Feb 232017
 

The Strategies and Techniques of the Elite for the Manipulation of Public Opinion and Society

Strategies Of Manipulation

1. The strategy of distraction

The prime element of social control is the strategy of distraction consisting of deviating the public attention from the important problems and from the mutations decided by the political and economic elites by means of the flooding technique or the continuous inundation of distractions and insignificant information.

The strategy of distraction is equally indispensable to prevent the public from getting interested in the essential knowledge in areas of science, economy, psychology, neurology and cybernetics.

“To maintain the public attention distracted, away form the true social problems, captivated by subjects of no real importance. To maintain the public busy, busy, without any time to think; going back to the farm with the other animals.”

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also known as “problem-reaction-solution”. It creates a problem, a foreseen “situation” to provoke a certain reaction in the public in order to make this one the demanding force of measures that are desired to be accepted.For example: to let urban violence develop and intensify, or to organize bloody terrorist attempts in order for the public to demand laws of security or police-oriented ones in detriment of freedom. Or also: to create an economic crisis to make accepted the backward movement of social rights and the breaking down of public services as a necessary evil.

3. The strategy of degradation

To make accepted an unacceptable measure it is sufficient to apply it progressively, in a “degraded” manner, over a duration of 10 years. It is in this way that radically new socio-economic conditions have been imposed during the years 1980 to 1990. Massive unemployment, lacking, flexibility, relocation, salaries that no longer secure a decent income, so many changes that would have provoked a revolution should they be abruptly applied.

4. The strategy of differing

Another way of making accepted an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful but necessary”, obtaining the agreement of the public in the moment for the future application. It is easier to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate one. Firstly, because the effort is not deployed immediately.Next, because the public, the people, have always the tendency to naïvely hope that “all will go better tomorrow” and that the demanded sacrifice may be avoided. Anyway, this allows more time for the public to be accustomed to the idea and to accept it with resignation when the moment comes. Recent example: the move to the Euro and the loss of their economic and monetary sovereignty have been accepted by the European countries from 1994 to 1995 for their application in the year 2001. Another example: the multilateral agreements ofALCA (or FTAA) that the United States have imposed in the year 2001 to the countries of all the American continent (Central and South America) in spite of their reticence, conceding an application and the coming into force in the year 2005.

5. To address the public as children of younger age

The majority of the publicity “spots” addresses the public at large with the use of a discourse, arguments, personages, and a tone particularly infantile, many times near the weak, as if the spectator were a child of younger age or a mental handicapped. The more it intends to seek the deception of the spectator or listener, the more it is its tendency to adopt an infantile tone. Why? If it is addressed to a person as if he or she had 12 year of age, then, by reason of suggestion, he or she would also have, with a certain probability, a response or reaction that is lacking of a critical sense same as is the case of a person of 12 years of age.”

6. To utilize an emotional aspect rather than a reflection

To make use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for making a short-circuit to the rational analysis, and hence to the critical sense of individuals. Besides, the utilization of the emotional registry allows us to open an access door to the unconscious to implant or to insert ideas, wishes, fears or worries, pulsations, or to induce behaviors.

7. To maintain the public in ignorance and stupidity

To make it in a way that the public is unable to comprehend the technologies and the methods utilized for their control and slavery. “The quality of the education given to the lower social classes must be the poorest or the most mediocre possible, in a way that the breach of ignorance that isolates the lower classes from the upper social classes must be and remain incomprehensible to the lower social classes.”

8. To promote in the public complacency with mediocrity

To promote in the public the idea that being stupid, vulgar and uneducated is “cool”.

9. To replace revolt with guilt

To make the individual believe that he himself is the only responsible for his misfortune, the cause of the insufficiency of his intelligence, of his capacities, or his efforts. Thus, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual self-devaluates and self-blames, which generates a depressive state, one of its effects is the inhibition of action. And without action, there is no revolution!

10. To know individuals better than they know themselves

In the course of the last 50 years, the accelerated advances of science have generated a growing breach between the knowledge of the public and that one possessed and utilized by the leading elites. Thanks to biology, neurology and applied psychology, the “system” has achieved an advanced knowledge of the human being, both physically and psychologically. The system has been able to know the common individual better than what the individual know about himself. This means that in the majority of cases, the system possesses a greater control and a greater power over individuals than what individuals have over themselves.

 

Feb 072017
 

I wonder if the parents of these Anti-First Amendment brats know that they’re rioting in the expensive designer clothes they get them on Christmas?

Apparently, Soros pays his rioters very well

Is that a pair of L.L. Bean Duck boots on the Anti-First’er in the background? Don’t they know a L.L. Bean family member donated to a Pro-Trump SuperPAC?

 
Source…
H/T Reddit

Feb 022017
 
Rep. Alcee Hastings (Democrat-FL) recently introduced a bill that would enable to US to invade Iran for the stated purpose of preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bill Introduced In Congress To Pre-Emptively Attack Iran

Earlier last month, Congressman Alcee Hastings (Democrat-FL) introduced H.J.Res. 10 or the “Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution.” Taken at face value, the bill appears to allow the President to authorize military force against Iran. Yet, the text of the bill goes further – it authorizes the president to launch a “pre-emptive” war with the Middle Eastern nation without requiring Congressional approval and without the necessity of Iran having actually committed any action that would warrant a full-scale invasion. Specifically, the text of the bill states that: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

H.J.Res. 10 is a joint resolution in the United States Congress.

A joint resolution is often used in the same manner as a bill. If passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and signed by the President, it becomes a law. Joint resolutions are also used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln

 Political  Comments Off on The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln
Jan 192017
 
Democrats haven’t been this mad since Republicans freed the slaves.

The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln

The first inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States was held on March 4, 1861, on the East Portico of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.. The inauguration marked the commencement of the first term of Abraham Lincoln as President and the only term of Hannibal Hamlin as Vice President. The presidential oath of office was administered to Lincoln by Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States.

This was the first time Lincoln appeared in public with a beard, which he had begun growing after being elected president, in response to a written request by 11-year-old Grace Bedell. This effectively made him the first President to have any facial hair beyond sideburns.

On Inauguration Day, Lincoln’s procession to the Capitol was surrounded by heavily armed cavalry and infantry, providing an unprecedented amount of protection for the President-elect as the nation stood on the brink of war. During the 16 weeks between Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election and Inauguration Day, seven slave states had declared their secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.

Train ride to Washington

An entourage of family and friends left Springfield, Illinois with Lincoln on February 11 to travel by train to Washington, D.C. for the inauguration. This group including his wife, three sons, and brother-in-law, as well as John G. Nicolay, John M. Hay, Ward Hill Lamon, David Davis, Norman B. Judd, and Edwin Vose Sumner.

For the next ten days, he traveled widely throughout the country, with stops in Indianapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany, New York City, and south to Philadelphia, where on the afternoon of February 21, he pulled into Kensington Station. Lincoln took an open carriage to the Continental Hotel, with almost 100,000 spectators waiting to catch a glimpse of the President-elect. There he met Mayor Alexander Henry, and delivered some remarks to the crowd outside from a hotel balcony. Lincoln continued on to Harrisburg. Then, because of an alleged assassination conspiracy, Lincoln traveled through Baltimore, Maryland on a special train in the middle of the night before finally completing his journey in Washington.

Source…

 

Thank You Obama!

 Political  Comments Off on Thank You Obama!
Jan 172017
 

Thank You Obama

This is the face of a charismatic but incompetent failure that presided over the fall of the Democrat Party. He helped his party lose 919 State legislature seats, lose control of Congress, lose control of Governorships across the nation, and help usher in the Trump era.

And somehow, a day from now, 4 years from now, 20 years from now the Democrats will still look back at him as a hero.

For that we sincerely Thank You Obama!

 

Jan 172017
 
After The WaPost’s Latest Shot, It’s Time To Call “Fake News” By Its Real Name “Weaponized Journalism”

It's Time To Call ‘Fake News’ By Its Real Name ‘Weaponized Journalism’

A Washington Post fake news article misrepresenting the “firing” of the head of the DC National Guard makes clear mainstream media has now weaponized the news.

Defying any sense of journalistic integrity and loyalty to the truth, the Washington Post did it again — publishing Fake News for clicks — which had the desired effect of worldwide outrage to suit a tightly-defined political agenda.

This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.

On Friday, WaPo published an article claiming President-elect Donald Trump fired Washington, D.C., National Guard Major General Errol R. Schwartz — just in time for the inauguration — and that he would be forced to leave his post as soon as the president takes the oath of office.

But that isn’t true.

“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz told the Post. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

WaPo’s erroneous reporting included a statement from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who lamented, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”

“I’m a soldier,” the Post quoted Schwartz. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”

But WaPo left out a number of critical points — and horrendously slanted the rest — about this “firing” of the head of the D.C. National Guard.

That D.C. position — unlike the equivalent for states — is appointed by the president, not by the Pentagon, as the Post suggested, nor by any branch of the military. Also, the article glaringly omitted any statement from the Trump transition team, an inexcusable offense, considering it later emerged Schwartz had been offered to keep his position through the end of Inauguration Day — it was Schwartz who turned down the offer, preferring instead to vacate the role at 12 noon, when Trump will be sworn in.

Of course, the blatant misinformation presented by the Post seemed so juicy, countless corporate outlets parroted the claim. Thus this Fake News rippled around the planet earning the scorn of millions who believed Trump must have lost all sensibility for firing a man who had diligently performed his duties since his appointment to the post by former President George W. Bush — during a potentially dangerous event.

This also spawned a number of rumors — with raucous protests planned for Inauguration Day, and the week before, why would the incoming president fire the man in charge of security? Isn’t this a preposterous decision on Trump’s part? What is Trump thinking?

Like previous viral stories — at this point, one would be hard-pressed to deem them ‘news articles’ — the Washington Post published faulty information and subsequently began backtracking.

Notably, in each case, after erroneous information went viral worldwide, edits after publication go largely unnoticed by most of the populace. While retractions and post-publication editor’s notes sometimes appear on WaPo’s articles they are orders of magnitude less popular than the original story and, in this instance, the firing of Schwartz story has only been appended in content — no editor’s note yet graces the top or bottom of the article. (The original version can be found here.)

Any news organization actually practicing journalism would tell you this is egregiously irresponsible.

Except, it’s beginning to appear the Washington Post publishes misinformation and Fake News intentionally — knowing any subsequent disputation of its claims won’t gather as much steam as the original publication.

A distinct reason exists why this would be the case — Brandolini’s law.

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant, keenly observed in 2013 — the Post knows this, and has been manipulating public perception exactly this way.

It was, after all, the Washington Post who initiated the altogether ironic war on Fake News — first turning from journalistic duty in the publication of several items blaming disinformation for the downfall of, well, nearly everything.

WaPo published an ‘article’ about supposed blacklist of over 200 outlets a nascent and seemingly prepubescent website, PropOrNot, had decided were Russian propagandists — linked either directly to the Russian government or had haplessly joined the effort by reporting Fake News during the election.

Literally nothing in that Post article was true. None of the claims were backed by evidence, no research or investigation had been performed, nothing. WaPo just printed the claims of PropOrNot and inserted plausible deniability by failing to link to the list or site. A subsequent retraction at the top of the page was akin to plugging a crack in a dam that’s already burst — damage to many reputable and award-winning outlets listed had already been done.

Previously:
RED ALERT: Head Of DC National Guard Removed From Command During Inauguration

 

Source… Claire Bernish  at The Free Thought Project

California Decriminalises Child Prostitution

 Political  Comments Off on California Decriminalises Child Prostitution
Jan 042017
 
A controversial California law, now in effect, will prevent minors charged with prostitution from being arrested by state authorities.

California Decriminalises Child Prostitution

An unbelievable though ostensibly well-meaning law in California took effect at midnight January 1st. Unfortunately, the bill could have some very unpleasant consequences for the very group it seeks to protect. SB-1322, authored by State Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and passed by the California legislature’s Democratic “super majority” in September, essentially legalizes the prostitution of minors. According to the text of the legislation, while “existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution” the bill “would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions.” The bill also allows police to take a minor caught violating into temporary custody only if leaving the minor unattended poses an immediate threat to their health of safety. Another controversial California law that targets prostitution has also taken effect. SB-1129, authored by Bill Monning (D-Carmel), repeals mandatory minimum sentences for prostitution offenses – further decriminalizing the practice for both adults and minors.

The author and supporters of SB-1322 have argued that legislation would improve the minors’ chances for rehabilitation by taking them out of the juvenile detention system and instead place them in the care of Social Services. Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), who voted for the bill, said that “this is the beginning of us thinking differently about the problem.” Though the premise that the children are victims and not “prostitutes” in the same sense as an adult is sound, decriminalizing the practice for minors is, instead, more likely to empower those who exploit them. As the LA Times noted, the legislation “would prevent law enforcement from helping vulnerable children who often don’t see themselves as victims, run away from unsecured shelters and remain tied to their traffickers through complicated psychological and emotional bonds.” Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley also expressed such reservations about the measure, saying that “it just opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse.”

Another problem with the bill is its dependency on the state’s social services as a solution to the problem of child prostitution. California’s social services are notoriously under-funded after the state’s budget crisis led its government to cut over $1 billion in program funding. $121 million of those cuts directly targeted child welfare and foster care. This bill has legalized child prostitution without offering any alternative programs or funding to help “rehabilitate” young victims of sex trafficking and will only further This bill has legalized child prostitution without offering any alternative programs or funding to help “rehabilitate” young victims of sex trafficking and will only further overburden state-run child welfare programs.

“Right now the best way to get these young women help, the best way to rescue them from this lifestyle is by keeping law enforcement involved through the ability to arrest,” said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto). “Maybe in a few years from now, when we are doing better job at both the state and local level, we will better equipped and ready for this bill because services to young women will be readily available. But we are not there yet.”

Though the bill may have been well-intentioned, its consequences are more likely to harm, rather than help, the state’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Senate Bill No. 1322

 

Source…

Senate Report: Planned Parenthood Broke Laws Against Profiting From Fetal Tissue

 Political  Comments Off on Senate Report: Planned Parenthood Broke Laws Against Profiting From Fetal Tissue
Dec 222016
 

Planned Parenthood Broke Laws Against Profiting From Fetal Tissue

According to a new Senate Report, Planned Parenthood affiliates broke the laws against profiting from fetal tissue sales and knowingly turned a blind eye to the problem. The report recommends the Justice Department investigate Planned Parenthood and bring charges.

Following an investigation into the practice of selling the body parts of aborted babies and potentially breaking federal laws governing the practice, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is recommending that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics caught selling the body parts to face criminal charges.

Chairman Grassley is referring several Planned Parenthood affiliates and companies involved in sales of aborted baby parts , as well as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, to the FBI and the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.

“I don’t take lightly making a criminal referral. But, the seeming disregard for the law by these entities has been fueled by decades of utter failure by the Justice Department to enforce it,” Grassley said. “And, unless there is a renewed commitment by everyone involved against commercializing the trade in aborted fetal body parts for profit, then the problem is likely to continue.”

Grassley’s referral follows the completion of a Senate Judiciary Committee majority staff analysis of more than 20,000 pages of documents provided voluntarily by the organizations and companies involved. While the impetus for the investigation was the release of a series of videos regarding transfers of fetal tissue by the Center for Medical Progress, the committee’s analysis and findings are based strictly on the documents obtained independently from tissue procurement companies and Planned Parenthood.

Here are conclusions from the committee’s report:

•    Despite the clear legislative history of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, the executive branch across multiple administrations has failed to enforce the law’s safeguards.

•    Since 2010, three companies – Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.; StemExpress, LLC; and Novogenix Laboratories, LLC (Novogenix has since gone out of business) – have paid affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to acquire aborted fetuses, and then sold the fetal tissue to their respective customers at substantially higher prices than their documented costs.

•    The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) initially had a policy in place to ensure its affiliates were complying with the law, but the affiliates failed to follow its fetal tissue reimbursement policy.  When PPFA learned in 2011 of this situation, PPFA cancelled the policy rather than exercise oversight to bring the affiliates back into compliance.   Thus, PPFA not only turned a blind eye to the affiliates’ violations of its fetal tissue policy, but also altered its own oversight procedures enabling those affiliates’ practices to continue unimpeded.

•    The cost analyses provided by affiliates of Planned Parenthood for America lack sufficient documentation and rely on unreasonably broad and vague claims of costs for “the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of” fetal tissue.  Planned Parenthood attorneys acknowledge that the affiliates had failed to follow procedures put in place to ensure compliance with the law.  In addition, the cost analyses were only performed long after the fact and at the insistence of the committee.

The full report details the long history of the controversy surrounding human fetal tissue research and the bipartisan legislative approach taken to resolve the issue at the time, as well as the subsequent lack of enforcement.

As the report explains, “Support for the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act was premised on the idea that the ban on buying or selling fetal tissue would be a safeguard against the development for a market for human fetuses.  Tragically, the executive branch has either failed or simply refused to enforce that safeguard.  As a result, contrary to the intent of the law, companies have charged thousands of dollars for specimens removed from a single aborted fetus; they have claimed the fees they charged only recovered acceptable costs when they had not, in fact, conducted any analysis of their costs when setting the fees; and their post hoc accounting rationalizations invoked indirect and tenuously-related costs in an attempt to justify their fees.”

Source…

From page 55 of the report:
From page 55 of the report

 

The Tale Of The Bronze Rat

 Funny, Political  Comments Off on The Tale Of The Bronze Rat
Nov 262016
 

the-tale-of-the-bronze-ratA tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display, he discovers a detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. Strangely, he feels drawn to it. The sculpture is so interesting, realistic and compelling that he picks it up and asks the shop owner its price.

“Twelve dollars for the rat, sir,” says the shop owner, “and a thousand dollars more for the story of its frightening secret.”

“You can keep the story, old man,”the tourist replies with a sneer, “but I’ll take the rat.”

The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step behind him. Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come out and follow him. By the time he’s walked two blocks, at least a hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout. He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars. Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and when he sees the waterfront in the distance at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt.

No matter how fast he runs, the huge swarm of rats–now not just thousands, but millions–stay just behind, squealing hideously as he nears the water. By the time he sees the water’s edge, a trail of rats twelve city blocks long is behind him. Rushing toward the water, he makes a mighty leap, jumping up onto a light post… grasping it with one arm as with the other he hurls the bronze rat into San Francisco Bay as far as he can heave it. Pulling his legs up and clinging tightly to the light post, he watches in both horror and amazement as the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the Bay, where they drown in huge numbers and disappear into its cold depths… not to be seen again.

Shaken and mumbling to himself about the terrible experience he has just witnessed, he makes his way back to the antique shop where he bought the bronze rat, the seed of a new idea forming in his mind.

“Ah, so you’ve come back for the rest of the story,” says the owner.

“No,” the tourist says in a hope-filled voice, “I was wondering if you might also have a bronze Democrat?”

 

Podesta-Soros Master Plan – How To Take Over America – 2008 And Beyond!

 Political  Comments Off on Podesta-Soros Master Plan – How To Take Over America – 2008 And Beyond!
Nov 252016
 

Podesta-Soros Master Plan

Wikileaks Email ID 59125 exposes John Podesta and George Soros Master Plan on how to take over America in 2008 and beyond!

It’s all there in the memos, the whole scheme… taking over the economy, protracted war, dividing Americans and controlling the media.

Email link: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59125

Email Screenshot:
podesta-soros-master-plan-email

Email Attachments:
2008 Combined Fundraising, Message and Mobilization Plan.doc
NYC meeting 2007 (Final Draft).doc

From 2008 Combined Fundraising, Message and Mobilization Plan.doc:

Memo To: George and Jonathan Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Steve Bing, John Sperling, Michael Vachon From:John Podesta (writing as a private citizen) cc: Anna Burger, Rob McKay and Tom Matzzie Date:October 30, 2007 RE: 2008 COMBINED FUNDRAISING, MESSAGING AND MOBILIZATION PLAN

This memo serves as the follow-up to our September meeting in New York. Coming out of this meeting, I was charged with putting together a more detailed and structured overview of what the combined messaging and voter mobilization elements of an independent expenditure would like in 2008.

Since then, I have met closely with Anna Burger, Rob McKay, Tom Matzzie, Susan McCue, Martin Frost, Stan Greenberg, Paul Begala and others to discuss these questions and flesh out a concrete plan for action in 2008. Tom Matzzie has produced a comprehensive campaign plan and institutional framework for the messaging effort and this memo will draw upon many of his ideas. This planning is on top of the existing work already under way by the America Votes-Catalist-Atlas network on the mobilization side.
I am confident that collectively we have produced a viable and successful model for achieving victory in 2008 (and beyond) built on transparency and full accountability for everyone involved.

To win in 2008 we will need to mount two large campaigns. The first will use national, state and local media to define the issues and narratives that will ultimately shape the election—a progressive “Messaging Campaign.” The second will be a voter contact and mobilization effort in targeted states to move swing voters and mobilize progressive voters—a progressive “Mobilization Campaign.” A successful joint strategy must be developed and executed to connect the messaging component to the ground game.

We suggest that you keep in mind the following strategic goals as we try to develop a framework for electoral activity in 2008:

Create the conditions for a tidal wave against the GOP. The stakes of the election need to fit the historical moment. The country is massively off track. Nothing will change until Bush and his supporters are out and new leaders are in—leaders who will be willing and able to do what is necessary for the country. A likely downturn in the economy, the protracted war in Iraq, rising inequality and Republican resistance to change can help set the stage for widespread gains up and down the ballot in 2008. This must again be a nationalized election in terms of scope and message.

Keep the President’s numbers down and brand all conservative candidates as “Bush Republicans.” Bush’s lame duck status cannot be allowed to create space for the Republicans to claim the mantle of change or conservative principle. The Republican presidential candidate will attempt to be the true heir of Ronald Reagan and may try to position himself as an agent for change, Sarkozy-style. We must continually remind voters that the nominee and all the rest of the Republican candidates are the residual forces of the failed Bush years.

Exploit the particular weaknesses of the Republican presidential nominee. Beyond tying the candidate to Bush, we must not be shy about reminding voters of the personal faults and character limitations of the Republican Party leader. The current crop of candidates is relatively unknown to Americans and will be ripe for definition through serious opposition research and media work. This will not happen organically. It will require sustained pressure and a willingness to play politics by their rules.

Ensure that demographics is destiny. An “emerging progressive majority” is a realistic possibility in terms of demographic and voting patterns. But it is incomplete in terms of organizing and political work. Women, communities of color, and highly educated professionals are core parts of the progressive coalition. Nationally, and in key battleground states, their influence is growing. Latinos and young voters are quickly solidifying in this coalition as well. But many of these voters are new to the process. All of these groups—in addition to working class voters and independents picked up in 2006—will require significant long-term engagement in order to keep them reliably on our side.

Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere— we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.

Set the stage for future progressive actions. All of this electoral activity will be for naught if we do not simultaneously advance a larger vision for why progressive change is necessary and how specific progressive legislation will achieve these goals. Should progressives win in 2008, the next president and Congress will face serious challenges in both cleaning up the mess of the Bush years and moving significant reforms in health care, energy, foreign policy and Iraq, poverty and mobility.

Leave something behind. We should think of investments in 2008 as building blocks for ongoing strategic campaigns and issue work in 2009 and beyond. Simply getting progressives elected will not be enough to maintain the political pressure and support necessary to pass progressive legislation and build a long-term, working majority.
Given the existing work on the voter mobilization side, primarily through the enhanced American Votes-Catalist-Atlas network and ongoing union efforts, most of our discussion in the New York meeting centered on the messaging side. The primary questions raised were: “What is the scope of the messaging campaign?” and “Who is going to run it?”

In this memo, I want to focus in greater detail on the messaging campaign, describe the mobilization effort again, and provide an overview of the governance and linkage between both efforts plus the joint fundraising through a new 527.

…. EXCERPT …..

The Messaging Campaign

The messaging component will be set-up through an existing 501(c)(4), currently named The Campaign to Defend America. This name will be changed when appropriate.

A (c)(4) board, with overlapping but not identical members from the other boards, will control the messaging component. Assuming resolution of some outstanding legal questions, I am prepared to serve as Chairman of the Board for the (c)(4) so long as I can continue to lead CAP/Action Fund. The messaging effort itself will be led by a President with full executive authority along with an executive team of three key individuals described below.

…. EXCERPT …..

• Developing a “Media Nerve Center” to align messaging across TV, radio, print, Internet, single-issue and advocacy organizations, progressive media, surrogates and new media. This “Media Nerve Center” would be connected to the Mobilization Campaign and eventually become a part of the permanent progressive infrastructure to last beyond the 2008 election.

…. EXCERPT …..
NYC meeting 2007

Controlling the Dialogue, Messaging and Media

If the structure of voter contact/voter mobilization is relatively mature, the structure of using outside forces to control the messaging and the debate in the campaign is almost nonexistent.

Ever since the 1996 Clinton campaign discovered the soft money loophole in the campaign finance law to run “issue ads” that pummeled Bob Dole before he even got the nomination, national and local television campaigns have been waged using non-federal dollars. The McCain-Feingold law closed down the loophole Clinton used to run that advertising through the DNC, but a new avenue for soft dollars to be spent on advertising quickly was found through spending by so-called 527 organizations. The FEC was in the process of narrowing this new loophole when the Supreme Court, this June, blew a hole in the McCain-Feingold laws to permit 527’s, unions, corporations, trade associations and others to run “issue ads” right up until Election Day.

The Media Fund in 2004 was built on this theory of soft money advertising and the notion that the candidate would be without resources from the spring through the convention.**

sehrman@earthlink is the original recipient of the memo; much speculation is in play over the identity of this poster – who only appears once in all the Wikileaks files – but this may in fact be a rare sighting of the elusive DC Power Maven and Hillary’s Mentor, SARA EHRMAN

Sara currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Sara’s extensive career has provided her with a dynamic and unique knowledge of the regional issues in the Middle East.

Sara has held several key positions over the years, including Legislative Assistant to two U.S. Senators, Co-Director on the McGovern Presidential Campaign, Director of Federal Affairs for the Governor of Puerto Rico, Political Director for the American Israel Public Committee, Founder/Director of the Texas/Israel Exchange, Deputy Political Director for Clinton for President and a member of the Clinton/Gore Transition team, and Deputy Political Director of the Democratic National Committee.

This was a good strategy on their part. Unfortunately, their nominee was Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician possibly of all time, and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, who is not actually a politician, is not actually a Republican, and cannot be accused of being in concert with the Bush doctrine.

 
ref