Social media and Maine’s gubernatorial campaign

March 22, 2014June 17, 2015 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

Despite all the hoopla about the power of social media tools in political campaigns, what metrics can we use to determine if those tools are effective?

While just about anyone can set up a Twitter account or create a Facebook page, social media tools are only as effective as those who are using them. Although it is widely accepted that social media tools played a big part in President Obama’s 2008 campaign, that type of success is not guaranteed by simply using social media as part of a campaign strategy.

When it comes to Maine’s 2014 gubernatorial race, which of the campaigns is best using social media? More importantly, how do we set aside our individual biases and evaluate the campaigns based solely upon their social media metrics?

At the Brookings Institute’s Center for Technology Innovation, Darrell West offers a mixed review regarding social media and campaign engagement and the awkward transition to actual governance.

Social media are the ultimate in disruptive technology. They change information delivery, business organization, online content, news coverage, and the manner in which individuals process new developments. As shown during the 2008 campaign, these digital tools represented a textbook example of voter mobilization and electoral impact. They were, in the words of Engage Partner Mindy Finn, the “central nervous system” of campaign organizations.

Using social networking outreach tools such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and Twitter, a number of Democratic and Republican candidates raised money, identified supporters, built electoral coalitions, and brought people in closer touch with the electoral process.

You may recall a somewhat silly and lighthearted piece about Maine’s gubernatorial campaigns that I posted a couple of months ago. Then, I jokingly said we should dispense with the standard election process and use social media metrics to determine the winner. I examined each of the campaign’s current metrics.

Today, I have decided to track those metrics on a regular basis and to blog frequently about those campaigns and their use of social media.

Over the last 60 days, each of the Maine gubernatorial campaigns has been active on various social media platforms. But before we begin, it’s important to note that Democrat Mike Michaud is the latest entrant to this race. Both Governor LePage and Eliot Cutler carried over their respective social media support from the 2010 campaign.

Nonetheless, Michaud has seen the greatest increase in social media traffic, earning a 21 percent increase in the number of Twitter followers @Michaud2014, moving from 1,219 Twitter followers on January 20 to 1,475 followers as of March 20, 2014.

Although Governor LePage (@lepage2014) has the greatest number of Twitter followers (1,698) his metrics have increased only 8 percent during the same time period.

Eliot Cutler (@EliotCutler) saw a 10 percent increase in Twitter followers, from 1, 153 to 1,269 followers during the same period.

On Facebook, Cutler still dominates in the total number of Likes for his campaign page (19,824) but saw only a 4 percent increase over the last 60 days, while both Michaud and LePage experienced increases of 10 percent.

LePage’s Facebook page had 18,438 fans on March 20, compared to 16,791 fans on January 20, 2014.

Michaud’s Facebook page had 11,600 fans on March 20, compared to 10,529 fans on January 20, 2014.

When viewed overall, it would appear that Team Cutler has the steepest hill to climb, so far.

Note: Though it’s generally common knowledge, it must be noted that Twitter followers and Facebook fans do not translate directly to the number of supporters for a political candidate. As an example, I follow all three campaigns on Twitter, but will only be voting for one candidate.

Third time is the charm?

March 19, 2014January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 13 Comments

Perry Aberle... Sun Chronicle Photo — Perry Aberle… Sun Chronicle Photo

While most people were picking out green outfits, drinking lots of beer or otherwise wasting time on St. Patrick’s Day, one select group of folks were bracing for potential fame and fortune as hopeful members of the 2015 Maine Legislature.

The deadline for wannabe state representatives and state senators came and went at 5 p.m. on March 17.

Given the impacts of last year’s legislative redistricting and Maine’s term limits law, voters will be faced with a healthy crop of fresh faces.

But you can always count on a few perennial candidates: those who think the next campaign will be the magic campaign, the Wonka Golden ticket that will admit them into the strata of being really important and somewhat relevant. Such is the case in Biddeford, where Perry Aberle — undaunted by two consecutive and somewhat epic campaign failures — has once again tossed his hat into the ring seeking to capture a legislative seat that eluded him two years ago by a hefty margin.

Now that he has tossed his hat into the ring again, hopefully, someone will toss him back a working razor.

Aberle won his last election nearly two decades ago, when he was still in high school and was elected to serve one term on the Biddeford City Council. Since then, his campaign skills have deteriorated.

He ran for the state legislature two years ago and was crushed by incumbent Paulette Beaudoin, the proverbial little old lady who cleaned Aberele’s clock by garnering nearly 64 percent of the vote (2,585-1,471).

A year later, Aberle brushed himself off and decided to challenge Biddeford Mayor Alan Casavant. Despite a much larger pool of voters in a city-wide election for mayor, Aberle’s vote total shrunk by more than half, and he finished a distant third in a three-way race that also included former mayor Joanne Twomey. Casavant easily won re-election with 2,377 votes, compared to 720 for Aberle.

Today, Aberle is again running as a Republican for the Maine House of Representatives in District 12, which includes the central and downtown portions of the city. He will face Biddeford businessman Martin Grohman, a Democrat, in the general election.

Will the the third try be the charm for Aberle? Don’t bank on it, would be my advice.

Over in District 11, which includes western portions of the city, Democrats Ryan Fecteau and David Flood will duke it out for their party’s nomination. The winner of that contest will face political newcomer Debi Davis, a Republican, in the November general election.

In the District 32 State Senate race, Democrat David Dutremble will once again bank on his family’s political legacy and last name recogntion to hold onto his seat for another term. Dutremble will once again be challenged by Arundel businessman James Booth who ran for the seat two years ago as an Independent. This time, Booth is running as a Republican. Anything is possible, but Booth is facing an uphill battle in a district that historically favors Democrats.

Silver and Gold

March 2, 2014January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

I don’t know what metric you use to measure your life, but I learned something valuable last night as the hours counted down toward my 50th birthday.

Despite all the material benchmarks and the conventional wisdom about what a man should accomplish in the first 50 years of his life, there is no better metric to determine success than to experience the love and companionship of friends and family.

Apparently, when you celebrate the silver anniversary of your life, you are rewarded with bundles of gold.

Given my self-destructive tendencies, the Vegas line on my getting to 50 has always been a bit dicey. But the payoff when I got there was beyond compare.

How incredibly blessed am I?

As the clock refused to slow, I was surrounded by the most incredible (and diverse) group of people. If I ever doubted my success, I no longer have the luxury of doubt.

We are reckless in our use of the lovely word, friend, said Romain Rollard; and I agree.

How do you measure success in your career? when former and current colleagues are willing to drive more than 100 miles just to sip beers and eat pizza in celebration of your birthday. When former and current professional competitors walk into that same room with smiles and a warm embrace.

How do you measure your success as a husband and a father? When your teenage sons voluntarily give up a Saturday night just to hang with you and other “old people.” When your wife spends weeks coordinating and planning a party to celebrate your birthday, baking cupcakes into the late hours of a work night.

How do you measure success among your peers? When you can count friends you have known since the Carter Administration, and newer friends who would gladly answer the phone at 4 a.m. if you really needed them.

That so many people wanted to be there, and so many others — limited by geography and the other constraints — sent warm greetings, affection and regret.

As I fell asleep, it occurred to me that I have exceeded my own expectations; that I am wealthier than I could possibly imagine; that I am fortunate beyond belief.

As a species we celebrate our common benchmarks (weddings, funerals, anniversaries and birthdays) because it is the stuff that makes the day-to-day drudgery worthwhile. We are all in this together, and it’s always so much better with companionship and the gift of friends.

Thank you so much!

Color me bad

February 23, 2014 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

You find the weirdest stuff on Facebook.

This morning, I stumbled across a new Facebook page that is dedicated to the idea of reclaiming the color blue for Republicans.

At first blush, I thought this was one of the silliest things. But then, I started thinking about it.

Why would the GOP want the color blue versus red? Isn’t red the traditional color for Republicans? Not unless you consider “traditional” as the last 15 years.

According to the Republicans Red No More Facebook page, “center-right parties around the world are Blue, and Social Democrat parties are Red, except in the U.S. where 13 years ago the media assigned Red to the Republicans. “

The page creators argue that for more than a century, Republicans were routinely associated with Blue and Democrats with Red.

That color association was changed, they say, by NBC journalist Tim Russert in 2000 when he assigned Red to Republicans on his electoral map.

Since then, they say, the media has adopted this formula, even though it runs counter to American history and worldwide practice.

Are they right? Well, take a look at the map that NBC used to portray the 1980 presidential election results between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

But do colors really matter?

Apparently so. At least to color psychologists:

Color is a form of non verbal communication. It is not a static energy and its meaning can change from one day to the next with any individual.

For example, a person may choose to wear the red one day and this may indicate they are ready to take action, or they may be passionate about what they are going to be doing that day, or again it may mean that they are feeling angry that day, on either a conscious or subconscious level.

Experts say the color red can cause people to feel rushed, agitated or angry. The color blue, on the other hand is generally associated with serenity. It is also associated with trust, honesty and loyalty.

So, given this information it becomes easy to see why Republicans want to “take back” the color blue.

And what about the rest of the world? Are Social Democratic political parties generally red and center-right parties blue?

That would be true in a wide range of countries, including Finland, Israel and the Czech Republic. In fact, the more you look, the more you will see that conservative or centrist parties are associated with the color blue around the globe.

But I don’t expect the U.S. Democratic Party to go down without a fight in the upcoming color war. After all, the last thing Democrats want is to be associated with the color red (Think Soviet Union, the Red Invasion and all sorts of other negative stereotypes.

Who changed the color? Was it a mainstream media with a liberal bias? Was it an oversight or an intentional switch by the GOP? There’s a lot of conflicting information out there, but one thing is for sure: you can always find some strange stuff on Facebook, which relies on the color blue.

Hair of the dog

February 7, 2014January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

You probably heard that CVS, one of the nation’s largest drugstore chains, made news by announcing it will no longer sell cigarettes.

While a majority of pundits and health advocates were quick to heap praise upon the retail giant for its “bold and principled” move, some lingering questions remain about the decision and its fallout.

Depending on your perspective, one of the following things precipitated Wednesday’s announcement:

A: the CVS board of directors decided that their good conscience should prevail: selling tobacco products is in direct conflict with their company’s core value of promoting healthy lifestyles, and they made a “principled” decision; or

B: the CVS board of directors violated several regulations of the Securities Exchange Commission by willingly turning away an estimated $2 billion in annual revenue generated from the sale of cigarettes at its stores, and was thereby willing to accept a loss in profits for its shareholders because of principles; or

C: the CVS board of directors knew exactly what they were doing, and this was little more than a calculated and strategic move that would 1.) attract new customers; 2.) provide a significant public relations and marketing boost to a company that is constantly battling with fierce competitors; and 3.) most importantly, open up new sources of revenue and cost discounts with the chain’s affiliated vendors and health partners, including health insurance companies.

Which of those scenarios do you think is most plausible?

If you chose A, you are what people in my profession call completely gullible. If you chose B, you should probably get back to promoting your own grassy-knoll theory.

The right answer, of course, is C.

Allow me to explain. There is no defense for smoking cigarettes. It’s a terrible and nasty habit. But CVS is relying upon a questionable talking point here, especially when considering all the other products that are stocked on its shelves.

The last I heard, the United States is dealing with an obesity epidemic that is costing taxpayers and insurance ratepayers billions and billions of dollars each year. Yet, CVS, the self-proclaimed bastion of good health and righteous moral principles, has yet to announce that it will no longer sell soda, potato chips or candy at any of its stores. Why?

Every once in a while, I enjoy a cold beer, a nice glass of wine or a soothing shot of bourbon. Alcohol, however, is a known toxic. Many people are unable to consume alcohol responsibly. Alcohol related deaths are skyrocketing. Alcohol abuse can be found at the root of many social problems, including crimes that range from inxtoxicated driving and domestic violence to robberies and assault. Loss in workplace productivity related to alcohol consumption is staggering. The impacts of alcohol on our nation’s health care system is extraordinary.

Will CVS sell wine or beer at any of its stores?

I am a free-market capitalist. I am tickled pink that CVS made its own decision. The government did not pressure the company. The market did. That’s the way it should work.

But for CVS to single out just one of several products its sells for profit earns them my Hypocrite of the Year Award.

And for health advocates to call this a “move of principle” is a joke because they conveniently (for now) ignore some much larger issues.

Today, it’s the smokers. And eventually, smoking will be eliminated. But then what?

Do you really think it will stop there? Do you really think that they won’t come after your food, your beverages, or any of your choices?

Attempting to create a physically fit, morally upright citizenry has been attempted before. Maybe some day, we will get it right.

Conscience doth make Cowards of us all

January 22, 2014January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

Several months ago, I posted a blog entry that compared how people react to physical illnesses versus mental illnesses.

In that post, I detailed the overwhelming support I received after breaking my arm in two places. I also bragged about how I refused to let it slow me down. Using only one arm, over a holiday weekend, I was able to produce fact sheets and other collateral materials for a very large and important client during a deadline crunch.

I also shared some aspects of my much less obvious illness:

Imagine a disease that rarely allows you to sleep through an entire night. A disease that constantly impacts your perception of the world around you; a disease that clouds your judgment, alters your reality and makes it almost impossible to get out of bed.

Imagine an intense level of pain that without medication would have you think every hour of every day about ending your life; a disease that inhibits your ability to maintain relationships and function as a productive member of society. Imagine having a disease that is commonly ridiculed and often dismissed as nothing more than “feeling sorry for yourself.”

I live with the challenges of that disease every day. I fight it with every fiber of my existence, only to know that it will never go away; that there is no cure or remedy.

Today is one of those days when I pretend that it is all so manageable. Generally, I pretend by using social media to argue and rant about politics or current events, anything other than the reality surrounding me. Presenting a false illusion of confidence and optimism.

It would be more convenient — certainly less difficult — for my friends, family and coworkers, if I could be more consistent in masking this disease.

Many of them, in fact, would prefer that I not talk about this subject, but I make no apologies, and I am not asking for much.

I would ask only, that on days like today, you treat me the same as you would if you saw my arm in a cast.

When I broke my arm, only one person told me I was “just feeling sorry for myself.” Only one person expected me to type a 300-page report or maybe sling a hammer and just “get over it by doing something productive.” Only one person told me I was too self-absorbed and ungrateful for all the amazing gifts God has bestowed upon me.

That one person was me, and it is the voice I imagine that others whisper when I am not in the room.

Judge me if you want, but also know this . . . you will never judge me more harshly than that voice inside my head

So, why do I write this shit? What’s the point? I have no answer. But if you click this link, you will find a wide range of others who share some unique insights and perspectives about a disease that remains invisible and generally misunderstood.

Sand in the Vaseline

January 21, 2014January 27, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

This blog is on equal footing with the New York Times.

No, I am not having a Richard Sherman moment. I am simply stating a fact. A fact that should give all of us pause as we contemplate the marvels of technology

What I write on these pages is instantly available to billions of people, anyone connected to the world-wide web. By virtue of nothing more than my registered domain, my silly and perfunctory blog is just as accessible as any other online media source.

The internet, virtually free of government regulation (at least in the United States), is the great equalizer, and it has fundamentally shifted the way we live our lives. Today, we can do things that would have seemed impossible or the stuff of science fiction just 20 years ago.

Medical records can be transmitted at lightning speed, sometimes helping doctors save a life; you can now renew your driver’s license while wearing only boxer shorts at 3 a.m. from the comfort of your own home; 12-year-old boys no longer have to suffer the humiliation of sneaking a peek at a Playboy magazine perched on the top shelf at the local drug store. There are millions of funny cat videos to watch; and you can argue politics with absolute strangers (today they are called Facebook “friends” or “followers”) 24 hours a day.

I think we can all agree that the internet is pretty cool. Thank you, Al Gore!

I write this because of a recent court decision that is considered by some as a victory for free markets and by others as a threat to humanity.

The issue is known as “network neutrality,” a terrifying concept with a very appealing name. Thank you, public relations professionals! (You’re welcome)

Those who favor net neutrality say they want to “save the internet.” Those who oppose net neutrality say they want to “save the internet.”

Enter the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, which sided with Verizon and other telecom giants over the schizophrenic rulemaking proposed by the FCC.

According to Reuters, the Court rejected federal rules that required Internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, a decision that could allow mobile carriers and other broadband providers to charge content providers for faster access to websites and services.

The Federal Communications Commission’s open Internet rules, also known as net neutrality, required Internet service providers to give consumers equal access to all lawful content without restrictions or tiered charges.

Which side of the net neutrality debate is right?

The sad fact is that both sides are a little bit right, and we can all agree that the internet should continue being cool and delivering porn or funny cat videos at blazing fast speeds, right?

Unfortunately, that’s not really the issue at hand. Let’s pause for a moment and watch a video:

Clash of the Titans

At the center of the net neutrality debate is a sad truth. This is not some humanistic battle on the wild frontier of technology. This is a race to the bank by two sets of very large corporations.

On one side, you have internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. On the other side are huge internet users like Netflix, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and YouTube.

The late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) was roundly chastised for describing the internet as a “series of tubes,” but he was not that far off the mark.

The bottom line? It costs money to make the internet work. It requires infrastructure that is in constant need of upgrades and repairs to meet the challenges of an exploding market and skyrocketing volume demands. The world has a big appetite for cat videos and pornography.

Netflix, Amazon and others want to use the internet just like you and me. Equal access for all, they scream.

But does that make sense? Net neutrality opponents argue that the internet is a public domain and should thus have equal access for all users. Let’s think about that.

Can we apply that logic to other public domains? How about the post office? Should it cost as much to mail a post card as it does an air conditioner? Is that discrimination?

Or how about the Turnpike, a quasi-public piece of infrastructure subsidized by tax dollars? Tractor trailer trucks have to pay a bigger toll than someone driving a Prius. And that is fair because the truck creates more wear and tear on the road.

Proponents of net neutrality say that consumers may have to pay more for faster services or special tiered packages. Oh my!

Their rallying cry, as demonstrated by a recent op-ed in the New York Times by Susan Crawford is that the internet could end up being like (gasp) pay TV.

I don’t know about Susan Crawford, but television when I was growing up sucked. We had three channels, and I was my father’s remote control. Television today is much better. I have a huge TV and about a zillion channels that all show the same seven movies over and over. I pay through the teeth for that kick-ass, high-definition, Dolby surround-sound, 60-inch, power sucking thing of beauty, and I can pause live television. Imagine telling that to someone watching Archie Bunker in 1972.

Net neutrality is a solution desperately in search of a problem. Your internet today is better than it was five years ago. I guarantee it will be even better five years from now, . . . unless, the “Save the Internet” crowd opts for a second bite at the apple.

Thinking Politics

January 15, 2014January 26, 2024 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

A few weeks ago, I decided to try an experiment.

As Maine Goes (AMG), one of Maine’s most popular and controversial political websites, had gone dark after a 16-year run that allowed verified members to post and comment on a wide range of political issues. Admittedly, AMG was a conservative site, but it was well-moderated, and liberal posters would sometimes wade into those waters to offer their perspectives and to push-back on what they perceived to be an echo-chamber of conservative thought.

AMG’s membership, although decidedly right-leaning, was rather diverse: single mothers, retired folks, business owners, students, academics and every-day working people spent hour upon hour debating ideas, posting insights and frequently arguing about a wide range of subject matters.

Journalists would monitor the site, observing political trends and gleaning intelligence from campaign operatives who would lurk on AMG’s pages.

Profanity was forbidden, but the jousting was real. It was not a place for those easily offended. If you couldn’t take the heat, if you didn’t like being challenged, well…you could always just sit back and watch the big dogs get off the porch.

So it was, in the post-AMG abyss, that I decided to try my own social media experiment. Lacking the dedication and commitment that Scott Fish gave to AMG, I instead set up a Facebook group called “Thinking Politics”

It remains a closed, secret group (new members must be invited by existing members to participate). I started the group with fourteen people: six who generally lean left, six others who generally lean right and two people I perceived to be in the middle of the political road. (This was all very subjective and was calculated while drinking generous doses of a favorite Merlot).

The mission statement of the group is rather simple: Thinking Politics is a place for those who enjoy political discourse that includes rigorous debate but not personal attacks. Members are seeking an elevated level of political discourse and pledge to be as committed to hearing as they are to speaking.

I wanted to see how these selected friends would do in a controlled environment. I invited no one else, despite the urge not to offend other friends. I tried to just sit back and watch. That was almost five weeks ago.

Can you hear me?

Today, there are nearly 120 members in the Thinking Politics group. Members pick and start the conversation points or join other ongoing discussions.

At least one person dropped out of the group. She was reportedly frustrated that she could not see comments being made by another member because he had “blocked” her from his own Facebook profile.

The group quickly veered left. Why? Simply put, my left-leaning friends outflanked their counterparts on the right by inviting others of similar thought as reinforcements.

Obviously, this dynamic frustrated my friends on the right. They were feeling outnumbered, outmatched and felt it was a waste of time to participate if they were just going to be outshouted. They retreated a bit.

But here’s where it gets strange. Some of those on the left actually began bemoaning the fact that the page was becoming little more than a “political echo chamber,” chock full of progressive thought with little or no input from the political right.

Just when I thought my experiment had failed, something happened. The conservatives found some heavy-hitters to join their ranks, including State Rep. Jonathan McKane (R-Newcastle) and Beth O’Connor, a former state representative and vice chair of Maine Taxpayers United. Other unapologetic Republicans followed.

So now the page was a bit more balanced, but was it more productive?

It remains to be seen. A majority of the members seem genuinely committed to the process: to stand firmly on ground and debate with civility. But I wanted (hoped) to see something else. I wanted to see if people would begin asking questions. I wanted to see if there was a natural curiosity out there. Would people pause and consider alternative viewpoints? More importantly, would they proactively seek out those other views?

You can guess the answer.

I’m right, you’re wrong

Even in a semi-controlled environment, my friends seemed more focused on being right rather than considering an alternative viewpoint. I get it. That’s how I roll 99 percent of the time.

Last week, I participated in an event that some friends organize every once in a while: a Political Beer Summit. Now, face to face and with the assistance of great beer and delicious pizza, the political debate was just as passionate but it was a lot less heated.

Sitting across the table from one another, the Democrats saw the Republicans as reflections of themselves with the exception of different viewpoint. The Republicans were not afraid that the Democrats were going to stiff them with the check. It was fierce, but friendly. No one changed their mind, but every one was willing to listen.

Why can’t that dynamic happen more often? Why are we so fiercely competitive?

Recently, I stumbled across an article in the Washington Post that explains this increasingly fierce dynamic of political competition.

Nearly every recent election has held out the possibility of a shift in party control of one institution or another, writes Francis Lee in his Monkey Cage blog.

Lee continues: Competition fuels party conflict by raising the political stakes of every policy dispute. When control of national institutions hangs in the balance, no party wants to grant political legitimacy to its opposition by voting for the measures it champions. After all, how can a party wage an effective campaign after supporting or collaborating with its opposition on public policy?

Lee’s analysis of political competition helps explain the dynamics I witnessed in my experiment. Today’s political discourse has taken on the tenor and tone of an all-out war, a battlefield of fighting to the death and an unwillingness to compromise.

Last night I posed a question on my Facebook timeline: Is it possible to debate politics without animosity; is it possible to fight a war without hating your enemy?

Matt Jacobson, a Facebook friend who was one of several Maine people seeking the Republican nomination for governor in 2010, offered a brilliant response: “Too many don’t understand the difference between an opponent and an enemy,” he wrote.

I am fascinated by the psychology of politics, and I earn my living as a policy/political consultant. It still amazes me that so few candidates understand the vital importance of reaching toward the middle for additional supporters. If we want the fence sitters to join our side, how do we get them off the fence and into the game?

I think it’s a worthy question, and I invite your feedback. And if you want to join the Thinking Politics group just send an e-mail to randy@randyseaver.com

To be continued . . .

Bridge over troubled water

January 9, 2014January 9, 2014 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

By comparison, guys like Gary Hart and Bill Clinton had it easy.

Sex scandal? No big deal. Traffic jam in New Jersey? Now that’s how you infuriate people.

It remains to be seen exactly how the controversy surrounding “bridge-gate” will impact Christie’s dreams of a 2016 presidential bid, but watching the news this morning it appeared that the world was about to slip off its axis. The talking heads were beside themselves, questioning whether Christie’s political clout could endure the scandal.

Within moments of the fateful e-mail surfacing, DNC activists were all over the blogosphere, questioning the New Jersey governor’s credibility and his ability to lead.

“Is this the guy we want in the White House?,” wrote one woman on Facebook, mocking Christie for “not knowing” about every e-mail his staff had sent or received.

Strangely, it was only a few months ago when Democrats were eager to point to Christie as a welcome voice of sanity in the GOP. They praised his bipartisan nature because he was willing (gasp) to meet with President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, only days before the 2012 election.

Republicans, on the other hand, were infuriated, stopping just short of accusing Christie of orchestrating the hurricane disaster as a way to help Obama beat Romney. Sorry, but my cocker spaniel could have helped Obama beat Romney.

Back then, my friends on the left side of the political aisle celebrated Christie. They praised him as a rare Republican. They called him a moderate. They said he was a “common sense leader.”

They used to say the same things about John McCain: a maverick . . . a man of principle. Democrats felt good about being able to heap praise on someone from the other side of the aisle, right up until he won the GOP nomination.

The same dynamic began happening to Christie last year, despite his willingness to parody himself on the Jimmy Fallon Show. Because Hillary is the heir apparent for the Oval Office, and because Christie was holding his own in polling against her, he began to fall out of favor, especially with my friends on the left.

Christie, however, adamantly and repeatedly denies having any interest in the 2016 presidential race. Strangely, he sent a lot of Christmas cards to elected officials in Iowa a few weeks ago. Who knows? Maybe he just likes Iowa.

I don’t know how this crisis will impact Christie’s political future, but I do know this: I was lukewarm about him as a presidential candidate until this afternoon.

Christie did something today that is rare in today’s political world. He took responsibility. He said, “I own this.” He apologized. He held his subordinates responsible. He expressed regret. He answered every question the media threw at him . . . and then some. He talked, and talked and talked . . . and talked.

He did not run away from the problem. He faced it head on. He accepted the responsibility that comes with leadership. “The buck stops with me,” he said.

How refreshing. He didn’t blame his political opponents. He didn’t blame the media. He didn’t blame Congress. He owned the problem and pledged to fix it.

That’s leadership, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the left to give him any praise or even the benefit of the doubt.

Because today was the best day that Hillary Clinton has had in a long, long time.

Just like a prayer

January 7, 2014June 17, 2015 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 2 Comments

Biddeford City Councilor Bobby Mills has a lesson for all of us who use social media.

It doesn’t matter much if the NSA has tapped your phone or if Google is using your online data to create a psychological profile, you have a responsibility to be careful about what you share on social media outlets.

Mills, an elected official, is upset that he was contacted by a local newspaper regarding a potential conflict of interest issue. According to Mills, the newspaper received an anonymous tip regarding something he posted online.

I’ll let Mills tell the story . . .

“Interesting enough I just got a phone call interview from the Courier. Someone made an “anonymous” complaint about the unsuccessful Go Fund Me page I set up back in October/November for assistance in our down payment for our lease to own home. Since this page was only created for my family and friends on Facebook I’m simply amazed.
“The complaint was about public officials creating pages seeking donations and conflicts of interests that it may generate. Seriously. My family doesn’t live here and any friendships in Biddeford would never be in a situation to assist us if they could. Nonetheless conflicts of interests? Amazing.
Everytime I’m reelected, there’s always some “anonymous” nonsense. Hey. Why don’t you call me? 207–[redacted]. Your welcome to come and visit as well. Obviously you know where I live”

Bobby Mills and I have not always seen eye to eye. In fact, I’ve often been one of his loudest critics. But in this story, I feel some of his pain.

Please note: I said some.

Mills and every other adult who uses social media ought to understand how those platforms work. Social media is a power tool in the realm of mass communication, and like any other power tool, you can expect really bad results if you don’t follow some basic guidelines.

Mills said he posted his personal request for the benefit of his family and friends. He didn’t expect criticism or harsh comments about his financial situation from outside his circle of family and friends.

While I sympathize with Mr. Mills’ situation, his defense is extremely weak. He wanted to raise a lot of money (thousands) to help secure a down-payment for a home. You don’t post something online if you don’t want a lot of people to see it.

Rule No. 1 of social media: Never post or tweet anything that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper.

Bobby Mills likes to use social media. In fact, he’s set up a Facebook page for a second run at becoming Maine’s next governor. Criticize him for that, if you want (and I will . . . later), but don’t knock the guy for being in a tight financial spot and then attack his character because of that fact.

Times are tough for a lot of people. There’s nothing wrong with asking family and friends for help. It’s a tough situation. If you haven’t experienced it, thank your lucky stars.

Raising questions about whether Mills’ original fundraising post constitutes a potential conflict of interest is a bit of a stretch.

By all accounts, Bobby Mills is a good husband and father who loves his kids. He holds several jobs and works hard. He gives a lot back to his community. His only crime here is being a bit naïve about how social media works.

However, if Mills still serves as a member of the Biddeford Housing Authority, and if the home’s sale is connected in any way to that agency, then Mills needs to put some distance between his personal objective and his role as a city official.

Elected officials are treated differently by the media for good reason. When you run for office you have to expect that.

And when you post something on Facebook, you should expect that a lot of people will see what you may not want them to see.

UPDATED: Bobby Mills is NOT a member of the Biddeford Housing Authority.