SpitfireListRSSFollow

Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

Free advice for a multimillionaire, Part 2: Lies, damned lies, and surrogates

Posted by Pterrafractyl July 15, 2012   Tweet
Tags  , , ,

In our sec­ond edi­tion of “Free Advice for a Mul­ti­mil­lion­aire”, we’re going to be look­ing at one of peren­nial chal­lenges in polit­i­cal cam­paigns: how to lie with sur­ro­gates. Sur­ro­gates are one of those “must have” assets in the media land­scape because they can say the things a cam­paign wants peo­ple to hear but doesn’t want to get caught say­ing. You know, things like lies. Because when cam­paign staff lies, peo­ple notice.

So it was not sur­pris­ing to see a num­ber of sur­ro­gates in the media this week­end attempt­ing to quell the grow­ing num­ber of ques­tions over Mitt Romney’s mag­i­cal mys­tery “retroac­tive retire­ment” from Bain. Well, that plus some other stuff.

Now, on to Mitt’s free advice:
First, always remem­ber that in pol­i­tics the best defense is a good offense. And one of the best ways to go on the offense is to use some good ‘ol fash­ioned polit­i­cal jujitsu. You need to turn those attacks on all these issues into the issue. Now, there are good ways and bad ways to go about this. For instance, if you’re going to demand an apol­ogy for these out­ra­geous attacks, you first need to explain why they’re out­ra­geous. Oth­er­wise you might just end up look­ing guilty, decep­tive, and fool­ish.

So if your going to ask for an apol­ogy, you need to first lead with a counter-attack and only after it’s clear that the counter-attack will “stick” should you ask for an apol­ogy. Now, how do you craft an effect the counter-attack when even your own party thinks the charges against have sub­stance? Well, one way is to attack the attack’s style. This is pol­i­tics. Style trumps sub­stance every time. And feel free to use a sur­ro­gate because you want it to seem like even impar­tial out­side observers agree that the attack is a shot below the belt. But if you do take this approach, one thing you must absolutely avoid is using a sur­ro­gate that was a trail­blazer in the dark arts of pol­i­tics. They prob­a­bly don’t make the best mes­sen­ger boys in this instance:

TPM
Karl Rove: Obama Mak­ing A ‘Big Mis­take’ By Sug­gest­ing Rom­ney May Be A Felon
9:48 AM EDT, Sun­day July 15, 2012
Reported by Sahil Kapur

Repub­li­can strate­gist Karl Rove on Fox News Sun­day advised the Obama cam­paign to stop sug­gest­ing that Mitt Rom­ney may be a felon over allegedly inac­cu­rate state­ments he made on his SEC forms regard­ing Bain.

“The fact of the mat­ter is that if the pres­i­dent con­tin­ues to make this charge — this out­ra­geous charge that his cam­paign had that Mitt Rom­ney is guilty of felo­nious activ­ity, could’ve com­mit­ted a felony — that’s a big mis­take,” Rove said. “Remem­ber who’s up for grabs in this elec­tion: inde­pen­dent vot­ers.

Rove, who runs the GOP super PAC Amer­i­can Cross­roads, said inde­pen­dents were drawn to Obama’s promise to tran­scend pol­i­tics as usual in 2008 and pre­dicted the felony charge won’t work with them. “This is gut­ter pol­i­tics of the worst Chicago sort,” he said.

Now, while sur­ro­gates like Karl may not be the best choice as the water car­rier in this sit­u­a­tion (they tend to poi­son the well first), that doesn’t mean they don’t have some good advice too. Inde­pen­dent vot­ers don’t really like attack ads. Sure, vot­ers are fre­quently per­suaded by them, but they don’t like being reminded of that. So if you have to counter-attack, and it’s a base­less counter-attack, you might want to use a sur­ro­gate. For­tu­nately, in our post-Citizens United world, that’s eas­ier than ever.

Keep in mind, though, if the orig­i­nal attack on you has enough sub­stance the “gutter-politics” counter-attack may not have the required “sting” to throw your oppo­nent off. But don’t fret. There are still options. For instance, you could always try the Jedi mind trick (i.e. “These aren’t the droids polit­i­cal issues you’re look­ing for”). For that, first you need a Jedi. And if no Jedis are avail­able (they tend to avoid the Dark Side), any ol’ Sith Lord will prob­a­bly do. So pick your sur­ro­gate Sith, pick your trick, and start dis­tract­ing:

TPM
Ryan: Romney’s Assets In A ‘Blind Trust For Pete’s Sake’
3:25 PM EDT, Sun­day July 15, 2012
Reported by Pema Levy

Rom­ney sur­ro­gate and VP con­tender Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said on Sun­day that the Obama cam­paign using Bain Cap­i­tal and the issue of Romney’s taxes to dis­tract the coun­try from the issues peo­ple really care about.

“Peo­ple are not wor­ried about the details as to when Mitt Rom­ney left Bain Cap­i­tal to save the Olympics or the details about his assets, which are man­aged by a blind trust for Pete’s sake,” Ryan said on “Face the Nation.” “They’re wor­ried about their jobs and their family’s future.”

See how sim­ple that was? Vot­ers aren’t con­cerned about Mitt’s his­tory as outsourcer-in-chief. They con­cerned about Amer­i­can jobs. Bril­liant! Who cares about the his­tory of Mitt any­more? Now they just care about his planned policies!

But if you now have vot­ers fret­ting about their own futures instead of your own past, doesn’t that mean you need to have plans that won’t destroy the future? NO. Can you really talk about all those plans in pub­lic? YES. And how is that pos­si­ble? Because the cra­zier your plans sound, the more they’ll like you. And you, Mit­tens, have some craaazy plans. Here’s why: the kind of planned devi­ous­ness that the mod­ern day GOP calls “pub­lic pol­icy” is incom­pre­hen­si­bly bad. It’s so incom­pre­hen­si­bly bad that peo­ple just assume your emot­ing your deep inter­nal resolve to get the bud­get under con­trol. It’s meta-politics at work: The more you say you’ll destroy their futures, the less they’ll believe you and the more they’ll like you. Vot­ers can be weird like that:

Moth­er­Jones
Nobody Takes Con­ser­v­a­tive Wingnut­tery at Face Value

–By Kevin Drum
| Fri Jul. 6, 2012 10:05 AM PDT

Jon Chait calls our atten­tion to Robert Draper’s piece in the New York Times Mag­a­zine this week about Pri­or­i­ties USA Action, a Demo­c­ra­tic super PAC run by Bill Bur­ton and Sean Sweeney. Here’s a lovely lit­tle excerpt:

Bur­ton and his col­leagues spent the early months of 2012 try­ing out the pitch that Rom­ney was the most far-right pres­i­den­tial can­di­date since Barry Gold­wa­ter. It fell flat. The pub­lic did not view Rom­ney as an extrem­ist. For exam­ple, when Pri­or­i­ties informed a focus group that Rom­ney sup­ported the Ryan bud­get plan — and thus cham­pi­oned “end­ing Medicare as we know it” — while also advo­cat­ing tax cuts for the wealth­i­est Amer­i­cans, the respon­dents sim­ply refused to believe any politi­cian would do such a thing.

So there you have it. Vot­ers sim­ply refused to believe that the bare facts about the Ryan plan could pos­si­bly be true. Chait is cau­tious about what this means: “I wouldn’t over­read this and assume that the Repub­li­cans have found the ulti­mate worm­hole, advo­cat­ing poli­cies so out­landishly unpop­u­lar that oppo­nents can’t per­suade vot­ers they’re real.”

I agree. Sort of. But I do think that it points to some­thing real: Over the past cou­ple of decades, Repub­li­can lead­ers have become such stone ide­o­logues, and have made out­ra­geous pro­pos­als such a stan­dard part of their stump speeches, that a lot of vot­ers just don’t take them seri­ously any­more. They view these things less as actual plans than as state­ments meant to show group affil­i­a­tion. As the bar gets raised year after year, Repub­li­cans have to say ever more out­ra­geous things to demon­strate that they’re real con­ser­v­a­tives, but it’s still just blather. They don’t actu­ally intend to do any of this stuff if they get elected.

Inde­pen­dents might dis­cover — too late — that they’re wrong about this. But I sus­pect that’s how they treat a lot of this stuff: as mere rote cat­e­chisms, pro­fes­sions of faith not meant to be taken literally.

As you can see, oli­garch power-brokers aren’t the only group out there that gets to say “we cre­ate our own real­ity” any­more. Inde­pen­dent Reality-Denialsts Unite! It’s a brave new world, Mit­tens, and you’re run­ning to run it. So you had bet­ter under­stand it.

But don’t you worry. While you may have some new com­pe­ti­tion on reality-creating front, you still have some of the great­est myth-maestros in the planet work­ing for you and that stuff still works. Just makes sure to use a sur­ro­gate:

Medicare Scare Ad Makes False Claim of $500 Bln Cut to Seniors
Heidi Przy­byla, ©2012 Bloomberg News
Pub­lished 02:18 p.m., Fri­day, June 29, 2012

June 28 (Bloomberg) — Florida seniors will be liv­ing a “night­mare” because Sen­a­tor Bill Nel­son voted for $500 bil­lion in Medicare cuts, the anony­mous voice warns in the most-aired ad in his re-election race — a mes­sage repeated in sim­i­lar spots tar­get­ing other Democ­rats across the coun­try.

It’s also wrong, accord­ing to a Repub­li­can health-care expert and inde­pen­dent ana­lysts.

“There are no reduc­tions in the Medicare ben­e­fits promised in law,” said Gail Wilen­sky, who served as admin­is­tra­tor of the Cen­ters for Med­ic­aid and Medicare under Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush and is a senior fel­low at Project Hope, a health-research orga­ni­za­tion in Virginia.

The non­par­ti­san Con­cord Coali­tion, a bud­get research group, says the ads assume insur­ers will cut Medicare ben­e­fits to com­ply with Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s 2010 Patient Pro­tec­tion and Afford­able Care Act, which scales back pay­ments to Medicare Advan­tage plans, an alter­na­tive to tra­di­tional Medicare.

The law, its con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity to be deter­mined today by the U.S. Supreme Court, also slows the growth of Medicare pay­ments to hos­pi­tals and other health providers. Seniors’ ben­e­fits weren’t reduced in the legislation.

That hasn’t deterred Republican-aligned groups such as Cross­roads Grass­roots Pol­icy Strate­gies and the U.S. Cham­ber of Com­merce from the benefit-cut asser­tion in cam­paign tele­vi­sion com­mer­cials tar­get­ing the law that have out­num­bered pos­i­tive ads by a 3-to-1 ratio since mea­sure took effect, accord­ing to data pro­vided by Kan­tar Media’s CMAG, which tracks cam­paign advertising.

...

Voucher Plan

What’s more, Repub­li­cans assume the same sav­ings in their own bud­get blue­print crafted by House Bud­get Com­mit­tee Chair­man Paul Ryan, a Wis­con­sin Repub­li­can. The plan would con­vert Medicare to a voucher plan, a pro­posal that’s drawn scorn from seniors’ groups includ­ing the AARP because it would end Medicare as a defined-benefit pro­gram. While the cur­rent law plows its pro­jected sav­ings back into sub­si­dies to help low-income indi­vid­u­als buy insur­ance, the Ryan plan counts the money toward debt reduction.

“Cross­roads Grass­roots Pol­icy Strate­gies”. Heh, don’t you just love pro-oligarch polit­i­cal groups with the word “Grass­roots” in the name. That’s the Rovian-touch we’ve all come to know and love. Well done Karl. You never disappoint.

Feel­ing bet­ter yet Mit­tens? You’ll be out of your son’s base­ment that cramped space and into a nice big Oval Office in no time.

One last bit of advice:
There’s still the issue of what you’re are going to do if the inde­pen­dent vot­ers actu­ally vote vou into office and we end up with the Ryan plan. At some point those inde­pen­dents are going to get a seri­ous ill­ness — let’s say a brain tumor. Stand­ing there with a voucher in their hands and tumor in their head is going to make the awful­ness of your poli­cies a rather unde­ni­able real­ity. That could be a prob­lem in 2016. So if THAT ever hap­pens, call Frank.

19 Comments to “Free advice for a multimillionaire, Part 2: Lies, damned lies, and surrogates”

Leave a Comment