list all the things that they're trying to accomplish. So I would take a multi-tiered strategy and I would not forget the infrastructure bill. I would still sell it and sell it way until mid 2022. It's a monumental thing that was passed and I'd also remind them what they got in their pockets with the COVID stimulus package, the third one. That was money into their pockets. And I'd also use that money to address the increasing inflation that's taking place to say, see this government, this administration knew inflation was coming around the bend. We weren't 100% certain, but we knew it. That's why we wanted to get money in your pocket early on. And that's why we want to get money in your pocket now for childcare credits. And we're proactively addressing it. That's why the social security checks going out to seniors is going to be 5.9%, the biggest increase in 30 years. We were aware of it and we're doing something to address it. So they're problem solvers, not just looking around and saying, oh, me, oh my, what a mess we're in. It has to be nuanced, you know, because these arguments can be used against the Democrats just as well. I mean, for example, okay, you're going to give trillions out. What do you think that does to inflation? It enhances inflation. And what do you think inflation does to increases, for example, in social security or in wages? It neutralizes those increases. I disagree with the stimulus package going to create a huge inflation because, number one, it's over 10 years. Number two is allegedly they're going to have a tax increase to offset the deficit aspect. So I don't know it's completely neutral, but I don't think that's the big inflation buster. I think this is a pandemic and created inflation factor. That's not my point. The point is that the Republicans are going to use this possibility of inflation as a way to make the entire Democratic initiative, the Biden initiative, look bad. If they can't criticize the Democrats in one way, they'll criticize them the other way. And that's what this letter was about. So you're dealing with what they call in the trade hit pieces. Everything the Republicans do is to make Biden look bad. They're going to hit them on everything, whether it's a legitimate argument or just a kind of gradient argument that you can argue both ways. And the problem is the Democrats do not meet that. The other thing that I think has become obvious that the Republicans are better. They're better at sending this email. I didn't realize how good you can write a hit piece email and really have an effect on people. And furthermore, it goes beyond the email. They're good at using social media in a coordinated effort query. You guys may have more experience than me, but query whether the Democrats are as good in using social media. If I were in that committee that develops Democratic national strategies here, critical committee, I would pound on social media. That's the reality. You can go hit Zuckerberg and Facebook and Twitter, all you want. You can try to muzzle them. You can talk about regulating them or cutting their First Amendment rights. But bottom line is it's happening. This kind of social media stuff is happening while we speak. And the Democrats have got to get in on the fray. I don't think they're sufficiently sophisticated. And I don't think they recognize the value of a coordinated message on all of these media. They've got to do that. Well, you know, Jay, that the talent is out there. They have to galvanize it. But what I wanted to ask you was characterize that email. I'm sorry if I missed it. Did you characterize how impactful was that email that you're praising? Can you give us a feature of it? Well, just in general, without going through it, and I don't have it here, it was in Times Roman. No color, no HTML, no bold. None of this kind of in-your-face messaging that you see that I see 500 times a day. No kidding. And it was written in a apparently rational way. And it was saying that everything Biden is doing is going to lead to terrible results, including masks and vaccines, believe it or not. They made the argument. And they made it, I thought, as well as they could have. And in terms that would appeal to even a Democratic voter, not that it appealed to me, believe me. But what I'm saying is that I hadn't noticed that before. And I think what the Republicans are doing is trying to articulate views that appear to be persuasive in a way that could upstage the Democratic initiative on these things. All right. Well, that's really helpful. And certainly, we're here to make these suggestions to our people out there who do these things and work on them daily. But you both are talking about the inflation topic, which of course is incredibly high now and is historically higher than ever for the last, what, 30 years and since 1990? But let me just ask you, Tim, I have seen this referred to as pandemic remnets. That's what this inflation is about. Is it's a rant? Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, this wasn't like what Jimmy Carter had to deal with. By the way, as you know, Jimmy Carter's administration was devastated by inflation. That was his reason for being a one term president. You know, I remember being 23 years old and putting out a loan. I was a bank branch manager at the time. And I put a loan out at 18% 30 year fixed mortgage. Right. That was my first house that I built. I thought it was the steal that I got 15 and 78% 30 year fixed mortgage. So we we've had worse times in inflation. And yeah, it's a devastating thing. And to turn it around is not easy to do. It takes a long time. Paul Volker basically choked up the entire economy by increasing the interest rates, the overnight Fed fund and everything corresponding to that where we had 18% fixed rate mortgages. We had 22% prime rate. And we just don't need to get back to those days. So the Biden administration needs to put this thing to bed as soon as possible. I think the Fed's going to kick in here in the next six months, if this doesn't start to alleviate. And I think they'll that's why they're there on a wait and see mode to see to what degree is this pandemic related short supplies, higher prices, higher demand. And once the supply chain gets to calm down and settle down, will there be the same demand for those items? Or will the supply outstrip the demand? And therefore the inflationary factors will settle down. Yeah, exactly. That's what I was seeing in this pandemic remnant thing and that there is a chance for the Fed now to be informed more about handling the tapering and rate rates. Okay, so they can do those differently, a little different balance there to keep it That may be a little optimistic. You know, Trump left us a legacy of disruption. And, of course, it had a lot to do with COVID. And COVID really hasn't settled down yet. The one thing we can be sure about is that the society and the economy, business community, labor community, they're changing. You know, we've all read those articles about people who quit their job, don't want to work anymore, for one reason or another or a number of reasons. And we've read those articles and they're pretty scary about disruptions in the supply line, supply chain. And that's still happening for a variety of reasons. And they may not settle down in a way maybe that we would like them to settle down. It may take a long time and they might get worse, you know, inflation has a way of running away on you. And supply line problems have a way of perpetuating themselves. And when there are supply line problems that exacerbates the inflation, doesn't it? Because goods become more difficult to get. And thus the price goes higher because of supply and demand. So I wouldn't see this as a quick solution. I would see this as the very likely possibility that we will have greater supply line disruptions, greater disruptions in the marketplace and the economy changes. I can't tell you what, I can only tell you there'll be changes, profound changes that will affect everybody. And when things affect everybody, they affect the market or markets. And so I would not be optimistic that this is going to be resolved in short order. Alright, well, let's return to this in future shows. I had one more question I wanted to get in here, which has to do with that, that the other cartoon strip, the Lucy and the Charlie Brown, I wanted to get your take on this last round. We've got just about two minutes left. But is the promise that we're going to have the bill back better bill passed? Wishful thinking, or is this another Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown? Okay, so Tim, you want to take the crack at that? Yeah, real quick, Joe Manchin is already spouted now reluctance to be part of the solution on the bill back better bill because he's now concerned about inflation. So Joe Manchin really doesn't want any social infrastructure aspects passed really. And now he's finding a new excuse not to lend his signature or vote to pass it. It's still going to pass. I may lose the bet because it may be below 1.75 trillion. It might be whittled down even further now because of inflationary concerns. But it's going to pass. And it is needed. But it needs to be done responsibly. And I agree with Joe Manchin. I think there should be means testing and all sorts of those programs. People need a hand up, not a hand out. And I'm not a Reaganite. Well, I voted for him once, I admit that. But just carte blanche money in people's pockets without any kind of expectations of responsibility back to the society. That's not a good thing to be and didn't work in the 1960s with the great society bills. So that's my point. So Jay, I was going to make a prediction about what you were going to say. But I want to know is do you see that the Democrats have been taken advantage of again by using a promise from the Republicans to go forward with their plan? Is it another play for them that they're going to lose on? You can quote me when I say that politics is optics. It's perceptions. So whether we have a lot of inflation or not, right now it looks like we have a problem we didn't have before. Right now it's easy for the Republicans to paste that on Joe Biden and his administration and on the Democrats, even though it's a hard case to blame them. It really is. That's the perception. And on the Build Back Better bill and all that and Manchin, I think Manchin's job as he sees it at the core point, just like McConnell's job as he sees it, is to embarrass Joe Biden, embarrass the Democrats, make them incompetent and imminent over the next several months until the 2022 election. And they're doing it because here we are in how many months have we been trying to get these bills through since January? I mean, my God, it's going to be a year pretty soon. And they're not through for one reason or another. Joe Biden has assigned the first one. I leave that strategy to him. I don't understand it. And for the other Build Back Better and the social bill, they're going to do, the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make Biden look powerless. And that's the perception that people have. They forget already how bad Trump was. They don't understand already what Nancy Pelosi is trying to tell them, that the Republicans are hurting everyone. But what people in general are seeing is a president who can't get his initiatives through. And that's a problem for the Democrats. All right. Well, on one round, last round, with conversation for you to make, are you seeing Joe Biden as affecting a unifying approach to the presidency? His goal is to model bringing the country into more collaboration and cooperation and unity, the things that mean you. Do you see, can you just make a comment on what I believe his major strategy is, is to get to model that for this country and bring us back to a place we haven't been and get away from this being completely disparate, but pulling together? Do you see anything he's doing that is working in that regard? Tim, what do you think? Well, I think Joe Biden, at the beginning of his administration, said, I'm going to be seeking bipartisanship. Well, the infrastructure bill was passed by 19 senators in the Senate, Republicans. It was passed by 13 House representatives. And the bill will be signed shortly by the president as an example of bipartisanship. But beyond that one, because everyone agreed that infrastructure is great for everyone's home's districts. But beyond that one, the build back better is nothing but in the Republicans' minds, a socialistic program. And he will not get bipartisanship. So he should realize that, not try to think that he will get it and fight like hell if he wants to get it passed. Well, so Jay, what about the American Recovery Act? Does that add up to a win for Biden on these matters? The one he's already done? No, I'll tell you why, because my recollection is pretty clear that he tried to link to two and said he would not do the one without the other, which was, that was a foolish strategy in my opinion. You could see that at the beginning that McConnell was going to be able to fox him out on that and did and has and will. And with McConnell's best buddy, Joe Manchin, together they will be able to stop the second one. And my prediction is it won't get through. And at that point, Biden is going to have to sign the first one. And then the world will see this as a walk back. He tried to get them both through. He only got one through. It's that simple. He failed in his obvious and public strategy on getting the two of them through. And that's what the Republicans want. They want to make them look bad. So they get the beef, what do you call it? They get the beef in their home states, the pork. They get all those projects. But they hit him hard on the social aspect. What did you call it a minute ago, Tim? All of the money for social welfare, they hit him hard on that consistent with their own ideology and their position to date. So if he signs the first one, well, he has to sign the first one at some point. He must. But signing one, not having the other, is going to make him look bad. And as I said before, politics is perception. Yes. Well, it's a little hot time for us today. And we'll have to wrap it up. So this show discusses as discussed, you know, the Dems push back in terms of some of their efforts and we'll get more feedback on whether those are useful or not useful and have been discussed as maybe not the most promising approach to solving some of their PR problems. So we'll look to thank Jay Fidel and Tim Abachele for being so forthcoming and participatory here, contributing to the conversation of the show. I'm Stephanie Stoll Dalton and your host for politics for the people on thinktechhawaii.com. So we'll see you next Thursday at the same Hawaii standard time. So mahalo everybody.