In my Civil Beat column this week, I tried to capture my reactions to reading through the 488-pages of emails and notes between members of the team of consultants who worked for the Pacific Resource Partnership during the 2012 mayoral election (“Hawaii Monitor: Inside the New World of Negative Political Campaigns“).
I was a frequent critic of PRP’s negative campaign that targeted former Gov. Ben Cayetano.
Reading through the email exchanges, though, is a reminder that while the PRP media strategy was decidedly negative, it was also extremely sophisticated, very well organized, and disciplined. In terms of its success, it’s hard for me say whether it worked because it was so negative, or because it was so well planned and executed.
A couple of points worth repeating here.
First, the emails show that PRP’s media team fully expected–and relied on–Cayetano’s personal combativeness. They banked on his strong reactions to PRP’s attacks to focus media attention on the attacks.
Cayetano’s vociferous denials of any wrongdoing focused attention on precisely the questions PRP wanted to put front and center for voters, questions related to illegal campaign contributions, no-bid contracts, and charges of pay-to-play politics while he served as governor. The more Cayetano protested, and the more indignant political pundits became, the more the media covered these issues, which is exactly what PRP was aiming for.
“Keep him talking about this,” another of PRP’s media advisors wrote, calling Cayetano’s responses “a great media hook.”
The result was that perceived problems with the city’s rail plan, which began as Cayetano’s strongest suit, largely dropped out of the debate as the election neared and undecided voters became the focus of attention.
“At the end, there just wasn’t any traction for rail because they (PRP) managed to change the agenda,” Milner said.
So straight denials of the “I am not a crook” variety didn’t work.
One person commenting on Civil Beat described the bind Cayetano found himself in.
caytano was caught in a catch 22 situation – if they ignored the corruption charges, people would conclude that maybe those allegations were true and indeed he was corrupt. Even though his protestations played into the hands of PRP, he had no choice but to defend himself.
I can’t help wondering whether a different type of response might have been possible.
For example, check this article showing how T-Mobile responded to a series of attacks from rival AT&T. When AT&T criticized T-Mobile’s network as slow and unreliable, the response bypassed the specific charges. One T-Mobile reply: “CAN YOU SEE THE BEADS OF SWEAT IN THIS AD?”
Okay, it’s not politics, but perhaps a similar media strategy could have worked for Ben?
The emails actually show that PRP’s consultants were sweating over Cayetano’s lead in the polls and his stature as a candidate. So it’s possible that deflecting the “corruption” charges by stressing how desperate PRP and its allies were was a possibility.
Share your suggestions or brainstorms, please.
Here’s another article which walks through various ways of responding to negative attack ads. Any thoughts on how a candidate in Ben’s situation should have hit back?
Second point. I didn’t see in the emails any suggestion that PRP’s consultants knew any of their charges against Cayetano were false and proceeded anyway. Instead, they were constantly trying to develop fact sheets to support their allegations, and later built websites to make more info publicly available.
I didn’t–and still don’t–think that PRP’s corruption charges were correct, but there’s nothing in the emails to suggest that they were being used cynically despite knowing they were not true.
Finally, the emails show is how PRP’s consultants worked reporters and editors. They set about to plant questions, hoping reporters would then put the questions to Cayetano as their own. They fed detailed but selective background data, quotes, news stories, etc., to reporters, hoping to slant their reporting. They reached out in attempts to “correct” reporters who didn’t buy into their definition of the issues. And when a writer directly criticized PRP, as columnist Dave Shapiro did, they made personal contact, apparently trying to “cool the mark out.” If media failed to attend a press conference, they provided a full packet of info so that news stories about the event could be produced anyway.
Nothing surprising here, but I was impressed with how focused this effort to influence the media managed to be.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m sure that Ben and his supporters would take a certain amount of comfort in attributing their defeat to a nefarious smear campaign. Perhaps it did sway some voters.
I still think the major reason for Cayetano’s loss is this: Not offering a viable alternative plan to rail. Beretania St. tunnel? This was no more realistic a solution than Cliff Slater’s elevated bus way proposal from the 1990s. Simply put, Honolulu voters weren’t going to vote for the candidate of status quo when it came to dealing with Honolulu’s traffic woes.
It’s true that Ben’s transit alternative was a joke. But so is rail in the suburbs. Ben’s plan had the virtue of being a cheaper way of losing.
Suki, you missed my point, which is that Ben’s alternative proposal was in reality, not to do anything at all. He only talked about the Beretania St. tunnel to avoid charges that he was an anti-rail candidate with no other idea to offer. But honestly, how many people here think that if Ben had won, he would seriously put forth an effort in making that underground tunnel a reality? Voters could sense the answer to that question. Hence, their rejection of Cayetano.
But hey, if it makes Ben painting himself as a latter day version of Cec Heftel to explain his one and only electoral defeat, then so be it. Ben feels vindicated by the PRP apology. His legacy and reputation restored (such as it is), Ben rides off into the sunset with what he feels is most important. And never again will you get an iota of effort from Cayetano or anyone else about digging an underground tunnel.
No one heard of Ben’s plan. People vote for personality and a nice haircut.
People voted against Heftel because he over-reacted to the smear campaign against him. Same with Ben. Lingle didn’t panic and won.
Abercrombie rants about injustice and it scares people. But personal attacks amuse him, so he wins … with a grin. (Mufi throws tantrums on TV.)
Suki,
You are misremembering the “Heftel smear.” The confidential report with allegations against Heftel was completely unknown to the general public until the day after the election, when Heftel denounced it as the cause of his defeat.
An investigation was held and those who had seen the document were asked to step forward. Only about 20 people, most of them reporters and community leaders, said they were aware of the document prior to the election.
Heftel lost because he was seen as a “rich haole businessman” trying to buy the election and detached from the concerns of regular voters.
The myth of the Heftel smear has taken on a life of its own, but most of what people remember about it is the result of post-election conspiracy theories and bears little resemblance to the actual facts.
Part of the tragedy of the F.A.S.T. plan is that it was easy for voters to equate more buses using the roadways as adding to the congestion problem. And the most frequent response I heard as to why buses was b/c they are flexible.
So, way too easy to see that plan as “Flexible And Stuck in Traffic.”
And PRP is helping to push through the massive development of high-priced condominiums in Kakaako without planning for infrastructure (water, sewer, schools, grocery stores, etc.), considering the impact of the high prices on Oahu’s economy or the welfare of Oahu residents, or the planning for a second City, etc. Of course, the politicians are signing on dreaming of the substantial political contributions and other rewards coming their way. The heck with Oahu residents, tourism in Oahu, or anything else just sell off Oahu.
PRP has not apologized to Oahu voters and taxpayers who were misled to their detriment.
“I didn’t–and still don’t–think that PRP’s corruption charges were correct, but there’s nothing in the emails to suggest that they were being used cynically despite knowing they were not true.” I think you may be being too generous here–I haven’t read the 400+ pages myself, but from what’s been published it sounds like they didn’t care whether the charges were true or not as long as they could make them sound credible to an unsophisticated audience. That sounds pretty cynical to me.
Well, all I can say is that I was a critic of PRP’s campaign, and I read through the emails with a critical eye. And, as I said in my column, I saw no evidence that they thought they were working with bogus charges. They had a theory, that dug for history and evidence, and they packaged it skillfully. Cynical, perhaps. But nothing to indicate they did not believe the charges to be true.
It might be a little easier to entertain Ben’s grumbling and his fan club’s whiny cries of “smear” if he and the anti-rail ideologues he aligned himself with had not been so shamelessly misleading in so much of their messaging, which began long before the PRP campaign and continued on Sunday in a hoary gloom-and-doom op-ed piece that was so silly it crossed over into unintentional self-parody.
Does anyone really think for a moment that puppet-master Slater and the rest haven’t been every bit as cynical, deliberate, calculating, and manipulative in the incessant disinformation campaign they have waged for so many years?
Their Big Lie has always been that rail will be a failure unless it makes it easier for more people to drive cars and forgo rail.
Think about that one.
They also continue to deliberately imply that traffic congestion will be worse in the future because of rail, rather than because of population growth that will continue despite the relief that rail will provide.
Some of the dubious pretexts they employed in their failed federal lawsuit were simply preposterous on their face, and should have been ridiculed without mercy.
Does anyone really believe this bunch gives a fig about the aesthetics or historical relevance of a truly ragged Kakaako wino park that will be minimally impacted by the rail route?
Or that they really would have supported rail if only it had included a massive Beretania Street tunnel that would cost nearly $1 billion more and require far more disruption to build?
This island should be absolutely outraged by the construction delays that lawsuit caused, and by the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars those delays have wasted.
The plaintiffs should now graciously disclose all funding sources for that lawsuit, so that the public can know whether the suit was bankrolled in any part by right-wing mainland think-tanks or private special interests that profit from taxpayer-subsidized freeways and that fear competition from efficient public transportation.
But they won’t. And the media won’t even inquire, much less insist.
As to the issue of how reporters and editors were “worked” by PRP, you had better believe that more than one side was working. And some obviously didn’t have to be worked very hard.
Mounting a deceptive full-court press to sabotage this imperfect but badly needed and voter-approved project after an expensive Environmental Impact Statement was already completed, solid funding mechanisms were secured, and many millions of taxpayer dollars were invested was monumentally arrogant, to say the least. Doing so with no credible transportation alternative anywhere on the horizon, and pretending otherwise, was simply despicable.
Yes, PRP went after Ben Cayetano and whacked him hard in a way that many found distasteful.
And this island will be better off for many generations because of it.
Slater and the rest were “every bit as cynical, deliberate, calculating, and manipulative…”
So really, if those out there are so indignant about the tactics of PRP, why aren’t they just as disgusted by lies that came straight from the infamous truth squad and its cohorts?
As will certain public relations people constantly posting on social media, right?
Would of, could of, should of but…if the vote on rail were held today I’d guess it would be resoundingly shot down.
I guess those opposed to good mass transit can always keep hoping a vote will go their way in this decade. I voted, and the rest of the interested people in Honolulu did vote FOR rail. I think there are still more for than against doing something to improve Honolulu’s horrible transportation system.
Somehow, in spite of all the transparency from the city, and the hundreds of public meetings, and the millions spent on rail project public outreach (possibly some of it on this page today), I’ve still got questions I haven’t heard the answer to. Here are a few of them.
The city has often touted the 40,000 cars rail is projected to remove from Oahu’s roads in the year 2030 as a major benefit of building it. I think the project’s executive director talked about these 40,000 cars in a commentary that appeared in the Star-Advertiser two or three days ago.
What I would like to know is, is it true that round-trips are counted as two cars off the road?
For instance, if someone takes rail to work in the morning, uses rail to run an errand and then return to work during a lunch break, and then uses rail to return home in the afternoon, does that count as one car off the road, or 4?
If the answer to the above is any number other than one, then my next question is: How many individual former drivers are there distributed within the 40,000 cars figure?
I’d also like to ask, how many of those former drivers converted to rail riders will be former drivers who would, if not for rail, be departing from points west of Pearl City in order to travel either to the airport or destinations east of the airport on weekdays between 6 and 8 a.m.?
The answers to these questions will provide a better understanding of how many former drivers will be using rail as an alternative to driving when and where my neighbors and I need traffic relief most.
A congested corridor has vehicles in it, yes? Some of those vehicles may be making more than one trip depending on the period that is counted and where that traveler has to go when that count is made. So I don’t really see a good question in what you are asking, Undecided.
Projections after all, are guesses about conditions that don’t exist yet. And projections can be overestimated just as easily for highway projects as for transit. (Some transit experts think projections for our elevated rail project are too low. And other factors like the future price of gas will have an impact on the choices that commuters will make.)
By focusing on trips or cars or a specific number of either, you’re STILL missing the point.
A transit option that provides a way to get between points A thru Z at various times thru the day gives people a choice and a way to leave a car at home OR a way to keep the car in the parking lot, thereby reducing car trips (if that’s what they do as part of their activities).
More ways to travel freely within the urban corridor (as opposed to being stuck somewhere while burning gas) provides opportunities that do not exist now.
Some of the things people will do as a result of better transit: travel to more places w/o a car, use that gas/parking/insurance money on something else (e.g., food/rent/leisure), meet friends on their lunch break, spend more time with their families versus stuck on a highway in traffic.
Better transit options are especially good for people who don’t currently drive or who may not drive in the near future (e.g., an elderly person who will need to stop driving and a disabled person who will never be allowed to get a car or a license).
So, while Honolulu’s population continues to increase, mass transit provides an alternative that doesn’t perpetuate the need to have a car.
So let’s summarize: Honolulu’s elevated rail project provides an ALTERNATIVE to driving in a congested transportation corridor.
Yes! Exactly! Thank you for this cogent summary. It is a travesty that Cliff Slater et al have caused decades of delay and cost Oahu taxpayers millions of unnecessary expense because this badly needed project conflicts with their political ideology. Enough! You lost. Please … Go away!
As talk to people over the past few days- people who didn’t follow the election and aren’t following the PRP brouhaha and don’t really care about this or politics in general- all stop me at the point where I tell them that Cayetano claimed he didn’t know who was making those illegal contributions and, to a person, say “he says he didn’t know? That’s gotta be BS” or words to that effect. I’m beginning to think that THAT is what cost him the election.
Andy Parx:
Thank you for looking at this like a normal human being, not like a stubborn politico who avoids common sense.
I still find it v-e-r-y hard to swallow the claim that Hawaii’s former two-time Governor was completely Blind to the fact that half-a-million dollars in political Campaign contributions were Illegal contributions. as such, i don’t swallow it. i question it, and i always will. if this makes me libelous, then i am libelous. find a half-arsed lawyer and sue me.
I’m glad that other folks here recognize Cliff Slater’s role in deceiving the people of Honolulu.
To make it clear, I have no problem with Cliff being opposed to rail. He’s certainly entitled to that position. What I have objected to was his “bait-and-switch” method of convincing people to reject rail. All of his talk about building elevated bus ways was one of the major factors in convincing citizens to testify against rail to the city council in ’92. But as soon as the project was killed, he ceased banging the drum for dedicated bus ways as he accomplished his mission. Stopping rail. Nothing more. He had no serious intention of pursuing his alternative proposal. The politics of NO prevailed and he got wished for.
When rail was revived this last time around, Slater again emerged with another phony alternative proposal and hitched his anti-rail propaganda to Cayetano’s campaign and the cockamamie Beretania St. tunnel. But THIS TIME, there was no fooling the voters. The people in this city wanted real solutions and would not accept the status-quo. Hence, Cayetano getting kicked to the curbed in an election for the first time in his career.
Slater and his ilk have had years,… no, make it decades… to conceptualize and implement alternatives to rail. But they didn’t. Good riddance to him and all the newspaper ink wasted on his anti-rail blathering.
While I won’t defend PRP for any smear tactics they may have engaged in, I’m not going to stand by silently if an anti-rail zealot thinks he/she can point a self-righteous finger at the other side for deceiving voters. Oh please. “First, take the log out of your own eye,…”
All I’m saying is that the strategy of reaching what Andy Winer called “low information voters” was that, despite the fact that it was never said in so many words the message would be clear- “do you believe that Cayetano didn’t know who gave him money and that the contributions were illegally made by contractors?” He may or may not have known but the commercials reached those “low information voters” quite successfully without having to actually say “he knew.”