Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals'

[Better Believe It]

Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals'
The White House is ‘helping’ liberal groups to get their political messages in sync with the official line.
by Jeremy Scahill
April 10, 2009
Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Over the past several weeks, independent journalists and anti-war activists have tried to shine a spotlight on how groups like the Center for American Progress and MoveOn, which portrayed themselves as anti-war during the Bush-era, are now supporting the escalation and continuation of wars because their guy is now commander-in-chief. CAP has been actively pounding the pavement in support of the escalation in Afghanistan, the rebranding of the Iraq occupation and, more recently, Obama's bloated military budget, which the group said was "on target." MoveOn has been silent on the escalation in Afghanistan and has devoted substantial resources to promoting a federal budget that includes a $21 billion increase in military spending from the Bush-era.

What is clear here is that CAP and MoveOn are now basically psuedo-official PR flaks targeting "liberals" to support the White House agenda. This, though, should not come as a shock to those who have closely monitored these groups. They were the primary force behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), "a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to actually cut off funding for the war." Now, according to John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, the Center for American Progress is now running "Progressive Media which was begun by Tom Matzzie and David Brock in 2008 and now ‘represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars....' are working hard to push Obama's policies, including rationalizlng or defending his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as "sustainable security."

On Wednesday, Ben Smith at Politico reported on the latest development in this White House-coordinated campaign to use these think-tankers to whip up support for its agenda. It is a newly formed coalition, the Common Purpose Project, which blogger Jane Hamsher describes as "one of the many groups Rahm Emanuel has set up to coordinate messaging among liberal interest groups." This one includes the direct participation of White House officials, according to Smith ....

Hamsher, who wrote an interesting response to the Politico report with a different spin on the above story, concluded:

There's a big problem right now with the traditional liberal interest groups sitting on the sidelines around major issues because they don't want to buck the White House for fear of getting cut out of the dialogue, or having their funding slashed. Someone picks up a phone, calls a big donor, and the next thing you know...the money is gone. It's already happened. Because that's the way Rahm plays.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/10-1

[dflprincess]

1. Rahm should spend his time getting the Republicans to fall in line.

He may be in for a rude awakening the next time he and Obama decide they need the left wing of the party.

[liberalmuse]

2. Good luck with that.

Think tanks don't work so well with the left, who prefer thinking for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

3. which is generally why the left is where they are not in the halls of power

[The Magistrate]

5. Excellent News If True, Sir

As you observe, the left needs to learn to co-ordinate and focus....

"Strike with a fist, not an open hand."

[madfloridian]

11. You mean "the left" that got him elected?

That "left"?

[The Magistrate]

16. Many Segments Of The Electorate, Ma'am, May Make That Claim

The critical element of President Obama's success in '08 seems to have been a move somewhat to leftwards by a goodly portion of 'middling' independents.

It would be better if the left concentrated its fire on Republican obstruction, and on the worst of the 'Blue Dog' types in the Congress. The latter particularly mis-read the political situation: the people, even the people in the center, want action, and want President Obama to have a free hand. 'Blue Dogs' think they are preserving their seats by trying to 'moderate' President Obama's policy proposals, but in fact, that is the course that most endangers their seats. They need to be reminded of this, forcefully....

[dflprincess]

18. It would be better if Rahm

"concentrated its fire on Republican obstruction, and on the worst of the 'Blue Dog' types in the Congress" - but then the Blue Dogs are his kind of people.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. I don't think Rahm is quite so cozy with the blue dogs anymore

As DSCC chairman he did actively recruit many of the and support them over more progressive candidates. The reasoning behind that was that he felt they were more electable and his job was to win back the majority at all costs. Now we have a clear majority but there is no party discipline in the Senate. Rahm's new job is to get the President's agenda passed and I don't think he's at all happy with Democrats siding with the GOP to obstruct the President's agenda. That goes both ways, IMO, meaning he's probably not too happy with Evan Bayh or Bernie Sanders.

[wyldwolf]

58. he always called Blue Dogs "lazy."

[Hippo_Tron]

70. That sounds about right...

The thing that I find really admirable about Rahm is that he's the ultimate team player. The blue dogs are too often not team players and are focused on themselves. In some very red districts it's understandable because you are contributing to the team by just being a Democrat from that district. But in other less red districts it is lazy and selfish not to repeatedly buck the party's agenda when it is not a necessity for survival.

[w4rma]

71. Really? Why? (nt)

[wyldwolf]

72. he doesn't feel they work hard enough

"Then he began ranting about his conservative party colleagues. “They hate me too, because I’m arrogant and pushy with them. … Because they’ve never, ever WORKED! NOBODY! NONE OF ‘EM!”

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2006/nov/12/nation/chi-rahm-emanuel

I actually read a quote where he used the term "lazy." Might have been in the book about 2006.

[w4rma]

76. That's the first time I've read anything about Emmanuel that garners some respect from me.

It's a very apt observation.

[dflprincess]

73. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, but he is an Independent

Rahm really can't do much about him.

[rocktivity]

47. Welcome back, Magistrate!

Missed us, huh?

Oh, and I agree with you--it's the ex-centrists and ex-loyal Bushies who put Obama over, and they want a return on their investment.

:hi:
rocktivity
(formerly rocknation)

[mkultra]

28. actually, i think he means the other left

you know, the stupid half that is to dumb to know whats good for themselves.

[Blue_Tires]

27. HEY!!! Welcome Back, Sir!!!

You see what GD has sunk to during your sabbatical....

[Raineyb]

34. I wasn't under the impression that thinking for oneself was an actionable offense in the Democratic

party.

When did we become like the Republicans again?

Regards

[The Magistrate]

50. Doubtless The Humor Was Unintended, Ma'am

But it seems you are of the view that persons who do not agree with you cannot be thinking for themselves, and are engaged in something at least akin to actionable offense.

In fights, groups which co-ordinate their actions do better than groups that do not. Viewing many decades of struggle between left and right, this seems a lesson the left has yet to learn, and badly needs to.

[redqueen]

59. Your last two sentences, there... spot on.

I could not possibly agree more.

[Raineyb]

68. What left?

When we have people on the right masquerading as people on the left. It is difficult to say the least to coordinate any action.

I would not say that people who do not agree with me cannot be thinking for themselves. Although it would not be unreasonable for someone to come to that conclusion considering the number of cries for people to get in line or STFU. It would appear that those in Washington are under the impression that to disagree with them ought to be a punishable offense. Considering the amount of damage done by their cowardice and refusal to stand up for the principles they claim to uphold I see no reason why anyone who has legitimate difference of opinion on how to best get to the future we supposedly all agree would best serve the country would trust these people to stand with them. Additionally, the people in Washington have a reputation for disregarding the people on the left who got them into office in the first place. I see no reason why these groups would trust them a second time after getting burned in the '90s. As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I don't think that these groups intend to have a repeat of what happened with Clinton. I don't blame them for that at all.

[The Magistrate]

69. The Term, Ma'am, Admits Of Many Gradations....

Many of those you are denouncing as 'people on the right masquerading as people on the left' are viewed as veritable Bolsheviks by those deeply committed to rightist identity. That you view them as rightists may say more about the position you have staked out on the political spectrum than where they can be actually located: to be somewhat to the right of someone in particular hardly evidences a person is a rightist in relation to the entire continuum; one must know the point the judgement is being measured from to take any sense from the statement.

Despite disclaimers, Ma'am, it is evident from your comments that you do view people who disagree with you, in particular people who support President Obama's administration, as not thinking for themselves, but rather to be parroting received opinions, responding thoughtlessly to manipulation, or even simply being paid cadre of a hostile force. This is not a profitable approach. It will never result in changing anyone's mind, and never act to find common ground with people who disagree with you, and expand upon that to produce united action all elements may appreciate and applaud.

Whenever two groups are engaged in a fight, there will always be calls for unity, and disparagement of persons who seem to spend their time attacking the standard bearer of of the group to which one adheres. Unity is necessary so long as the enemy is in the field, and people forget this at their peril. A group which acts cohesively has a great advantage over one that does not, an advantage that can frequently go a good distance to counter-balance a numerical inferiority. This is why the right, which espouses an inherently minority position, so frequently checks and defeats the left, despite the latter's position being inherently a majority view. It is always distressing to see self-destructive behavior persisted in, whether by a person one is acquainted with, or a group one adheres to oersonally, and wishes to see prevail.

Left activists have tried just about everything except whole-hearted support of a Democratic administration, on a strategic line of the 'Popular Front' sort. It is really time to try the option that has consistently been left unused, and leave go those that have never succeeded in the past....

[Raineyb]

74. You are wrong.

It seems to be you who are looking for a reason to dismiss my opinions. You seem to be under the impression that if you can push me into a camp of those who you've deemed to be less than satisfactorily supportive of Obama then you can dismiss what I've said out of hand. I have not said that those who don't agree with me don't think for themselves. However, based on the behavior of many of those people it it certainly safe to say that they do not value the opinion of anyone who for whatever reason is not at all inclined to trust any politicians unquestioningly which apparently seems to be the only way some on this board will believe that one supports Obama. We've seen this gambit before and what exactly did the left get for its unity in the 90's? Anyone paid attention to history would not be so foolish as to repeat that mistake again. I certainly am not inclined to look down my nose at those people.

I see no reason why one should give up ones principles to unify with people who not only do not share said principles but openly act against them which is exactly what Mr. Emanuel seems to be doing. The only way to get our politicians to act correctly is to put pressure on them and you do not do that by saying nothing at all.

Regards

[mkultra]

78. the strength in unity is derived from people

ordering their priorities and joining with those who can attack the top of the list. each accomplishment brings us closer to completion of the agenda.

We seem to exhibit substance without form while our opponents continually beat us with form over substance. There are plains between the mountains and the ocean.

[lostnotforgotten]

52. Hi Rainey - Critical Thinking Democrats Have Been On Life Support For Quite Awhile

eom

[MrMickeysMom]

81. Coordinate and focus THIS

:hurts:

You're never gonna coordinate and focus liberal thought, M

[mkultra]

82. then it will always be the minority

and its purposes never achieved. It is only when a coalition is built in a democracy can the direction be changed.

[MrMickeysMom]

88. And what "purposes" would those be?

And HOW is a coalition built, if it doesn't make room for opposing opinion to achieve an over-all goal of leadership? You don't get that by walking in lock step, bub. We never HAVE. So, I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about with "then it will always be the minority".

It seems that it's NOT a minority here in the United States who, upon seeing enough death and destruction, told those running for office that our goal is to get us OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the same people who continue to write e-mails (my family) to their president.

[leftstreet]

6. Riiight. Democratic Majority, Democratic POTUS, Voter Mandate for Change

Oh but if we only had some power.

[wyldwolf]

20. Riiight. Independent voters were the key

[mkultra]

29. shhh, youll spoil the poutrage

Never mind the fact the one of Obama's key techniques was a simple and persistent "message". Only fools don't see that the republicans everywhere use this technique successfully. And we sit around and wonder why people buy their bullshit.

[leftstreet]

36. What's your point? Most voters consider themselves independent

:shrug:

Since 2006 they obviously decided the Democrats were pushing the better talking points.

[wyldwolf]

40. no they don't

:shrug:

Most voters either consider themselves Democrat or Republican.

And my point is it was the independents - swing voters - who voted in larger numbers for Bush in 2004 that made the difference for Obama, not the "progressive" left.

[leftstreet]

42. Yes they do n/t

[wyldwolf]

46. Link? Oh, no, of course not. How silly of me to ask.

:shrug:

You have your own set of facts.

For the rest of us, there's reality:

As of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?

2009 Mar 27-29: Republican - 28% Democrat - 35% Independent - 35%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

[lostnotforgotten]

53. THen Why Are Independents Treated So Poorly By The Party And Here At DU

Proudly Independent since 2002.

[wyldwolf]

56. no... swing voters... independents who went for Bush in 2000 and 2004

[lostnotforgotten]

66. I Left The Democratic Party In 2002 For The Same Reason That I Am Now Disagreeing With Obama

Say one thing and do another.

[wyldwolf]

67. So?

[Forkboy]

104. Hey, tell Mtnsnake I say hello.

While you're at it, you can tell him to pass on hellos to his buddies Tellurian and the PUMA crowd that he defended rabidly during the primaries. You know...the trolls that all got booted. :rofl:

[madfloridian]

4. The DNC is now part of the Obama organization completely.

And yes, MoveOn is moving to the tune of the White House.

We don't have the independent voices we should have.

Obama picked Rahm because he could "get things done."

[jefferson_dem]

7. And let's hope they are successful in those efforts...

for the good of the nation.

I'm glad to see sound political reason and coordination being applied by some on the democratic "left". That sure beats ideological bluster...any day.

[AtomicKitten]

8. herding cats

n/t

[mkultra]

30. hear hear!

[NashVegas]

63. MoveOn

Sold out its front-end users in 2003/2004 and I think you know what I mean, MF. Anyone who imagined it would remain loyal to the roots in 2009 was deluded.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. CAP has always been a Clintonista/DLC front, so no surprise there

MoveOn.org trending to the right is a disappointment though. Thank God there's still DFA and PDA.

[bbgrunt]

10. big k and r

[slipslidingaway]

12. White House May be Dictating, But We’re Not Stenographers

http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/08/white-house-may-be-dictating-message-but-not-to-us/

Thanks for the post.


snip>>

"...There's a big problem right now with the traditional liberal interest groups sitting on the sidelines around major issues because they don't want to buck the White House for fear of getting cut out of the dialogue, or having their funding slashed. Someone picks up a phone, calls a big donor, and the next thing you know...the money is gone. It's already happened. Because that's the way Rahm plays.

Just in case you were worried, that's not a problem for us."

[Better Believe It]

15. Nor is Democratic Underground! No one dictates to DU liberals/progressives!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. And anyone that disagrees with our thoughts is a dirty double crossing Rahm Agent!

Do you not see the inherent contradiction between "We all think for ourselves!" and "Anyone that disagrees with us or agrees with Rahm must be a DLC secret agent who's being paid for their views!"?

[Better Believe It]

23. I don't think that.

[mkultra]

31. we know, we know

You just want everyone who doesn't agree with the current administration to have a voice. Everyone else can remain quiet right?

[AtomicKitten]

44. Yahtzee.

:hi:

[galloglas]

25. "Do you not see the inherent contradiction" ?? Only semi-

[slipslidingaway]

49. At least some people are not waiting to speak out, Greenwald

and Jane Hamsher fought to have their voices heard before the vote on the FISA bill last year. Fortunately they are still speaking out when they do not agree :)

[Mari333]

62. that just pissed me off to read....nt

[beachmom]

98. Except some of the "dissenters" have their OWN agendas as well.

I say treat each opinion on its own merits. I read Greenwald -- sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree -- but just because he is viewed as a liberal and doesn't shill for Obama does not mean he is always right. FDL and Talk Left have not been positive about Obama, really ever. I do wonder if their candidate of choice had gotten the nomination if they would have been so "pure". I seriously doubt it. After all there are alliances within the blogosphere, and when the nomination was decided there were winners and losers. If you discount that, there are less "pure" dissenters than one thinks.

[rocktivity]

13. Politicio features too prominently in this story for me

their missing being to marginalize the progressives and netroots.

That said, there's nothing wrong with message discipline if it's the RIGHT message.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[brentspeak]

14. Likely some of the Emanuel people are plying their trade on DU, too

[dflprincess]

19. Likely?

I'd say no doubt.

[mkultra]

32. yeah, them and freepers

[ClarkUSA]

37. ... and PUMAs and bitter sore losers of other primary candidates.

[mkultra]

43. some of them could evenbe posting in this very thread.

dontcha think ?

[ClarkUSA]

61. Ya think???!!

This and every other thread on DU GDP 24/7, especially since a certain CATTY forum shut down recently.

[nichomachus]

17. Thank heaven there are none of those people posting here n/t

[bvar22]

22. I don't need Rahm or MoveOn....

...to tell me where I STAND.
If MoveOn wants to suck off Rahm and Obama.....they are free to do so, BUT without my help or support.

I OPPOSE the escalation of the War in Afghanistan.
I OPPOSE any increase in Defense Spending.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Well.....

Over the past several weeks, independent DUers have tried to shine a spotlight on how journalists like Jeremy Scahill, and Common Dreams who portrayed themselves as progressive news sources during the Bush-era, are now using sources such as the Politico in their attempts of writing smear pieces against the Brand New Progressive commander-in-chief who's trying to clean up Bush's shit, and is contineously attacked by all sides, for some of the most nonsensical bullshit imaginable!

There's a big problem right now with the traditional liberal journalists writing editorials and being more accusatory and impatient than the citizens who have been waiting for 8 long ass years for a President that was going to do what he promised he would do and whom they voted for. Voters knowingly voted for Barack Obama understanding that he was going to change the Afghanistan strategy and it was going to be based on initially increasing troops as well as inserting more civilians, etc... the same voters, including the members of Move-on.org, also clearly understood that Barack Obama had not promised a Single Payer system, etc.

In otherwords, it appears that the Instigating Politico, and Jeremy Scahill must be the last to know that many voters who voted for Barack Obama were not expecting Denis Kucinich and are willing to give this President the time that he needs to fulfill the promises that he made during the campaign. The fact that these so called progressive new sources believe that we ought to treat the President's chief of staff as though he is the enemy demonstrates that their interest is not the same as tjpse of Obama voters. Voters want what Obama promised, while the assholes so called journalists just want to stir up discontent and disunity. Tell them that they can bite me.

[Better Believe It]

39. Why do you constantly smear progressives with nonsensical bull shit?

If you have any evidence to back up your outrageous claim that Jeremy Scahill, Common Dreams and other progressive writers and publications are right-wingers please present it.

Credible links please.

We're listening!

You constant smears and personal attacks against progressives and liberals you disagree with are growing old and tiring.

[mkultra]

83. pot meet keetle

[Egnever]

26. Was this story writen by a wingnut?

the whole they didn't pressure the dems to cut off funding schtick makes this piece reek.

[depakid]

38. Nope,Jeremy Scahill is a well regarded investigative journalist

[beachmom]

97. Well, Scahill has his own personal agenda no doubt. He wrote the Blackwater book.

But he is not going to be a team player for the WH. Nothing wrong with that, but I would argue no one is "pure".

[mkultra]

33. so lets see

the pumas claim they are "too left" and bash the obama supporters.
The Obama supporters are really just hard righters that have infiltrated to direct thought.


Is that right?

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. How can we ever immitate the GOP propaganda machine if we all think for ourselves & lack discipline?

:sarcasm:








K&R

[biopowertoday]

102. yeah, its a mystery. We become who we condemn.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Yeah, I prefer the good ol' "herding cats" days of the legendary Democratic circular firing squad.

Who needs to pass legislation on nationalized healthcare, anyway? I'd much rather be a member of a really disorganized political
party than be a super organized and organized member of the base because I want to lose every liberal legislative battle the way
we used to during the 1990's under President Clinton!

God forbid if Democrats get their shit together and have overwhelming approval from 95% of their base under the most popular
and charismatic presidents since JFK! Shit, I want to be as unpopular and ridiculed as the GOP is now! Why do we have to try to
get things accomplished now when President Obama and the Democratic Congress has a chance of success? I want us to FAIL!

Jeremy Scahill should run for President in 2012. I'm sure he'd win. Really. Maybe all the folks rec'ing this thread will go and
work for him. I can only hope.

[Faryn Balyncd]

45. "Shit, I want to be as unpopular and ridiculed as the GOP is now!" :

Interesting. The GOP - - - the party that has developed not only the grand propaganda Wurlizer, but which managed to enforce unprecedented discipline on their politicians (with rare exceptions, such as Ron Paul), which manages to "stay on message" to unprecedented degree - - - is now ridiculed and rejected.

Do you think it is more importatant to "stay on message" and "pass legislation on nationalized healthcare", regardless of the specifics of the plan, or do you think we should fight to get the RIGHT KIND of legislation passed?

(The unfortunate fact is that we have hired a "White House adviser" who wants to not only pass a mandatory insurance corporatist health plan WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION, but who wants to actually privatize Medicare, an action which would permanently secure the healthcare industrial complex for the insurance companies, and destroy the possibility of true healthcare reform.)

The GOP stayed on message, got their legislation passed and pulled the wool over the eyes of the public for a number of years, but the public eventually saw through their bullshit, and recognized that they had been sold a boatload of corporatist crap.

These same corporatist influences have established power bases within our administration.

The question is now: how do we properly respond?

One option is to fall into line, stay on message, and pass corporatist legislation.

The other is to fight for real reform.

The latter will not happen if we shut up and trust the system.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Um, I happen to believe nationalized healthcare is "real reform" and I do "trust" Pres. Obama.

Pres. Obama's stimulus plan was the biggest liberal legislation package since FDR's New Deal. I also like his budget plan
and want that to pass as well. I'm not interested in yelling retread slogans from the 60's; I want real results like the ones
Team O is already delivering on.

I appreciate your passion, though, although I have no sense that you have any solutions beyond feel-good sloganeering.
Why don't you send your detailed alternative plans to the White House and have Team O take a look at them?

[Faryn Balyncd]

64. I suppose a key factor is exactly what the details of "nationalized health care" is will determine..

.... whether or not it is "real reform".


I propose that the majority of Democrats, and the majority of Americans, including me, support Howard Dean's present efforts to preserve a public option in the Obama plan.

The Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan support a Medicare-For-All plan, which I would suggest is "real reform".

There is a real possibility, however, that if we are silent, and do not engage and defeat the corporate forces who are working to destroy a public option, that we will end up with mandated private-only insurance (a la the Fuchs/Emanuel plan) that not only destroys the public option, but privatizes Medicare, and will be an unaffordable give-away to Big Insurance.

Zeke Emanuel considers such a plan to be "nationalizedhealth care" and "real reform".

Many Americans consider his plan corporate welfare and pseudo-reform.

Where do you stand?

[MrMickeysMom]

91. I don't know where he/she stands, but I can say this...

There is a difference between RE's health care reform, and Single Payer (Medicare for All, HR 676).

I'm already hearing the message get mixed up. When enforcing private insurers to offer health care plans is massaged into "universal", that's when I write my congress and say, "NO FUCKING WAY, MoFo. Health care reform it is NOT. It IS, as you say, corporate welfare.

So, that's where I stand, right along with Howard Dean, damn it.

[SoxFan]

48. whatever

[AngryAmish]

54. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem

We need message discipline. Now is not the time for dissent, in a free America. If we are to be free certain voices need to be quiet.

[Faryn Balyncd]

55. Which voices are you saying need to now "be quiet", if we are to "be free"? Those of us who .....

....want real healthcare reform instead of a corporate bailout for the insurance industry (like the mandatory all-private insurance scheme without a public option that actually privatizes Medicare - - - - which is the Emanuel-Fuchs plan being silently promoted within our own administration by corporatists who are simultaneously promoting "message discipline" to silences progressives)???????


Is that the way forward?


Or is the way forward to vigorously support true reform, while exposing, engaging, and defeating the corporate forces promoting pseudo-reform withing our own administration?

[mkultra]

84. Anyone who doesnt see this has tunnel vision.

since politics is a two horse race. We have to vote for the horse that is closest to our opinion. This way we influence the spectrum and move the center. If you don't participate in the two horse race, your wasting your vote.

[Life Long Dem]

60. Self delete.

Wrong thread for post.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

65. Managing outrage

This is a crucial component of corporate PR. I don't know if you have heard of a guy named Peter Sandman and the model's used to manage outrage. I'll provide a few links here. The essence though is not to alter policy or admit ot injustice but to control how people think about the situation. This is used to destroy and marginalize enviro,s, political protesters and otherwise social justice activists.

Essentially this is just an extension of propaganda techniques to assassinate the left. People who defend this sort of thing do the bidding of those who work to keep the people in servitude.

John Stauber does an excellent job of de-constructing this propaganda technique.

Dr. Peter M. Sandman
Outrage Management
(Low Hazard, High Outrage)

http://www.psandman.com/index-OM.htm

Here's an old article on what we are discussing here:

WAR ON TRUTH
The Secret Battle for the American Mind

An Interview with John Stauber
Published in "The Sun"
March 1999


Australian academic Alex Carey once wrote that "the twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

In societies like ours, corporate propaganda is delivered through advertising and public relations. Most people recognize that advertising is propaganda. We understand that whoever paid for and designed an ad wants us to think or feel a certain way, vote for a certain candidate, or purchase a certain product. Public relations, on the other hand, is much more insidious. Because it's disguised as information, we often don't realize we are being influenced by public relations. But this multi-billion-dollar transnational industry's propaganda campaigns affect our private and public lives every day. PR firms that most people have never heard of - such as Burson-Marsteller, Hill & Knowlton, and Ketchum - are working on behalf of myriad powerful interests, from dictatorships to the cosmetic industry, manipulating public opinion, policy making, and the flow of information.

As editor of the quarterly investigative journal PR Watch, John Stauber exposes how public relations works and helps people to understand it. He hasn't always been a watchdog journalist, though. He worked for more than twenty years as an activist and organizer for various causes: the environment, peace, social justice, neighborhood concerns. Eventually, it dawned on him that public opinion on every issue he cared about was being managed by influential, politically connected PR operatives with nearly limitless budgets. "Public relations is a perversion of the democratic process," he says. "I knew I had to fight it."

In addition to starting PR Watch, Stauber founded the Center for Media and Democracy, the first and only organization dedicated to monitoring and exposing PR propaganda. In 1995, Common Courage Press published a book by Stauber and his colleague Sheldon Rampton titled Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry. Their second book, Mad Cow U.S.A.: Could the Nightmare Happen Here?, came out in 1997 and examined the public-relations coverup of the risk of mad-cow disease in the U.S.

<snip>

http://www.derrickjensen.org/stauber.html

[PufPuf23]

105. The DoD is well funded and invested in PR. nt

[Ken Burch]

75. Any antiwar group that backs the Afghanistan esclation loses the right to CALL itself

an antiwar group.

If we start saying "It's ok because OUR guy's doing it", we'll end up standing for nothing.

And we'll forever forfeit the right to be against anything any future Republican president does.

[mkultra]

85. anti-war humans really dont exist

almost everyone has a circumstance in which they think war is necessary. in reality, its a measure not a switch.

[MrMickeysMom]

90. That's an interesting twist -

.. to change the point being made when we are talking about the WAR WE ARE IN.

I'm sure what we are talking about here has NOTHING to do with fighting a necessary battle with a standing army to protect the liberties of a Democratic Republic .... versus that of, say....

A FASCIST DICTATORIAL ILLEGAL WAR such as been the case with the Bush administration!

Either make a salient point of what you're talking about, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Which law is the war in Afghanistan in violation of?

Calling something illegal does not necessarily make it so.

[iamthebandfanman]

99. so you think afghanistan is an illegal war?

just like iraq?

absolutely no difference in your mind eh ?

[jonnyblitz]

100. VoteVets is the same. They are against Bush's war and FOR

Obama's Afghan escalation. They seem like a DNC front or astroturf group designed to give the DEMS military street cred. As a Vet myself I will take Veterans for Peace or Iraq Vets Against the War over them anyday. VoteVets seem more concerned about spinning and covering for DEM politicians and policy than the well being of Vets.

[leftofthedial]

77. I wonder if administration operatives post on political message boards

and try to disrupt critical commentary from the left.

Hmmmm.

[Better Believe It]

79. Only the lowest level ones who bought themselves a White House "job"

either with hard campaign work and/or significant campaign fund-raising.

[MrMickeysMom]

80. Me thinks you wonder correctly...

Notice how the Magistrate has sort of left for a while for we cats to be herded...

Sorry.... You can't do it. :nopity:

Not if you're addressing your message to those truly using LIBERAL THOUGHT ALGORITHMS.

[mkultra]

86. i wonder if paid political consultants on the right

embed themselves in a board and post to disrupt liberal unity.

[leftofthedial]

87. "liberal unity"?

fascinating concept.

[MrMickeysMom]

89. Oxymoron ....

that "liberal unity"...

From Wikipedia -

Liberalism is a BROAD class of political philosophies that considers INDIVIDUAL liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

[TrogL]

92. Correlation is not causation

Like minds think alike?

[ieoeja]

94. I was shocked when the DFA did not run a primary opponent against Rahm.

He tried everything he could to undermine Dean during the 2006 election only to see Dean succeed beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Then he took credit for the Dean's actions that he had tried to prevent!

So I was shocked not to see a primary opponent in the next election. Then I got invited to a local DFA event and found it is stocked with Rahm's people. And since they were professionals ... they quickly took control.

[wyldwolf]

95. the DFA candidate would have lost

Emanuel is wildly popular in his district as well as in the Democratic party for winning the house back in 2006

[beachmom]

96. I never cared for Moveon, et al. They were tone deaf before, and now

apparently they are just going to parrot talking points fed to them from the White House. Of course, this means that now the WH will be on the hook any time Moveon.org pulls a stupid "General Betray Us" stunt again. It seems, though, that it is now in more competent hands and will not do so.

No one should fret too much. The internet favors entrepreneurs, which means that bloggers can speak on their own and earn money from their own blog ads and reader donations. They can also have a job and do blogging on the side. The point is not being in the pockets of the power that be in Washington. THAT will always compromise you.

[anonymous171]

101. Liberals should fall in line, but not behind Rahm unless he suddenly becomes a progressive. nt

[Vidar]

103. Rahm Emmanuel is the biggest thing wrong with this administration.

[TheKentuckian]

106. No one asks for locksteppers but if your fall in line percentage is ZERO

then you in effect cannot belong to or be a functioning healthy part of anything.

[LWolf]

107. Yes; we see the same thing happening

here at DU. Dissension from the left is going to disappear as the left is tombstoned or silenced, one poster at a time.

Even though DU still bills itself as "hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards."

[muryan]

108. I don't understand this

Conservatives, wrongly, labeled liberal groups as against all war. Many of us were just strongly against the Iraq invasion, but supported action in Afghanistan. Unless I'm missing something from Moveon...I have yet to see them argue against a presence in Afghanistan. In fact some of the most compelling criticism against the Bush white house was that he ignored Afghanistan and made a manageable problem worse.

Also Rahm is not Rove, his job is to convey to these liberal interest groups what the white house is trying to do in an attempt to get them on board. This is how politics work. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as it doesn't quash dissent.