Saturday, December 16, 2006

Democrat Strategy

I saved this article a few years ago and found this early strategy employed by the Democrats to mold public opinion to be quite eye opening. Note the date of the article. From the election results it seems that the Democrats succeeded in changing the public's perception as a result of this strategy. Do any of you feel that the" TRUTH" is being manipulated so that public perception matches party agenda and doctrine? It is kind of scary that public relation campaigns can change public opinion even if it defies "TRUTH."




Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush January 6, 2003 By DOUG THOMPSON

Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue. A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party. The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt. In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President’s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. “The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,” one Democratic consultant confided. “No Democratic member of Congress will question the President’s patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.” Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party; --Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq; --Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive the country’s lagging economic situation. “It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values,” the talking points say. “To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America’s true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.” Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush. “My boss doesn’t want anything to do with it,” one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. “You don’t undermine this country to win elections.” Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control. “The real war isn’t in Iraq,” one Democratic consultant said. “It’s right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.” Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks: --Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil and defense industry special interest groups. --The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at large. --America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country’s economic woes. --Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war. “It’s time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush’s policies are to the future of America,” the talking points conclude. Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt. “This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign,” crows one DNC staffer. “Take no prisoners. That’s how you win elections.” Democratic party spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.

22 comments:

The Investigator said...

Voteoutrepublicans there has to be some balance to the DNC based posts I put up on here. I would love to put together a series of parallel timelines to mark the release date of each Democratic strategy change and then mark major events on another and finally mark poll numbers on a third. Both parties have their version of the truth but the last election showed that the Democratic strategies put in place years earlier paid off and may not have been taken seriously by Republicans. Do you find it ironic that the Democrats generally ran on a platform of withdrawing troops as soon as possible and now it looks like there will be an escalation with more troops? Mr. Moorer and his fellow bloggers are probably beside themselves.

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday.

The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.

Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration's representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.

Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said in a statement that the contents of all the documents exist today and were made available to the commission.

But Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., outgoing chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he's not convinced that the Archives can account for all the documents taken by Berger. Davis said working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.

"There is absolutely no way to determine if Berger swiped any of these original documents. Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials," Davis said.

Berger pleaded guilty to unlawfully removing and retaining classified documents. He was fined $50,000, ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and was barred from access to classified material for three years.

Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that National Archives employees spotted Berger bending down and fiddling with something white around his ankles.

The employees did not feel at the time there was enough information to confront someone of Berger's stature, the report said.

Later, when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he lied by saying he did not take them, the report said.

Brachfeld's report included an investigator's notes, taken during an interview with Berger. The notes dramatically described Berger's removal of documents during an Oct. 2, 2003, visit to the Archives.

Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets.

"He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said.

He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.

"He was aware of the risk he was taking," the inspector general's notes said. Berger then returned to the Archives building without fearing the documents would slip out of his pockets or that staff would notice that his pockets were bulging.

The notes said Berger had not been aware that Archives staff had been tracking the documents he was provided because of earlier suspicions from previous visits that he was removing materials. Also, the employees had made copies of some documents.

In October 2003, the report said, an Archives official called Berger to discuss missing documents from his visit two days earlier. The investigator's notes said, "Mr. Berger panicked because he realized he was caught."

The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."

After the trash had been picked up, Berger "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck," the notes said.

Significant portions of the inspector general's report were redacted to protect privacy or national security.



more on democratic strategy.......

Anonymous said...

corruption is alive and well in DC - thanks to the DNC

Anonymous said...

The majority of residents in Murrieta and Temecula feel committed to the conservative ideals and way of life. I am glad because I also have no use for the empty promises and exploitation done to the underpriviledged by the democrats for the purpose of buying their votes.
The heat is on the democrats now, to produce results vs. complaints. I believe the democrats are not that thrilled about the small majority in the Senate, because it will show that they did not have a plan, only complaints, and are scrambling and working feverishly to come up with one.

Anonymous said...

A very well thought out plan for Iraq can be read at aei.org/publication25292. It is simple in theory, proven to produce results and based on the pretty indisputable feeling that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established. It must start in Baghdad. It involves a counterinsurgency plan of not just securing the Baghdad neighborhoods and bailing, but remaining and HOLDING those neighborhoods in order to help the residents live safe from retailation which would allow them to begin to cooperate with the Iraqi government. Following the securing and holding in and around Baghdad would begin a campaign to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, this hard working, minimum wage manager is still responsible for decisions that lead to improve his living standard. Fortunately, there are so many opportunities in this country to earn a degree. Millions of people work hard at day jobs to support families and go to night school to earn a degree and better their lives.
I don't know if giving more money to people who might not be motivated to learn and earn is a good thing for them. To make education and schooling available at an affordable price for the poor seems a better answer to enhance their lives. Finacial assistance should be reserved for people who are mentally or physicially unable to do so.

TLW2, I have never understood the proclaimed contempt for big businesses voiced by many liberals. I am also aware of these crtics, their wealth and their connection to big corporate stock holdings and partnerships in big businesses. To me, that is such hypocricy.
As is the attempt at socializing healthcare for all of us. These politicians are elected by us, the people, to represent us. How is it that they have their own elevated healthcare, unlimited access to all doctors, hospitals, state of the art drugs, etc.? Meanwhile they are working hard to have a different, 2nd and 3rd class coverage for the rest of us underlings. The same applies to their paid vacations that are far beyond and above anything in the corporate world, so are their retirement programs. Every year, before going on an extended vacation, they vote to increase their nice financial packages for themselves. It is disgusting, yet they sit in judgement of big corporations and their CEO's for huge financial profits. At least these corproations employ millions of Americans and provide decent wages and healthcare for millions of Americans.
I hope good things will happen in 2007. Major successful changes in Iraq, same healthcare that congress and senators enjoy, a strong border control to increase our security as well as enhanced domestic homeland security. That would be a good start, at least.
Let's see what happens, that is all we can do.
HAPPY NEW YEAR everybody.

Anonymous said...

This article is interesting in response to what you are discussing here:

A DANGEROUS OBSESSION – 12/26/06

The media & academia are continuously obsessed with “gaps” & “disparities” in income. As one talk-show host put it, “It makes no sense” that a corporate executive makes over $50 mil a year.

99% of all the things that happen in this world “make no sense” to any given individual. Do you understand how your automobile’s transmission works? Could you repair it if something went wrong? Do you understand how aspirin stops headaches? How to make yogurt?

Years ago, a famous essay pointed out that nobody knows how to make a simple lead pencil. That is, there is no single individual anywhere who knows how to grow the wood, mine the graphite, produce the rubber & manufacture the paint.

Complex economic processes cause all these things to be done & coordinated by a wide variety of people, just in order to produce something as simple as a lead pencil. Multiply that by a hundred or a thousand when it comes to the complexity of producing a car or a computer.

If you cannot understand something as simple as making a lead pencil, why should you be surprised that you don’t understand why someone is making a lot more money than somebody else?

Moreover, if this obsession with income disparities is to be something more than mere hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth, obviously the point is that somebody ought to “do something” to change what you don’t understand.

Usually that means that the government – politicians – should impose policies based on your ignorance of what is going on. Can you imagine anything more dangerous than allowing politicians to decide how much money each of us can earn?

Of course, such political control of incomes is usually advocated only to deal with “the rich”. But, when income taxes were imposed in the early 20th C, they applied only to “the rich” & they took a very small % of their income.

Once the floodgates are opened to this kind of political power, however, we have seen with the income taxes that they not only spread far beyond “the rich”, they took a serious share of even middle class incomes.

Moreover, the income tax has spawned an intrusive bureaucracy, creating so much complexity & red tape that millions of ordinary citizens have to go get some accountant to fill out the forms for them - and then sign under penalty of perjury that it was done right.

If you knew how to do it right, you wouldn’t have to go to somebody else to have it done, would you?

Incidentally, it took a constitutional amendment to enable the federal government to impose an income tax. The people who wrote the Constitution were wise enough to understand what a dangerous thing it would be to allow government to take money from people just because those people had it.

Unfortunately, “progressives” were foolish enough (or envious enough) to single out “the rich” for a process that would inevitably spread across society & become insatiable in its demands.

Today’s “progressives” want to expand political control of incomes even more. They call it “social justice” but you could call it Rumpelstiltskin & it would still mean politicians deciding how much money each of us can be allowed to have.

It is also worth noting that the people who are said to be earning “obscene” amounts of money are usually corporate executives. There is no such outrage whipped up when Hollywood movie starts make some multiple of what most corporate executives make.

This is social or ideological bias added to envy & ignorance. It makes quite a witches’ brew on which to base national policy.

Lofty talk about “social justice” or “fairness” boils down to greatly expanded powers for politicians, since those pretty words have no concrete definition. They are a blank check for creating disparities in power that dwarf disparities in income - and are far more dangerous.

By Thomas Sowell (A GOP opinion writer)

Anonymous said...

What is all the hoopla over the Saddam video? Who cares about a few rants against that evil thug. Justice would have been putting him on a rack or disembowling him like in Braveheart. That would have been a better video! Come to think of it the same technique should be used at Gitmo so make those prisoners talk.

Anonymous said...

Oh sage and powerful VOR. The liberal media has you so brainwashed it is pathetic.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Well lets start with the New York Times. Remember those Danish Cartoons they were considered insulting to Islam? The NY Times refused to print them for that very reason - to avoid insulting Islam - yet they had no problem printing a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered in dung. Couldn't that possibly be considered insulting to Christians? Yet that is okay to do? Or what about there little Ethicist column writer Cohen who urged American's to tolerate illegal drug dealing rather than take away the dealer's and his customer's right to enjoy drugs? Liberal editorial slants are apparent in most larger print media in addition to the NY Times, like The Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Sacramento Bee and many more.
The only national paper with a conservative editorial philosophy is the Wall Street Journal. That's it! I read that locally, liberal papers outnumber conservative papers 10-1.
A media study based at UCLA released in December 2005 concluded "Almost all major media outlets tilt to the left." The most liberal media outlets being CBS Evening News, the NY Times and LA Times. The only programs found to slant right were the Washington Post and Brit Hume's program. Other than talk radio(which is also primarily local), nearly all media is liberal save those two.
Even the late night media shows, Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart, etc all have liberal spins. There is Dan Rather, Katie Couric, the late Peter Jennings, and especially Tom Brokaw and Bill Moyers who compares the unadulterated butchery of Osama bin Laden with the coalition action. There is Meredith Veira and Matt Lauer, and CNN has never had any anchors that were anthing but liberal. MSNBC may have a more conservative edge with Scarborough and Crowley, but their audience is so low it matters little.
As for your continued mockery of Fox News, you are way off base. Yes, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Asman and John Gibson tend to lean conservative, but there are also liberal voices in Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Greta van Susteren and Juan Williams. O'Reilly is in the middle too. He is constantly derailed and demonized for being uber conservative but I remember he sided with Kerry on the Swift Boat Vets thing and with Rather on the Bush National Guard fiasco. He sided with the liberals on Terri Schiavo and chides Bush on his failures in Post war Iraq, with securing our borders and ignoring the need for alternative energy. He also got on Ann Coulter's case for the way she protrayed the 9/11 widows. So keep buying the BS that the "liberal media" thing is a conservative fantasy. I bet you think the battle to save Christmas is a conservative fantasy too.
Open you narrow minded angry little mind and see the truth that is the media is primarily liberal or passively neutral.

Anonymous said...

The fact that you would even attempt to suggest Maureen Dowd is not a flaming liberal secular progressive individual shows me you know absolutely nothing. Everything else out of you is just "blah, blah, blah I copy and paste my days away...."

Anonymous said...

GOTTA LOVE THIS GUY THE TIMELESS WISDOM OF RONALD REAGAN

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:

We win, they lose."

- Ronald Reagan


"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

- Ronald Reagan

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

- Ronald Reagan

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

- Ronald Reagan


"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."

- Ronald Reagan


"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."

- Ronald Reagan


"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

- Ronald Reagan



"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

- Ronald Reagan



"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."

- Ronald Reagan



"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."

- Ronald Reagan



"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

- Ronald Reagan



"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

- Ronald Reagan



"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
- Ronald Reagan



"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

- Ronald Reagan

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The funny thing is he VOR is so clueless he doesn't even realize that his entire post totally confirmed the anon's contention about liberal bias. You can see how the liberal media jumps on anything that could come clost to being considered a conservative slant, takes words out of context and tries to demonize the conservative view. It is is typical and so overdown now that everyone with half a brain sees through it.

Anonymous said...

You are so confused. Fox News is the only place you can find the truth. The UCLA study showed that.
The Democrats did win in November. And they DESERVED to win. NOT because the Republican party has the wrong plan, or was not performing up to what American needs. It was because they did not fight. They did not rally their base. The Dems were indignant about the scandals their trashy organizations like Moveon.org Soros, Latkoff, Lewis blew up and pasted all over their liberal media that resides in their deep pockets. They were rallied. They showed up to vote out what they perceived as corrupt. They voted their conscience and did their civic duty. Kudos to them and they deserved their win.
Republicans should learn a lesson from what happened in November.

Anonymous said...

BLIZZARD IN KANSAS
WEATHER BULLETIN

Out here, in the Plains, we just had a Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:

George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo Rivera.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUV's & 4WD tractors to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it to the snowbound families.

Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not owe you a living.

Anonymous said...

VOR fraudulently posts pics of other people and tells others it is him. Check it out on his blog page. If you know the identity of the featured gentleman, contact him and let him know that someone is falsely using his image.

The Investigator said...

I leave and posts go up breaking my rules. I am back from vacation now keep things within my rules or I will delete them!

The Investigator said...

Yes guessing games are off limits for anons. Let them post and if they want to state their true identity or pseudoname, like you do, then so be it. I think the rules at the top of the blog are pretty clear. They were meant to protect people and at the same time not stifle debate. I also deleted all foul language that were in a few anon posts. I know you probably know who some of these people are but let the ideas be the debate.

The Investigator said...

I went back and clarified the rules at the top of the blog to be more clear. They are meant to protect everyone. People are not allowed to attack you Voteoutrepublicans with foul language or personal information attacks and, of course, you are not allowed to do it either. If something pops up that breaks the rules do not feel compelled to respond to the offensive part that will get deleted by me at some point anyway. Your response will more than likely lead to the deletion of your post too. It is in everyone's best interest to keep deletions to a minimum.