My latest non-appearance

Got a call today from the PR firm that Esquire uses. I interact with them only when I publish something.

It was an 1130 call saying CNN wanted 15 minutes in studio to comment on the "war czar" thing, but I had to do it by 1530 to generate a soundbite--yes, that hated word--that would run several times tonight.

It wasn't possible for me here in DC. Morning at Pentagon interviewing somebody for next Esquire piece and then afternoon at State Department being interviewed for a "State 2025" project Secy Rice is pursuing. The blue-ribbon group includes Gingrich (he's everywhere!), Pickering, etc. The staff has interviewed Scowcroft and others of his level, now me (admittedly flattering).

Why I got asked by State matters to me: on the basis of my writings and briefs (my elderly handler said a retired general friend of his sent him a CSPAN DVD).

How I get the offer from CNN (from a very nice guy there who's been good to me in the past) intrigues me less: the PR company just pushed me. They don't push last week, no invite. They push this week, invites comes. My comments are important this week because CNN reminded that I exist (no issue with CNN, as they're all like this--save Kudlow, who really does read the blog). The PR guys push this week only because Esquire asks.

I'm not being asked to express my thinking, but to comment on current events. The article's content is meaningless, just its timing. I am to take such opportunities to make myself a go-to media guy. Good for career and all.

Except, whenever I go on TV just to comment instead of to unveil, it feels pointless.

I don't want to be famous, I want to be influential. Influence comes with ideas, not appearances. Appearances are the little-mind killer: you tend to get stupider with each one. Visions and grand strategy don't parse out in soundbites.

Yes, I want to make Esquire happy, but I also want to give it the best consistent product over time.

And I do that by remaining true to the visionary's track.

Visionaries don't comment and grand strategists don't opine. They reveal. They construct. They inspire. They shape.

Talking heads fill time.

I don't want to fill time.

Call it right-sizing my career for maximum trajectory and distance, not height.

I'm also feeling lazy, I guess. Too little sleep last night cause of early flight, plus Vonne and I caught "Grindhouse" last night. Unlike critics, we liked Rodriguez's "Terror Planet" even more than Quentin's "Death Proof" (also great).

Good excuse, though. Flat Daddy only goes so far with the kids (Flat Daddy no pitch with Son #2, nor train for the mile with Son #1).

Flat Hubby is a complete non-starter.

Though a Fathead of Favre in the garage would be cool.

Comments

[Mike Frager]

Larry Kudlow is one of the only people on a major television news show who has not been completely engulfed by hype and spin. He is a rare voice of sanity in an insane world. Also, his on-air debates are actually interesting and useful, that can't be said for many of the other programs.

Forget about CNN, they have joined FOX News as being pure trash churners. Kudlow has a good positive ideology (pro-growth) while Lou Dobbs has the most negative and scornful (not to mention off-base) ideologies I've ever seen.

(Warning Rant Follows) Lou Dobbs is one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen on a major news program. He is a millionaire that constantly harps on a so called "war on the middle class" that is purely in his imagination. His solution, blame China and crack down on (illegal) immigrants. Ya, that'll work. His ideas would never pass Tom's test of "Where exactly are you going with this?" He needs to be retired so we can be spared his silly righteous indignation.

I miss the days when the ideologies of the news anchors were more veiled and they focused more on evidence. Anyway, good night and good luck... with your soundbites.