"Get on with it!"

by Jerry Weissman

Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for president in 1964 infamously said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This misguided view of political policy became a major factor in Mr. Goldwater’s landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson, but it also serves as a warning lesson for presenters. Extremism in any pursuit can overshoot the mark and result in the opposite intent of the pursuit.

One of the most frequently repeated pieces of advice for presenters is to “Tell ’em what you’re gonna tell ’em, tell ’em, and then tell ’em what you’ve told ’em.” In fact, I offer the same advice in my own coaching practice and writing. The intent is to impose and maintain a clear narrative flow in presentations and speeches; and the reason it is repeated so often is that most presenters and speakers, who regularly crank out long, rambling, pointless patchwork pitches, desperately need reminding. The Triple “Tell ’em” is one solution. However, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing; a sword can cut two ways.

Bruce Eric Kaplan, a cartoonist who appears regularly in the New Yorker magazine as BEK, skewered the excessive Triple “Tell ’em” earlier this month with a panel that showed a presenter in front of an audience, saying, “First, I want to give you an overview of what I will tell you over and over again during the entire presentation.”

We’re also painfully familiar with presenters who impose a narrative laundry list on their bullets by saying “First, I’d like to talk about…” then move on to the second bullet saying, “Next, I’d like to talk about…” and then proceed through every bullet the same way until the end, when they say—wait for it— “Last but not least…”

Some presenters push their extreme handholding even further, by utilizing their slides to do the tracking. As in the figure above, they insert copies of an agenda slide between the sections of their presentation, progressively shifting the highlighted bullet to “Tell ’em what they’re gonna tell ’em” in the upcoming section. This technique can be useful in long tutorial presentations, but if there are only one or two slides between the variations of the agenda in short presentations—and short presentations are obligatory in this 140-character day and age—the audience, feeling patronized, will react with a big Duh!

Presenters are not the only perpetrators of such deliberate continuity devices. Geoff Dyer, who writes the “Reading Life” column the New York Times Book Review section, considers excessive tracking a “basically plodding method.”  In one of his columns, he criticized art historian Michael Fried, whose book, Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before, takes “the style of perpetual announcement of what is about to happen to extremes.” Mr. Dyer said it is “like watching a rolling news program: Coming up on CNN . . . A look ahead to what’s coming up on CNN.”  Concluding his critique, Mr. Dyer wrote, “I kept wondering why an editor had not scribbled ‘get on with it!’ in huge red letters on every page of the manuscript.”

To keep your audience from thinking “Get on with it!” apply the Less is More rule, not just in your slide design but in your content. As you read in the prior posts, “Kill Your Darlings,” and “How Long Should a Presentation Last?”:

• Edit the amount of material you present

• Be brief AND concise

Then, with a shorter and more succinct story, look at your presentation from a 35,000 foot view—as a storyboard—in the Microsoft PowerPoint Slide Sorter view, or with the Power Presentations Storyboard form in the accompanying figure. It’s downloadable from our website: www.powerltd.com by clicking at the bottom of the home page.

Just as television and film directors use storyboarding to see the full scope of their stories, look at your slide show in this panoramic view to see your flow. Then rehearse your presentation aloud, moving from frame to frame. Do this several times. Along the way, you’ll find that you might want to add, delete, or shuffle slides. As you proceed with your iterations, you will develop verbal connective links for your narrative.

Ultimately, you will have a presentation in which The Triple “Tell ’em” is transparently implied. You will have a story that will be easy for you to deliver and, more important, easy for your audience to follow—without a laundry list, without CNN-style teasers, and best of all, without those patronizing agenda slides.

Get on with it!

This post appeared on hbr.org

 

You MUST Respond to All Questions

 

Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, who was the driving force behind the controversial Vietnam War, went on to a more successful stint as head of the World Bank. He lived until the ripe old age of 93, but according to his New York Times obituary, “spent the rest of his life wrestling with the war’s moral consequences.”

As part of his struggle, he agreed to be the subject of a 2003 documentary in which he expressed regrets but ultimately defended his actions. The film is called The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons of Robert S. McNamara. Lesson Ten is about communication, and it contains sound advice for presenters about what not to do. Said Mr. McNamara:

One of the lessons I learned early on: never say never. Never, never, never. Never say never. And secondly, never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you. And quite frankly, I follow that rule. It's a very good rule.

Unfortunately, that rule has taken on a life of its own in the modern business world. Many consultants urge presenters to stay on message. And yes, it’s good to do that--within bounds. But think about it: How can it be a “very good rule” not to be responsive to other people? In interpersonal relationships, not answering a question can lead to an argument; in business, not answering a question can lead to the failure of a deal. Only in politics, where the public has become inured to the practice of ducking and spinning does the public tolerate unanswered questions. But even there, the McNamara rule can backfire.

In the contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Texas Governor Rick Perry threw his hat into the ring late in the game, but his track record of three consecutive victories in Texas elections and strong conservative support vaulted him to the top of the public opinion polls very quickly. However, after hapless performances in live televised debates, Mr. Perry’s poll numbers sank as fast as they had risen. The polls were confirmed in his dismal showings in the first three primaries, and he withdrew from the race five months after he entered.

Mr. Perry’s two most notorious performance stumbles were his brain lock in one debate and a bungled statement in another, each of which went viral on the Web and in the media. But what was largely overlooked in all that attention was a Robert McNamara moment in the October 18, 2011 debate on CNN, when moderator Anderson Cooper asked this question:

COOPER: Governor Perry, the 14th Amendment allows anybody. A child of illegal immigrants who is born here is automatically an American citizen. Should that change?

PERRY: Well, let me address Herman's issue that he just talked about.

COOPER: Actually, I'd rather you answer that question.

PERRY: I understand that. You get to ask the questions, I get to answer like I want to.

“I get to answer like I want to.” Imagine a salesperson saying that to a customer, a mid-level manger to a senior executive, an executive to a board member, or a CEO to an investor. Meeting over. No deal.  

Imagine saying that to your significant other. No comment.

Anderson Cooper called Mr. Perry on it, “That's actually a response, that's not an answer.”

Four months later, in another debate among Republican candidates, a déjà vu Robert McNamara moment occurred in this exchange between Mitt Romney and CNN moderator John King:

KING: What is the biggest misconception about you in the public debate right now?

ROMNEY: We've got to restore America's promise in this country where people know that with hard work and education, that they're going to be secure and prosperous and that their kids will have a brighter future than they've had. For that to happen, we're going to have to have dramatic fundamental change in Washington, D.C., we're going to have to create more jobs, have less debt, and shrink the size of the government. I'm the only person in this race --

KING: Is there a misconception about you? The question is a misconception.

ROMNEY: You know, you get to ask the questions want, I get to give the answers I want.   

You must respond to all questions. This is not to say that you should give away state secrets; you have every right to decline to answer on the basis of confidentiality, competitive data, or company or legal policy, but you must provide a rational reason — and “I get to answer like I want to” is irrational.

 

This blog originally posted on hbr.org

 

 

by Jerry Weissman

During his campaign to become the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney has taken many lumps for being rich. His opponents and the media have exploited the contrast between his personal wealth and the economic struggles of much of the electorate. Mr. Romney hasn’t helped his cause by making several awkward statements about the subject. Yesterday, the day before today’s critical Michigan and Arizona primaries, the ABC News OTUS site ran a twelve-page post titled, “Is Mitt Romney out of touch?” which included the following assertions:

 

• He likes firing people
  
• He  “isn’t concerned about the very poor”
• The $370,000 he earned in speaking fees is “not very much”
• He offered to bet Rick Perry ten thousand dollars during their debate

The latest gaffe came last Friday in a speech Mr. Romney gave in Detroit, during which he said, “I drive a Mustang and a Chevy pickup truck,’’ but then went on to say, “Ann drives, a couple of Cadillacs, actually.’’ The statement wound up on the first page of the ABC News post.

On Sunday, however, Mr. Romney reversed gears by turning the gaffe into an asset. During an interview on Fox News, Chris Wallace asked, “Governor, could you understand why some voters could be put off by those things?”

(video clip requires Microsoft Windows Media Player)

Mr. Romney replied:

I can't be perfect, I just am who I am and I can tell you this with regards to the cars that was talked about last September and people ask us what vehicles we own. We have a car in California; we have a car in Boston. And so that's the way it is. If people think that there is something wrong for being successful in America, they should vote for the other guy. I have been successful.

Mr. Romney didn’t equivocate or evade as so many politicians so often do. In the parlance of the middle America he is trying to win over, he “told it like it is;” in the parlance of effective communication, he was being open and direct. But being even more effective, he added one more sentence to his answer:

And I want to use that success to help the American people.

That single sentence represents both a benefit to the electorate and a declaration of his qualifications to provide that benefit. This is a technique called Topspin; taken from the tennis term for a power stroke, it adds power to answers. You can read more about Topspin in my book, In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions—and can get a FREE Kindle copy now on Amazon.

History Repeats

by Jerry Weissman

Going into last night’s debate among the four candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Santorum had the wind at his back. Having swept the contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado two weeks ago, he surged to the head of the polls for next week’s primary election in Michigan—the home state of Mitt Romney, the presumptive favorite—a potential bump in the latter’s road to the nomination. CNN moved Mr. Santorum to center stage for the debate, a promotion from his wing position in the previous 19 televised debates. However, being the front runner also means being in the cross-hairs of the other candidates and, as expected, Mr. Romney, Ron Paul, and John King, the CNN moderator, as any moderator would, went after Mr. Santorum.

In the run up to the debate, one of the major subjects drawing attention in the media was Mr. Santorum’s social conservatism, particularly his views on birth control. A viewer sent a question on the subject to CNN via the Internet, and Mr. King asked it of each candidate:

KING: We take a question now from cnnpolitics.com. You can see it up on the screen here: “Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control and if not, why?”

Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich each gave his answer, and then came Mr. Santorum’s turn:

SANTORUM: As Congressman Paul knows, I opposed Title X funding. [Title X Family Planning program, was enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act.] I've always opposed Title X funding, but it's included in a large appropriation bill that includes a whole host of other things, including the funding for the National Institutes of [entity display="Health" type="section" active="true" key="/health"]Health[/entity], the funding for [entity display="Health" type="section" active="false" key="/health"]Health[/entity] and Human Services and a whole bunch of other departments. It's a multi-billion-dollar bill… So while, yes, I -- I admit I voted for large appropriation bills and there were things in there I didn't like, things in there I did…

Now flash back to the 2004 presidential campaign and candidate John Kerry’s statement about his position on support for the Iraq War:

KERRY: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

Now flash forward to the current campaign and Mr. Santorum’s repeated accusations of Mr. Romney’s flip-flopping. As philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” After last night’s debate, NBC News/Marist released a new poll that showed Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum “locked in a statistical tie” in Michigan.

 

This post also appears on Forbes.com

Trying to Channel Bill Clinton 

by Jerry Weissman

Scenario #1: Silicon Valley, an Executive Briefing Center at a major IT company. One of the company’s product managers finishes a presentation about a product upgrade to a group of existing customers and then opens the floor to questions.

The first question comes from the CIO of a large financial institution: “We’ve spent millions of dollars on the first version of your solution and it gave us nothing but problems—crashes, down time, glitches, and endless repairs—and now you want us to upgrade to a new version. We’re still having problems with the earlier version. What are you folks going to do about it?”

The product manager responds, “Quality is important to us…”

Scenario #2: New York City, a hotel meeting room during a financial conference. A CEO of a public company finishes the company’s management presentation to a group of investors and then opens the floor to questions.

The first question comes from an analyst at a leading mutual fund: “Your revenues are flat, your stock is down, and your outlook for the next quarter is guarded. When are you going to turn this sucker around?”

The CEO responds, “Performance is important to us…”

Scenario #3: Chicago, a conference room at the headquarters of a national retail chain. An account executive of a manufacturing company finishes a presentation about the status of a current product and then opens the floor to questions.

The first question comes from the vice president of sales: “Your last product was late and the one before that was late. Now you tell us that this one will be late. You know that our sales are seasonal and if we miss that narrow window we lose revenues and market share. When are you guys going to get your act together?”

The account executive responds, “Promptness is important to us…”

Sound familiar? No doubt you’ve probably heard the “_______ is important to us” phrase countless times. It has become boilerplate in the Q&A trade.

The problem with the phrase is that is the blinding flash of the obvious. Of course quality, performance, and promptness are important—each of the questioners just got finished saying that! Therefore, when a presenter states the obvious in a paraphrase, it sounds patronizing to the audience.

Why would any presenter do that to any audience? It is probably a misguided attempt to echo Bill Clinton’s famous words, “I feel your pain.” Mr. Clinton coined the phrase during his run for the presidency in 1992, in response to a question from an AIDS victim. The phrase was to become a campaign slogan that sent a broader message that Mr. Clinton hears and understands every voter.

As presenter, it is vitally important that you send the message that you hear and understand every questioner, but do so without saying that you feel your audience’s pain—especially when, by the challenging nature of the question, you or your company caused the pain in the first place. Instead, paraphrase the key issue neutrally, with no emotional value.

The correct paraphrase for each of the three tough questions above is:

• “What we’re doing to assure quality is…”
• “What we’re doing to improve performance is…”
• “What we’re doing about on time delivery is…”

From this neutral start you can move forward into an efficient answer as to how you are going to address the questioner’s problem. And, regardless of the verbiage, you’d better have an answer, regardless of the paraphrase.

If you want to channel Bill Clinton’s undoubtedly effective presentation style, follow the advice of his campaign slogan, “Put People First.”

Leave the Acting to Actors

by Jerry Weissman

Ever since Texas Governor Rick Perry entered the race to become the Republican presidential candidate in the 2012 election, he’s learned the importance of presentation skills—the hard way. Right after he announced his candidacy in mid-August, he soared to a double digit lead in the public opinion polls, ahead of all the previously-announced candidates. But as you read earlier, after a poor showing in a debate among all the candidates in September, and another poor showing in another debate in October, Mr. Perry’s ratings did a double digit drop to fall behind the front runners, Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.

The criticism of Mr. Perry’s debate appearances—even from other Republicans—was primarily about his halting delivery and lack of energy. NBC’s Saturday Night Live parodied his behavior in a skit in which actor Alex Baldwin did an impression of Mr. Perry bumbling and yawning.

In response, Mr. Perry shifted gears for the next debate and went after Mitt Romney, his chief opponent, with a vengeance, hurling charges at him with aggressive body language and voice. Mr. Romney responded with equal aggression that devolved into a virtual food fight.

Feeling his oats, Mr. Perry continued the animated delivery style in his media appearances and stump speeches. In one particular speech—to a group of conservative supporters in the key primary state of New Hampshire—he let out all the stops, mugging, giggling, winking, and gesturing broadly. An eight-minute video digest of his performance went viral on the Internet with over a million and a quarter views, followed by countless blogs, tweets, and another parody on Saturday Night Live that attributed his dramatic change to alcohol, drugs, or medications.

The video was perfect fodder for Jon Stewart’s satire. He commented, “Best case scenario, that dude's hammered. Worst case scenario, that is Perry sober and every time we've seen him previously, he's been hammered.” Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post was more balanced, questioning whether Mr. Perry’s speech was “Playful or plain odd.” In my opinion, it was the former. Mr. Perry was not under the influence, but was overcompensating in response to the earlier criticism.

His shift in delivery style was reminiscent of Al Gore’s reversals in his debates with George W. Bush during the 2000 election campaign. In the first of their encounters, Mr. Gore repeatedly expressed disdain for Mr. Bush with frowns, eye rolls, head shakes, and sighs, but this arrogant behavior immediately boomeranged. The television producers had a camera isolated on Mr. Gore for reaction shots, and their directors edited the videotape of his expressions into a rapid-cut sequence. When the news broadcasts ran the sequence, public and professional criticism rained down on the vice president. In response, Mr. Gore made a sharp about face and, in the second debate, came out like a lamb. During the 90 minutes, Mr. Gore expressed agreement with his opponent seven times on major issues. (You can see this “sigh” sequence in my DVD, In the Line of Fire.)

The lesson for Mr. Gore, Mr. Perry, and you is to be natural, be yourself. Don’t try to perform when you present. Instead, consider every presentation a series of person-to-person conversations.

As Mr. Perry said in response to all the ado about the video, “I've probably given 1,000 speeches. There are some that have been probably boring, some that have been animated, some that have been in between.”

Be in between. Be yourself. Leave the acting to actors.

This post also appears on Forbes.com.

How NOT to Look Presidential

Against the backdrop of the shifting sands of public opinion polls that show former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain’s numbers surging and Texas Governor Rick Perry’s falling, the gloves came off in last night’s Republican Presidential debate in Las Vegas, broadcast live on CNN. Mr. Cain and Mitt Romney, the current front runner, were the primary targets in what degenerated into a grudge match.

The attacks came from all sides. At first, all the candidates went after Mr. Cain and his 9-9-9 tax plan. Then Rick Santorum, trailing the pack in last place, went after Mr. Romney and his health care plan. Soon after, Mr. Perry, who was trying to regain his momentum and to counter criticism of his weak debating style in previous debates, went after Mr. Romney on immigration policy and conservative position, and he did so with a vengeance. Mr. Romney gave back as good as he got, but their sharp exchanges—expressed with aggressive verbiage and gestures—were charged with animosity, personal attacks, and repeated interruptions. Moderator Anderson Cooper could barely control the cross talk, let alone the format.

Today’s Wall Street Journal review of The Rare Find, a new book about the search for skilled people, describes the importance of “serenity in the face of adversity.”  That quality is also an aspect of “presidential,” but the adjective was not applicable to the candidates vying for that office last night. Even Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and perennial presidential candidate, who has been there, done that, said in his closing remarks that “maximizing bickering” was probably not the best way to get to the White House. John King, the CNN political analyst, took Mr. Gingrich’s observation one step further. In his post mortem commentary, Mr. King said that the clear winner of the debate was Barack Obama.

Yesterday was not a good day for Governor Rick Perry in his quest to be the Republican candidate for president. He awakened to the news that he had dropped to third place in the NBC News/Marist public opinion poll for the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus, 15 points behind front runner Mitt Romney; and even further to a distant fifth place in the same poll for the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary, a whopping 38 points behind Mr. Romney—and this only hours before he was to meet Mr. Romney and the other Republican candidates in that state’s debate.

Compounding Mr. Perry’s woes, later in the morning Mr. Romney received the endorsement of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the man who, until his withdrawal from the race last week, was considered far and wide to be a serious candidate himself. And then evening fell, and so did Mr. Perry’s fortunes. The New York Times coverage of the debate reported that:

In the days leading up to the debate, Mr. Perry aggressively challenged Mr. Romney and accused him of waffling on conservative principles. But he brought almost none of the criticism to the debating stage and went for long stretches without being recognized by the debate moderators or trying to insert himself into the conversation.

When moderator Charlie Rose did recognize Mr. Perry with a question about his economic plan, he replied,

… it doesn't make any difference whether it's "Obamacare," whether it's Dodd-Frank, or whether it's the tax burden, a president, particularly with the plan that I'm going to be laying out over the next three days -- and I'm not going to lay it out all for you tonight. You know, Mitt's had six years to be working on a plan; I've been in this for about eight weeks.

A participant in a debate, particularly a candidate for the highest office in the land—but also anyone in business—cannot defer answers to the burning question of the moment; nor can that person claim insufficient time to prepare. Readiness to act and willingness to go the extra mile are essential elements of leadership. Governor Perry then punctuated his non-answer with this digression:

But clearly, we're going to be focused on initially the energy industry in this country and making America again independent and clearly the place where domestic energy needs to be produced from.

All of which prompted Alex Castellanos, the Republican analyst for CNN, to observe in his debate post-mortem commentary:

Obviously, his campaign decided that we’re going to simplify things for our candidate. We’re going to give him one idea: energy equals jobs, and we’re going to let him be quiet the rest of the time and get through the debate that way.

The last debate, the excuse was made, well, he was standing up all the debate long and he got tired. So this debate should’ve been his debate, he was sitting down. I think next time, he’s going to have to get a mattress…

Then Mr. Castellanos added,

…because there was no energy, no fire

Leadership also requires high energy and a fire in the belly. As you read earlier, Mr. Perry’s poor responses to questions in the previous debate cost him his lead in the public opinion polls. The reversal was a hollow echo of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 and its reverberations in 2011that the Wall Street Journal described as “a Michele Bachmann bounce and a Tim Pawlenty plunge, a Herman Cain climb and a Rick Perry plummet.” Last night’s performance could cost Mr. Perry even more.

Politics Provides Presentation Lessons

by Jerry Weissman

The rollercoaster race for the Republican nominee for president in the 2012 election has produced dizzying rises and precipitous falls for Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. Although struggling to right their listing campaigns, they are both still in play—along with Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and last week’s candidate du jour, Herman Cain. With no clear leader, however, the GOP faithful and the media are looking for yet another fresh face. This week’s candidate du jour—after a rousing rally-the-party-and-bash-Obama speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California—is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

 

Mr. Christie has yet to declare officially, but this has not stopped a deluge of opinions and advice from diverse factions within the party, from the other candidates, and from the media. These opinions range from serious considerations about Mr. Christie’s positions on major issues to silly prattle about his weight. Sitting in the middle of these two polar opposites is the more urgent compressed time factor. In the next two weeks, there will be two more nationally-televised debates among the declared candidates. In three months, with three major holidays intervening, the first primary elections will take place. Mr. Christie has yet to develop position papers, assemble a funding committee, or build a campaign organization. All these risk factors have prompted Mr. Christie’s supporters—among them Ari Fleischer, the former Bush White House press secretary—to urge him not to run. In a blog post on CNN, Mr. Fleischer identified several pitfalls—each of which has application to business and to presentations. Mr. Fleisher’s words about Mr. Christie are in italics, the lessons for you are in regular font:

• Does he know the issues? Debate preparation is time-intensive -- and that means time he's not raising money, returning calls, or hitting the campaign trail.

Presentation preparation is time-intensive, too, yet presenters all too often relegate theirs to the eleventh hour, after their email, phone calls, and meetings.

• One False Step: Everything he does will be magnified by the media, turning small stumbles into giant falls. Just as they're hyping his candidacy now, the press will overhype his (inevitable) mistakes the moment he declares.

In this day and age of Sarbanes-Oxley, the market and the media are unforgiving of corporate mistakes. One small misstep can tank a stock. On the other hand, slips in presentations are forgivable. It’s the human factor. When a presenter stumbles, the audience—who has been there, done that—can relate and be accepting.

• He didn't return my call: In the aftermath of an announcement, he'll get flooded with calls from important people who want to talk to him and his not-yet-existent campaign staff…But when no one returns their calls, because there is no organization and no time, it won't take long for grumbling to begin.

Just as politicians must be responsive to their supporters and the media, so must presenters. But unlike politicians who are not always responsive to questions, every presenter must answer every question from every audience member.

• He gave his word: Christie has already said he won't run. If he changes his mind now, what does it say about his willingness to change his mind on other issues, once his word is given?

Politicians—and lovers and shoppers—can get away with changing their minds, business people cannot. Consistency of message is critical.

by Jerry Weissman

In a prior post about Representative Michelle Bachmann’s presentations, you read how she recovered from her stumble of speaking to the wrong camera during her televised response to President Obama’s State of the Union in January by imposing an iron fist in her management of media relations. But now, with her presidential aspirations being severely challenged by Texas Governor Rick Perry, Ms. Bachmann has stumbled again.

She just released a new campaign video with extremely low production values: standing in front of a cheesy plastic plant, she speaks directly into the camera but her voice sounds thin and distant by an evidently misplaced microphone.  The New York Times report of the video called it “a metaphor for a presidential campaign increasingly perceived as struggling financially and organizationally.”

Her media troubles continued when Ed Rollins, the veteran political campaign guru who made his mark as the manager of President Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign, resigned as Ms. Bachmann’s manager for “health reasons,” but then proceeded to criticize her in the media. The Times story added:

On MSNBC, he [Mr. Rollins] called her vaccine-mental retardation comments a “mistake,” something Mrs. Bachmann has not conceded; and on another occasion he averred that she lacked “the ability or the resources” to continue her campaign beyond Iowa…

Referring to a news photograph of her during a visit to a meat-cutting business on Tuesday that some thought made her look unpresidential, he said, “I’m not calling up and saying, ‘You should not be in meat lockers.’ ”

Mr. Rollins’ split from Ms. Bachmann is an echo of his resignation as the campaign manager of Ross Perot’s bid for the presidency in 1992.  According to the Times report then, “Mr. Rollins said the prime source of disagreement was over the nature and timing of an advertising campaign for Mr. Perot.”

Ms. Bachmann is diametrically opposed to the theories of Karl Marx, but the 19th century socialist once made an observation that is applicable here, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."