Twice in about a week Iâve reported on Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhornâs âfoot-in-mouth problem.â In the latest blog, I cited four times over approximately six months where Buckhornâs choice of words have been called into question by some people.
While some comments, like the one where he basically blamed a 14-year-old who was gunned down in broad daylight for his own shooting, were more egregious than others. They all led me to the same conclusion â Buckhornâs brain-to-mouth filter seems to be on the fritz.
Near the end of my latest blog I wrote Buckhorn âneeds a better handler.â
Monday morning I received a phone call from a reader who asked not to be identified (no, itâs not Buckhornâs âhandler.â) This person was not happy with the aforementioned statement and suggested that instead of deflecting blame to Buckhornâs staff for not keeping him quiet, I should put it squarely where it belongs â on Buckhorn.
As a journalist/reporter/blogger Iâm quite careful about changing wording in a story just because someone cried foul. I canât go changing every word-choice just because someone thought it would be better stated differently. If itâs something factually inaccurate or a grammatical or spelling error, the change is a no-brainer. But this had more nuance. Even Buckhorn fans would probably agree he sometimes picks the wrong words.
The term âhandlerâ is regularly used in the media when referring to political gaffes. Elected officials and candidates have actual paid people whose job it is to guide messages. So when their guy or gal slips up itâs a kick to the shins for those staffers.
My knee-jerk reaction was to take the âhandlerâ reference out because this reader is right â they were Buckhornâs words and the onus should fall on him.
But I chose not to change my wording and the reasons deserve their own spotlight.
First off, referring to a âhandlerâ isnât necessarily a slight to any one person. There are any number of staff members who could guide Buckhorn into crafting better messages. But even that doesnât matter. Those people probably have told him to calm down on the abrasive language and probably smack their heads every time he fails to get the message.
Instead, what an insult to Buckhornâs ability as a leader to say he needs an astute person to make sure he doesnât wind up with a foot in his mouth? If the mayor of one of Floridaâs largest cities canât figure out that insulting the populace of a tourist-drawing city is a bad idea, maybe he should re-think the whole mayor thing.
An elected official needs to be able to craft positive messages while still asserting him/herself as a strong leader. Buckhorn has the strong leader thing down to a science as I noted in a former column about the Pier in St. Pete. Buckhornâs staunch ability to get stuff done is a thing of beauty. But he needs to find a balance between the two.
Thatâs where handlers come in. And if Buckhorn needs better handlers or more handlers, well, that doesnât look so good for him.
Second, as much as Iâd like political âhandlersâ to not be a thing, they are. Iâd love for all elected officials and candidates for office to just say whatever theyâre thinking. Itâs those thoughts that drive policy and at least then weâd have a better idea of what weâre in for.
Iâd love for these people to know how to handle themselves without a PR person in tow. Iâd love for the PR people to be able to answer media inquiries instead of coaching their boss on the doâs and donâts of press conferences.
But thatâs just not the way it is. So, in the meantime Iâm just going to keep calling out the stilly remarks while recognizing that team Buckhorn is, in fact, a team. Heâs not just one person. Heâs an office. Like it or not, when he screws up itâs on the whole team.
So, that blog still says he needs a better handler, but it also still lists a scathing report of just a random sampling of Buckhornisms. It also explains âelected officials are expected to act with at least some moderate sense of decorum.â
Let me just add: That should be with or without a handler.