The MSM’s battle plan
Commenter “southern James” has some observations on the WaPo/Perry/n-word thread that I think worth highlighting:
We all ain’t seen nothing yet. The MSM is going to pull out every possible trick and artifice and propaganda talking points, which will be pounded over and over again until it is perceived by a significant percentage of the populace as the truth ”” in order to try to get this failed President re-elected. “Didja hear that Palin said “she can see Russia from her porch, as her answer to how qualified she is in foreign affairs!!” ”¦.”Yeah, I did ”“ I mean, WTF, Dude? Is she, like, a moron or something?”
“What do you think of that Perry guy?” “Hmm, not sure”¦.wasn’t there something a few month ago about him and the N-word they had on some rock on a ranch of his is or something”¦.I heard that he is kind of a racist.” “Oh”¦.wow”.
Don’t think they can’t do it, either. Don’t let yourself assume that the general public is in any way on top of things, based on exchanges in little echo chambers such as this one.
Whoever gets the GOP nomination will be in for the worst sliming, and repeated talking point attacks, any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.
President Zero cannot run on his record or on any more Hopey Changey Bulls”“t. And he knows it and the MSM knows it. He is already doing nothing but running for re-election ”“ and it appears to be based on two themes: 1) pretending to still be a Washingon outsider ”“ even tho his party controlled the entire govt for his first 2 years, and he has been president for almost three; and 2) class warfare combined with demonization of Repubs.
It would be an absolute landslide loss ”“ worse than what McGovern suffered in 72”¦”¦but for the fact that the GOP candidate is going to be pilliored from every major media outlet, non-stop.
The most depressing thing about all of this is that there’s every reason to think the tactic has a good chance of working. That’s why it’s so popular with the press.
[ADDENDUM: By the way, the brouhaha over the original name of the rock at the hunting camp that Perry’s father leased is similar to problems around the country, such as this one in Utah, which was solved by obliterating the original offensive place name and adopting “Negro Bill Canyon” as its new moniker. Just shows how hard it is to keep pace with the times; should it be rechristened “African-American Bill Canyon” instead?
And is “christened” now an offensive word?]
[ADDENDUM II: In Texas they’re aware that Rick Perry is no racist. But don’t sit on a hot stove till the WaPo mentions it.]
Two words for republicans. Sting operation. The press can be exposed in undeniable lies with malicious intent and have never been more ripe for the picking.
I have rarely felt so overtly cynical: I expect the Obama re-election strategy to focus on race. Race was a gigantic asset in 2008; it is about all they have in 2012. White guilt rides again.
The racist thing has jumped the shark, and so too is the social security scare (people are reluctantly accepting the Ponzi scheme).
The thing for the Alt-media supporting the right is to follow the cash. Check out the amazing story today about Rep. Rosa Dilauro and her husband. She’s in a safe seat in New Haven CT (Yale is in New Haven) and her husband runs a major Democratic polling and political strategy house. She gets gobs of donations and never has to spend them all, so she donates the money to the DNCC which then funds her husbands company.
The dems have been in power so long especially in machine run big cities that most of them have shady deals or looked the other way.
The thing about chasing crooked pols is that you can never be accused of prying into their personal life (e.g. Rep Weiner).
Two words for republicans. Sting operation.
The two words are Breit. Bart.
Cf. Victor Davis Hanson at The Corner. Obama would do a full-blown Jeremiah Wright if he thought he could get away with it. Nevertheless, Hanson’s PJM piece is cautiously optimistic.
The outrageous thing is that we even need to consider what the MSM’s “battle plan” is. That we need to do so speaks eloquently to the MSM’s monolithic support for Red causes.
In principle, one would expect various media sources to lean in various different directions, and thereby to provide some balance to each other. Obviously, the days when one could seriously hope for that are long gone.
Millions of voting sheep continue to be willingly led by their MSM shepherd, who has their interests at heart only as long as it suits the shepherd. They accept being shorn for the ‘common good’, but it has never occurred to them that lamb is on the menu, as is mutton, albeit at a lower price.
Sheep don’t stampede either.
Frankly, the fact that the bias is so evident, pervasive and mundane suggests it will be taken for granted and ignored, as it usually is. I remember Theodore White noting that the media tried to elect Hubert Humphrey President in 1968. I doubt that the media will succeed at anything other than earning themselves an extra portion of the contempt they’ve been earning for years as arrogant cloistered hypocrites. Their bias is more laughable than destructive at this point. Anyone remember Dan Rather and how he single-handedly prevented the re-election of President G.W. Bush.
BTW let’s remember the media did not elect Obama. The public choose to ignore his overwhelming negatives, as did Senator McCain when he assured an audience of his supporters they had nothing to fear from an Obama administration. Even then it took an economic crisis to put him over the top. Consider this, with overwhelming media support, Obama was losing up until the economy tanked.
The scary thing isn’t really the media. The bias is clear to anyone willing to take an honest look. The scary thing is that so many people aren’t so willing, and just go along with the narrative.
While I’m at it, I’m going to contradict your prediction Neo that the media will try every trick in the book to save their lovechild. I predict a few of the smarter ones, who see which way the wind is blowing and want to be around after the storm, will try and look for ways to jump ship. Maybe it will be ratings, the example of Dan Rather, a drop in advertising revenue, but if I were an adult with a decent survival instinct I would not want to jump on Obama’s wagon at this point.
As for the racist thing, does anyone outside of the hyper white yippiestans take that seriously anymore?
I meant Yuppiestans.
Pingback:The MSM's Battle Plan - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I live in Colorado and watched the method in which Michael Bennett was elected to another term in the seat he gained by appointment. They took a few half truths, combined in a bit of the mud which was slung during the Republican primaries, and brewed up a few nasty adds that were lies, really, with a thin basis in fact. The news media called them accurate, because they had the thinnest basis in truth. Then they took GOBS of money from all of their special interest groups and ran these ads night and day. Combine that with a few defectors who voted for the Libertarian, and third party candidates, and that’s how you win an election. The model worked in Colorado, and they have every intention of applying it on a national level now. Not once did Michael Bennett ever have to defend his vote for health care, nor his comment that he didn’t care what the people of Colorado thought, HE thought health care was good for us, so he was voting for it. Also, don’t forget that they are busting their humps to make sure that absentee ballots are sent to inactive voters, and such, so that if it’s close, they can steal it. We’ve seen that too, in Washington State. So ya better get ’em laced up tight, because it’s going to be all out war. The extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party is fighting for it’s life, and they’re not going to go down easy.
Probably also should get your wallets out, because it’s going to be expensive.
The RNC should fund some private eyes to go after MSM high profile people. It should be clear that smear tactics will be met with return fire.
Ah shucks, Neo. I feel famous. And flattered.
BTW, although I am a rare poster (until the day I win the lottery and get some free time), I am a regular and devoted reader/fan.
MY solution, in my humble opinion is not to try to fight fire with fire or try sting operations back at them, etc.
Nope – it is not to try to fight the DEMS, it is for the candidates to fight right back at the MEDIA. In some early debate (I don’t watch the early GOP debates) Newt did it a LITTLE bit, I understand. Chastised the lefty questioner for some inane question or something.
Right idea. But too little. Too timid. My approach would be to get back in their faces, and REFUSE to even respond to their dirt, and CALL them on their bias. Here is what I mean.
1. Mr. Rubio, some have been questioning your legitimacy to hold office, due to your parents being Cuban.
Ans: “When you refer me to a single investigative story your paper (or network) performed to look into Senator Obama’s biography and background in 2008, I will respond to that question. You set the rules and protocol on what background inquiries are permissible on candidates, in 2008. Now you are STUCK with them, even for Republicans. Therefore, NO comment. NEXT question.”
2. Ms. Bachman/Mr. Romney/Ms. Palin: Some have been expressing concerns about…..blah blah your nutty religion blah blah. SAME answer, but substitute ‘liberation theology,’……did you or anyone else ever question Mr. Obama as to how he could claim he regularly attended for 20 years; that man baptized his daughters….and then turn around and feign ignorance?
3. Mr. Perry, what do you have to say to people that point to your low grade point average at Texas AM…….SAME ANSWER!! “Tell me what Mr. Obama’s grades were at Occidental. Tell me what his grades were at Columbia or Harvard. Tell me how he got accepted at those schools. Point me to those stories you wrote about — and then we’ll talk about MY background.”
You get the picture. The MSM is the enemy. So candidates themselves need to start educating the public to that fact, and to start opening eyes……and not try to rely on Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh to do it for them.
But I have no faith these candidates will do that. Heck, they HELP the ratings for MSNBC by agreeing to debate on that channel!
OB said it and I’ll second it. “Breit. Bart.”
The Republluican challenger must have a very strong media response team, and Breitbart is very good at that. He knows how to fight the media using the Alinsky techniques that are so beloved by the dems.
Alinsky said, you must: ““Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it….”
He further advised, “single out precisely who is to blame for the particular evil (in this case, a lousy economy) that is the source of the people’s angst.” In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.” Rather, it should be an individual such as a president, governor or mayor. (Aha, we have our target.) Never, ever let the MSM get traction and direct the spot light away from Obama and his policies which have made the economy worse.
The great thing about Breitbart is that he does not care what people think of him. He can take the heat in the kitchen. He’s not like so many Republicans who do not want to duke it out.
I agree with Neo’s suggestion of what the MSM will try, but I don’t think that it will turn out as they anticipate or as badly as many of us fear.
I have a feeling similar to what I felt in 2007 when I was working in Modesto, CA on a project and all of my union tradesmen were expecting Hillary to be anointed as the Democratic nominee and have her just “assume” the Presidency. At the time, I told them I didn’t think it would play out like and that I was confident that she’d not be able to just slide into office. I didn’t predict The Won’s rise, but it fit with the feeling I had about the “inevitability” of Hillary in 2007.
I think that the MSM has “shot its wad” to be coarse about it. They have been laying it on so thick that it’s not being nearly as effective anymore. I think some of that was evident even in the 2004 election. Remember Evan Thomas’s comment to the effect that having the MSM in his camp was worth 15% for Kerry. Either, they don’t have nearly the power that they, and others, thought they have, or Kerry would have done really badly in an election with unbiased coverage.
Obama with the Press so far in the Tank as to be the propaganda wing of the DNC, and having had them beat on Bush for the entire 8 years proceeding, only managed a “comfortable” win, not a landslide.
The race card doesn’t seem to be playing very effectively any more, and a lot of their old tricks don’t seem to be working. The “spontaneous people’s movement” protesting Wall Street has ZERO credibility among everyone I talk with, even long time Democrats.
Time will tell.
Wolf, I don’t know how you can say it wasn’t a landslide win, when they had control of Congress, and a super majority in the Senate.
We also have to remember that there are a lot of states they’ll write off, a bunch they own, and a few contested states. They’ll blow off the ones that can’t win in, put a small amount of effort into winning the ones that are in their corner, and fight like hell in the battle ground states. They only need a small percentage margin in states like Colorado. They already sued, and won, to make sure that ballots were sent to inactive voters here. That gives them some votes to play with in places like Denver, which the Democrats own. The Denver media is pretty seriously slanted, and there’s not really anyone to tell the truth. If you don’t seek the truth in other forms of media, you won’t get it in Colorado.
With regard to my previous comment, take a look at this tweet from Andrew Breitbart.
http://tinyurl.com/6crpyfh
SouthernJames, Carolina Girl here! Dayum, this is what I’ve been saying for ten years: Boomerang ’em.
Stop falling into the trap of rebutting the “when did you stop beating your wife?” questions. AND you’re so right: the candidates have to do it, and on the Enemy’s stage.
Boo-YAH!
Footnore: there is a rumor that Frances Cloward, of the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy, was at the Wall Street “be-in” yesterday.
Most of the folks there are just rubbernecking, BTW. Looking for some excitement or a car wreck, or sumpin’. Really does remind me of the 1960s “Be-Ins.” A scene, baby!
“I told them I didn’t think it would play out like and that I was confident that she’d not be able to just slide into office. I didn’t predict The Won’s rise, but it fit with the feeling I had about the “inevitability” of Hillary in 2007.”
Bad example to pick. BO won the nomination precisely because the media turned on Hillary and went all-out for him.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
This distortion of facts in order to win isn’t limited to Dems v. Republicans. Romney and even to some extent, Cain are doing that now to win primaries.
An example is the baloney Romney has put out about the in-state tuition issue in Texas and it’s being a negative for Perry.
I won’t go into all the details because the issue is beautifully analyzed in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/3ey9uht
Don’t criticize Perry about this until you have read this article. Because if you do, you simply don’t have all the facts.
I was starting to like Romney and was willing to accept him as our nominee. But he knows these facts about the in-state tuition issue and still has hammered Perry on it because it has been picked up by the MSM and it may help him win. To hell with what’s right and wrong or what the facts are.
As of now, Romney is OFF my list and so is Cain if he continues his attack mode instead of sticking with the positive campaign that made him so popular.
Now…y’all can yell at ME…and frankly I don’t give a damn.
texexec,
Interesting article. Shows that most issues cannnot be dismissed by a few quick soundbites.
That said, the thrust of most conservatives thinking on illegal immigrants is that:
1. They have broken the law.
2. They are profiting from breaking the law.
3. Those benefits are a magnet for more law- breaking illegal immigrants.
Benefits to illegals may not be affecting Texas financially, but California, Arizona, and other states are spending money on benefits that they don’t have. It seems clear that getting illegal immigration unnder control consists of three steps.
1. Secure the border.
2. Provide NO benefits of any sort to illegals.
3. Prosecute employers who persist in breaking the law by hiring illegals.
The alternative is to just repeal our immigration laws and throw our borders open to all comers. Is that good policy?
I too am expecting a mudstorm in 2012. (Why mud?… Okay, I’m being polite.)
In the long run, people will use the tactics that work, and abandon the ones that don’t. Whether or not you think the MSM won the Presidential election of 2008 doesn’t matter. THEY think they did… and so they will repeat the tactics that worked for them before.
We have gotten to a dangerous place, where any Republican candidate can expect a long-term MSM colonoscopy. The only way we can stop this is to keep it from working.
That’s one of the reasons I still support Sarah Palin — not because she deserves to be President after what she went through, or any such nonsense as that. Rather, she went through hell, came out the other side, and is still swinging! Not only is that a very rare quality, one desperately needed in our Chief Executive… but if the press (and the Alinskyites) can watch their tactics fail, big-time, then they’ll be less likely to use them in the future. We’d all benefit from that.
And I’ll say it again. In 2012, I’ll vote for a wet paper towel rather than vote for Obama. But that doesn’t mean I have no opinions about who the Republican nominee should be. And in 2012, I want the Republican nominee to be either (a) Sarah Palin, or (b) someone who stood up for her when it counted. What was done to her was utterly disgusting, and the current candidates who stood by and watched it happen — well, I don’t think much of their principles. This was no time to vote ‘present’.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
every year i drive from kentucky to ny and along the way.. is nig-ger mountain…
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. :
I agree with you on some points and on some I don’t.
First, I don’t think you know if most conservatives believe these three points:
‘”1. They have broken the law.
2. They are profiting from breaking the law.
3. Those benefits are a magnet for more Law breaking illegal immigrants.”
To be fair, I don’t know if that’s NOT true. I just don’t think a blanket statement can be made about that.
On the points you make for controlling immigration:
1. Secure the border. I agree 100%.
2. Provide NO benefits of any sort to illegals. – I agree that illegals (or anyone for that matter…but that’s another topic) should not receive benefits they don’t pay for. I maintain, that in Texas, the illegals paying in-state tuition ARE essentially paying for those benefits. The elected House of Representatives and Senate in Texas (most of whom are quite conservative) overwhemingly agree with me.
3. Prosecute employers who persist in breaking the law by hiring illegals. – I agree 100%.
There’s a side benefit to Perry’s and the Texas House’s and Senate’s policy on in-state tuition. It’s definitely NOT the main reason to implement it but it is a side benefit.
Many Hispanic US citizens, some of whose ancestors have been US citizens for generations, rightfully or wrongfully, see a hard stand on immigration as being anti-Hispanic and racist. They vote. Perry’s position will get a Republican nominee more of their votes in 2012 and we need them to fire The Won and gain control of the USA Senate.
There I go again…being a pragmatic libertarian.
check this part of the battle plan out!!!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163774/obama-denounces-new-gop-voting-laws-says-doj-investigating
while the article is interesting…
the ads around it are MORE So…
“STOP THE WAR ON WOMEN”
stopthewaronwomen.com/ppfa_ntn/?tag=om_aq_ppfa_ntn_disp
The campaign to Stop the War on Women needs your voice. Tell Republicans no.
No to taking away the rights and freedoms of American women.
No to threatening the health of millions of women and their families.
No to sneak attacks on women’s right to choose.
cause you cant exterminate and change the evolutionary direction of their future otherwise… Study shows humans still evolving
(PhysOrg.com) — A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides evidence of human evolution and rapid genetic changes suggesting that, contrary to modern claims, technological and cultural advancements have not halted the evolutionary process in humans.
oh… so much for that, their policies ARE changing our genes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you cant cull the herd of the undesirables, how do yuo breed better cattle? when its individuals and families, its the men who earn… but as any good breeder knows, keeping males is a problem, so they tend to want more females… its easier for breeding and outcome control if you do that…
which is why in the EARLY days of marx people understood and were abhored… now they are just stupid cows, and cows whose loyalties were transferred from their mates and chidren and family to the state… (That grants them such gifts of freedom to exterminate your family future for the state, which is also taking the wealth to help you decide)
Paid for by EMILY’s List, http://www.emilyslist.org, and MoveOn.org Political Action, http://www.pol.moveon.org/, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
ya got to love WAR Socialism… no?
war on drugs, war on pollution, war on poverty, war on women, war on abortion, war on rights..
but shhhhhh dont notice…
it will spoil the suprise later when they wake up after there is no other outcome possible…
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/10/cbs-reporter-says-wh-screamed-at-her.html
Look at them. Carrying water in agreement with the party and president in power. “Reasonable.” Ignoring a story that has WH and DOJ people screaming at a reporter is now “reasonable.”