Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Understanding the RNC strategy to distract attention from treason

The RNC knows they're in trouble. This is a handy checklist you can use to evaluate the RNC distractions.

Feel free to ignore it. You'are not required to use it. It is intended to assist you in making sense of the distractions coming out of the RNC.

If you find it helpful, by all means use it. If you find it a waste, by all means make some suggestions to improve it.

Rule of law

The core problem with the RNC is credibility. It’s all about impeachment. Rove is merely a step on the way. But this subject is merely a distraction from the real issue: War crimes, impeachment, indictments, treason and Rove.

The rule of law and threat of criminal sanctions are the only things imposing any discipline on the RNC. The prosecutor, not the RNC, provides leadership.

Thus, the number one threat to the RNC is the number one person who has the most power: Fitzgerald.

You were warned

"This tyrant hopes to create the illusion that it is the prosecutor who is the uncontrollable one, when in fact it is the tyrant in the White House who moves without regard to the constitution."

Read more

If there truly is a conspiracy and there is false information, why isn’t the RNC going to the Justice Department? Oh, that’s right: DoJ has already paid a visit. And the RNC is under indictment. Their man Rove isn’t making much traction.

Fear is at heart of RNC actions

They like to blame with distrations. The RNC is pissed off because they are losing power. They call others crazy. But those “crazy” people are the ones that the RNC most detest – for they are actually people who dare to call the RNC what they are: Out of touch, leaderless, imploding, and ineffectual.

  • Why are they spending time on matters that should be self-evident?

  • Is the leadership able to develop credible solutions?

    Surely, if the RNC was all powerful, they would not have to spend any time cutting down the most meager, crazy person. But that is what they must do. Not because they RNC is powerful, but because they are weak; and the RNC attacks the powerful, not because they are crazy, but because these individuals can demonstrate easily that the RNC is losing it.

  • Why do they focus so much time and energy on that which supposedly does not deserving attention?

    The RNC is vulnerable. They are uncertain. Those they call small and powerless are able to easily ruffle them. This is not a sign of RNC power, but frailty.

    Who is bringing up the issue? It is the RNC. The issue is one of credibility.

    RNC problem: Poor success criteria

    We see nothing specific with the problems, criteria or content.

  • Where are the credible solutions and plans?

    They could make some substantive commentary or criticism, but they pass up the chance. They fail to identify the standards they expect others to use to critique this information. The primary problem with the RNC is that they fail to articulate why they come to a particular conclusion. They are easily ruffled, for they grow tired with their own non-sense.

  • Are they effective in outlining substantive solutions and remedies to what is known to be flawed?

    If the RNC truly “didn’t like” someone, why aren’t they focusing on that issue and outlining the specific reasons for that problem, and then using that standard to outline a more credible construct? The RNC has no answer. They just like to point fingers.

    Credible threats to RNC

    Moreover, to credibly deconstruct the RNC non-sense takes considerable space; but that space should not be considered an “obsession,” rather something needed to unravel a large mess.

  • What is required to clarify the issue?

    The RNC likes to change the topic/focus form “their non-sense” to those who are commenting on that inaction.

  • Is the focus on solutions or on those who are commenting?

    The RNC goal is to dissuade discussion, and discredit those who dare point out the misrepresentations are non-sense.

  • What information does the RNC provide to inspire confidence in their vision, approaches, and specific plans?

    It remains why the RNC is so obsessed with content that is supposedly of “no value.” Their discussions merely bring attention to that which they want hidden or smeared.

  • Are the comments focusing on solutions or the problem?

    The RNC objective is to shift attention to those who dare spend the time showing how the RNC is falling apart. Rather than address their crumbling infrastructure, the RNC is simply throwing stones at those who say what is self-evident: RNC continues to implode.

    Rather than discuss the issues, the RNC likes to assert that those publicly speaking out suffer some sort of mental problem or are emotionally unstable.

    Again, the RNC goal is to distract attention from the constitution, rule of law, and Rove and focus the attention on those who dare raise the points. This is the same as shifting the argument from the standard to the observer. This is designed to do more than shift the debate; it is defined to put the public on the defensive to “justify” their comment. Don’t take the bait.

  • What is the RNC plan to their credibility problem?

  • Does the RNC have a plan?

  • Does the RNC have a plan to get a plan?

    The real issue for RNC is why they spend so much time discussing content that is supposedly “of no value.” Surely, if the RNC membership was competent, there would be no reason to dismiss this content as it would be self-evident; moreover, the content could easily be dismissed based on sound reasons. But this is not what the RNC does. They use non-sense to discredit illusory objectives. And the RNC membership continues to lap it up.

  • What are viable alternatives?

  • If the content and substance of the discussion was flawed, what would be an alternative?

    Surely, if the content was not worthy, why would the RNC call attention to something that “would waste other’s time”? Surely, if the content was garbage, it would be a benefit to the RNC to say nothing and let others waste their time reading that which was not helpful. But the RNC calls attention to that which deserves to be considered.

  • What is a way forward?

  • What information is needed to shed light on the issues and options?

    The credible threats to the RNC power are those who can point out the flaws with the RNC. However, the RNC likes to target them. Surely, if others had “no credibility” that would be self-evident.

    Objective: Dissuade RNC membership from defecting

    The benefit of the DNC and DSM coalition is that, unlike the RNC, they can openly discuss issues, problems, and solutions. On the other hand, the RNC goal is to dissuade the RNC and DNC membership from jointly considering ideas outside the RNC’s narrowly defined success criteria.

  • What’s the basis for fearing public discussion?

    RNC hopes to make the DNC/DSM movement appear to be incompetent and unresponsive. One strategy they take is to make comments as if they are members of the DNC/DSM coalitions. This is another way of saying that the RNC is engaging in black operations: Making it appear as though the comments are from others within the DNC, when in fact they are comments designed to undermine communication.

    In the end, what the RNC hopes to do is to portray the DNC and DSM as being soft on terrorism, and thereby encourage the public to choose between DNC and RNC. However, the real issue is one of the Constitution or tyranny. One need not assume the DNC is “soft on terror” simply because the DNC chooses to publicly discuss issues.

  • What is a lawful solution to this issue?

    Another approach the RNC is taking is to assign risky themes with the DNC. The RNC hopes to silence dissent, show that the DNC doesn’t pay attention to standards, makes excuses to rationalize problems, and asserts a problem without a plan.

  • Is the statement outlining a solution to mitigate those risks?

  • How effectively are opposing views incorporated into the final solution?

    Strategy: Interfere with discussion

    The one thing the DNC has going for it is that it is willing to openly discuss issues that the RNC hopes to keep hidden, not talked about, and magically solved.

  • What is the basis to have confidence in their approach?

  • What mechanism will address this issue?

  • What is the timeline to resolve this matter?

    It is curious how much energy they will spend asserting “there is no problem,” but when asked for specific evidence they have nothing to stand on but illusions.

  • How are plans and solutions incorporating emerging trends?

    Narrowly define permissible commentary

    One thing the RNC likes to do is complain; and then complain about others complaining; but they can’t stand it if someone complains about their meaningless comments. RNC is very vague.

  • Are the standards uniformly applied?

  • Are special exceptions to the rules permitted?

    RNC wants the right to comment about issues, but then is using “others comments” as some sort of “sign” that there is a problem. In reality, RNC wants it both ways: The right to comment on “other’s comments,” but deny the right of commentary to others with opposing views.

    There is a danger of excluding the dissenters. RNC likes to ignore information contrary to their objectives. RNC likes to say that the bad things aren’t relevant.

  • Is the full picture considered?

  • How severe must the problem be before full spectrum of perspectives is considered and incorporated into solutions??

    Rather than discussing topics, RNC likes to focus attention on whether others can or cannot figure out whether the content is interesting or meets some arbitrary standard.

  • What’s being done to distract attention from the issue?

  • What relationship does this standard have with the original issue?

  • Who has the actual requirement to meet this standard?

  • What relevance does “content interest” have in relationship to the real issue, solution, options, or way forward?

    Strategy: Perception of information management

    The main problem with the RNC is that they are imprecise, vague. They want specific information, but do not want to let others know that they have to rely on outside sources for assistance.

  • What are their real sources of feedback?

  • Who is able to think on their feet?

  • How credible are their solutions?

  • To what extent do they ridicule that which they respect and lean on?

    The RNC likes to keep an arms-length distance from the vital sources of information. Privately, they rely on this information; publicly, they ridicule that which they need.

    It is curious that the RNC likes to threaten to shut off access to information that is otherwise available elsewhere. Rather than solve problems, they like to point the searchlight on those who are outspoken.

  • What other sources of information are there?

    Flavoring information

    The RNC likes to guide others what “not to read,” not because the content is good or bad. But because the content is a threat to the RNC. The RNC doesn’t want someone considering other views.

  • Why are alternative views discredited without reviewing content?

  • What other options are dismissed without carefully reviewing these options?

    Those who are lulled into “not reading” other comments are those who are not reasoning. They are simply maintaining the blinders without regard to reality.

    RNC also likes to meddle in discussions in which they are not an obvious party. But their real goal is to interfere, not provide solutions.

  • Who are the real stakeholders in this issue?

  • Who is implying they have a seat at the table without an invitation?

  • Who really has no vote on the outcome?

    The RNC likes to dismiss concerns with non-sense words. The RNC likes to say what is or isn’t an appropriate use of time. The RNC likes to assert illusory and speculative intent and reasons to an activity. This is a distraction from the Rove-impeachment issue.

  • How seriously are the concerns addressed?

  • How credible are their remarks on appropriate time management?

  • Do their results demonstrate they can effectively share their progress as an example on appropriate use of time?

  • How much evidence supports their assertion on intent?

    The issue is what is most prudent. What would the RNC like? For there to be no debate, just a decision and action, regardless the prudence. The RNC fears independent or alternative viewpoints, especially when those views might persuade others to another outcome or path.

  • What debates have been cut off prematurely?

  • What were the long term costs and risks because of a failure to consider the real evidence and facts?

  • What options have been pre-selected, regardless the facts or evidence?

    The RNC will use “public discussion of disagreement’ as evidence of a problem. Rather, the real problem is that the RNC is so used to blind obedience, that anything resembling an open vetting of issues is considered a threat. Yet, the purpose of a Republic is to discuss issues at a higher level, not dissuade discussion.

  • What is the real issue or problem?

  • How can a discussion of that problem be a distraction from that issue?

    RNC sends convoluted messages to membership on issues related to public discussion.

    Strategy: Attack those engaging in dialog

    One RNC objective is to dissuade dialog between the DNC and RNC membership.
    RNC is especially upset that [a] their own members are providing feedback to the DNC; and [b] despite the dialog, the RNC leadership has been unable to get access to the information and DNC strategies.

  • Why is compromise at odds with their objectives?

  • Do the members trust the leadership?

  • How effective is the leadership in getting access to the needed information?

    The RNC has an issue with the public expressing itself. When others express themselves, RNC cannot stand their reaction to that expression.

  • How successful is the leadership in monitoring feedback?

    The RNC is in conflict. On one hand they have the standards which they demean as unimportant; then they discredit those who compare the RNC conduct to those standards; yet, despite the “obvious problem” with the messenger, the RNC refuses to explain why it spending so much time discussing or focusing on what they consider “trash.”

  • How responsive is the leadership to initial signs of problems?

    The issue is not whether the public can or cannot express themselves. It is the RNC reaction to that expression. The RNC like to “express their reaction to others comments,” but are quick to deprive others from expressing their reaction to the RNC absurdity.

  • What issues have not been addressed?

  • What types of planning factors have been overlooked?

  • What types of reports and forecasts were dismissed without careful review?

    Strategy: RNC leadership likes to abuse to RNC membership

    What the RNC does to its own membership is closely monitor their time; give unsolicited advice on what is proper and appropriate; make vague statements; use innuendo; and paint those who are slightly different as being unworthy of consideration. That is not accommodating.

  • How responsive is the leadership to the needs of the membership?

    It’s as if the RNC doesn’t trust others to be able to make a personal decision whether the content is or isn’t valuable. It remains beyond the RNC explanation why they are concerned with content that they cannot find.

  • What is the basis not to trust those you are leading?

    The RNC doesn’t want to protect anyone. The RNC wants to keep people confused and discredit those who dare point out what is going on. The RNC wants to insulate the membership from those who are pointing out the non-sense arguments.

  • Is the progress and result resulting in an increase or a decrease in clarity?

  • Is the progress and way forward focusing on increasing or decreasing understanding?

    The RNC wants something, and they are not specific. The RNC likes to know what others are thinking so that they can confuse them.

  • How specific is the leadership with what they want or expect?

  • Has the leadership confused expectations of leadership with expectations of the sovereign?

  • Does the leadership distinguish between the expectations on the people from that of the expectations on the leadership?

    What does it feel like to be around the RNC membership? They like to look down on all. They have to use non-sense to make issue confusing.

  • Is the association with the organization one that facilitates solutions?

  • Is the way forward based on reality?

    RNC flaw: Poor responsiveness

    RNC hopes to make it appear as though the DSM and DNC are not responsive. Surely, if the RNC were to self-evidently have the “right answer,” there’d be no reason to yell. But yell they do.

  • How emotionally stable are the leaders?

    It is curious how the RNC likes to reframe words. They dismiss problems using terms that are essentially the same as what is used to point out the problems. The RNC likes to argue over the nuance of the term, and then dismiss the conclusion because the “right nuance” wasn’t embraced. The appropriate remedy is to dismiss the RNC.

  • Is the real situation understood?

  • Is the problem appropriately resolved?

  • Have the problems and drivers behind that situation been understood?

    The RNC expects the opposition to “conform” to some arbitrary standard. Despite their assertions to the contrary, there is information which shows they are unreliable; and this information can be well understood.

  • Is the leadership applying the standard to them?

  • is the standard appropriate?

  • How reliable are the leaders?

    RNC problem: Poor ability to formulate credible solutions


    RNC is in charge, yet acts as if it is in opposition to the main part. Where are the RNC solutions? They keep blaming the Ghost of Clinton’s past. How long has it been since Bill Clinton has been out of office?

  • Who is taking responsibility for the solution?

  • What are lawful results?

    Surely, 5 years into the RNC control, the RNC would start to take responsibility. But not this crew. It’s always someone else’s fault. That’s not leadership or accountability.

  • What is the way forward?

  • What is a desirable future?

    If the DSM/DNC truly had “X-objective,” why isn’t the RNC able to specify details of what they disagree with? The RNC offers nothing specific.

  • How specific are they?

  • Are they articulating a credible solution?

  • Who is demonstrating an ability to translate plans into results?

    Also, if one objective was “truly what the DNC/DSM coalition wanted,” the RNC cannot explain why the subsequent actions are inconsistent with that illusory objective.” In other words, what the RNC is doing is focusing on something very irrelevant, pointing to the opposite objective, and then getting the public to disagree with that illusory vision. This is the same as arguing the wrong point.

  • How appropriate is the focus?

  • Is the basis for public support for positive or negative reasons?

  • How much energy is focused on a solution?

  • Are solutions pre-determined?

  • Are solutions based on reality as it unfolds?

    Fleeting solutions

    The RNC is not happy. They want new ideas. But they cannot get them. They are not clear with what they are trying to do.

  • How successful is the leadership is sparking new ideas and solution?

  • Does the leadership listen to the full spectrum of debate as a catalyst for broader solutions?

  • How effectively are the risks incorporated into management mitigation plans?

    They offer neither little substantive criticism nor anything specific on what they would prefer. Rather than openly discuss the situation, they misrepresent it.

  • Does the leadership focus on reality?

  • How specific are the plans?

    We see nothing specific in their content or criticism. They are vague. They hope to dissuade others from looking at it. RNC doesn’t trust others to think for their own interests.
  • What kind of signal is leadership sending to their members?

  • Does the leadership trust the membership?

  • Does the leadership believe the membership can choose for themselves?

  • Is the leadership stuck on outcomes without consideration of membership input, feedback, or commentary?

  • How responsive is the leadership to the need to adjust?

  • How many episodes are required before the leadership adjusts?

    What is absurd for the RNC to argue is that despite no effort on their part to understand the issue, the problem remains and there is no change. The public is able to understand, review, access, and understand not only the information but also the issues.

  • Are they getting results?

  • How responsive is the leadership to outside audits?

  • Are the proposed plans effective?

  • What effective alternatives have been rejected?

    Imprecise criticism

    It is curious that they cite information as being “poor,” but offer nothing “better” nor are they specific on what would be an improvement.

  • What efforts is made to work with what have?

  • Are solutions rejected because of the source?

  • How vague are they in defining what they would prefer?

    But we see nothing specific as to why the content is problematic; nor what would be a credible alternative. Just more non-sense.

  • Are the plans based on reasonable assumptions?

  • TO what extent is logic and reason used to evaluate the options?

  • Are popular options favored because of illogical reasons?

  • What is an appropriate use of public funds?

  • Is there adequate oversight of those funds?

  • is the funding being allocated for lawful purposes?

    They want others to be careful in their comments, and couch their remarks in terms that will “not upset” the already feeble RNC minds. Their public statements do little to inspire dialog, just greater mistrust.

  • How effective are the leaders in getting public feedback?

  • How much rework is there in the plans?

  • What fundamental problems are ignored?

  • What major rework is needed because experts were ignored?

  • What are they doing to facilitate meaningful feedback?

  • What is their track record in seriously considering other views?

    Strategy: Rely on distractions

    The RNC confirms time and time again that they must use non-sense to discredit others. However, their responses show that the comments are having an impact; that the public comments have been read and understood; and that their pressure to dissuade action and commentary has been ineffectual.

  • Which options have been pre-selected?

  • What facts are surfacing that undermine their pre-determined outcome?

    Their arguments fail. If someone truly had this “adverse objective,” the RNC is unable to explain why the RNC is so obsessed with that objective. The issue is simply a red herring from Rove.

  • What is the lawful way forward?

  • What is the standard?

  • What is needed to correct this deviation?

  • What consequences are needed to punish this deviation?

    Rather, there is evidence that the “alleged objective” [that is an illusion] is actually the opposite, but the RNC ignores the evidence supporting the opposite.

  • How much energy is spent on illusions?

  • How much work is required to be redone?

  • How much communication and confusion do they create?

  • What is being done to arrive at answers?

    In short, there is nothing that is going to satisfy the RNC. They’re going to complain no matter what.

  • Is the leadership focusing on solutions?

  • Is the leadership following standards?

  • Is the leadership being honest?

  • Is the leadership trustworthy?

  • Is the leadership reliable?

  • Does the leadership take responsibility for inaction?

    It is curious that those who supposedly “don’t like the Patriot Act” spend quite a bit of time talking about subjects using non-sense.

    This doesn’t mean that those who oppose the Patriot Act are full of non-sense. On the contrary, it means that those who are using non-sense to discuss the issues cannot credibly be believed to be opposed to the Patriot Act. Rather, it is more likely that they fully support the Patriot Act, and have little to justify their support other than non-sense.

  • Is there consistency between their position and their argument?

  • Is their argument based on sound reasons?

  • Do you believe their public statement?

  • Is their public statement on what they support or oppose believable?

  • Are they using non-sense to justify confidence that their position is real?

    Rather than respond to issues related to impeachment or Rove, the RNC likes to focus on irrelevant issues like:

  • Popularity of content
  • Availability of content
  • Motivations for people to make comments
  • Whether others can or cannot speak out
  • Whether the public agrees/disagrees with an irrelevant issues
  • Whether a matter of public concern is reasonably discussed

  • Is the leadership focusing on reality?

  • What is being done to distract attention?

  • How much time is spent on irrelevant issues?

    Strategy: Non-sense

    White House and RNC are well coordinated to spew non-sense. There are interesting parallels between the RNC public statements in the blogs and the White House press briefings. Rather than respond to a question, they change the subject from whether the content is or isn’t available to whether the links are or are not valid.

  • How consistent is the non-sense?

  • Is the focus on solutions?

  • Is the focus on consistency?

  • What is a needed solution?

  • What is actually being done?

    If they have information that the links are bad, then surely they want to have access to the content; yet, then they turn around and say the content [that they want to get access to, but they can’t get] isn’t worth anyone’s attention.

  • Are they being open with what information the need?

  • Are they being open with what the problem is?

  • Have they shared specifics?

  • Do they ask for specifics, but ignore them?

  • Do they say they want to know, but then get upset when they are given what they ask for?

    The RNC is upset that people are deconstructing the RNC mess despite the difficulty.

  • Do they recognize their management problem?

  • Are they focusing on solutions?

  • Who are they blaming?

  • Are they using abuse to get compliance?

  • Are the results effective?

  • Is the prudent option to no longer have contact?

  • If “no contact” is the best option, why are they needed?

    Strategy: Define the opposition in adverse terms

    Absurdly, the RNC requires others to use “short statements” to credibly discuss very convoluted RNC statements. Then when the public “complies with that arbitrary standard,” the RNC then states that the comments are vague and without merit.

  • Are they open to feedback?

  • Do they use reason?

  • Do they recognize the absurd statements?

  • Do they yell when confronted with reality?

    Strategy: Defining acceptable debate in terms favorable to RNC

    RNC likes to assert a convoluted argument can only be refuted in terms that are narrowly defined as acceptable. The RNC’s goal is to define “acceptable” as one that fails to support the DNC/DSM.

  • What are the viable solutions and options?

  • Are the solutions moving forward or positive?

  • Do they define solutions in terms that are negative or against?

    Strategy: Rely on illogical statements

    The same RNC which spewed out non-sense prior to the Iraq invasion continues their work.

  • Do they see a connection between non-sense in one situation and another?

  • Has the level of non-sense subsided?

  • What factors are getting in the way of reason?

    The RNC is uses non-sense because they know the defections from the RNC are increasing. They have to use greater levels of non-sense to rally those who are less able to understand what is going on.

  • What do the public statements say about those who are following?

  • What kind of people are they associating with?

    There are disconnects between their arguments. They make inconsistent assertions, when brought together do not support each other. Rather the statements raise more questions than the RNC can address.

  • Do the various lines of evidence match up?

  • Is one argument inconsistent with another?

  • Do all the arguments, evidence, and statements support each other?

  • How credible are the explanations for the inconsistencies?

    But the RNC likes to persuade. But the RNC cannot use logic to persuade. They have to use non-sense because they have no other option.

  • What options are used to get support?

  • What options have the best reasons?

    RNC hopes to manipulate a crowd that relies on non-sense, won’t use mind, and is operating based on fear.

  • How quickly are debates ended?

  • What timelines and deadlines are illusory?

    Strategy: Engage in stifling behavior

    The only foundation for the RNC is to attack their own, and drive wedges between the growing bridges between the RNC and DNC membership.

  • How is information transfer a threat to the leadership?

  • What solutions are the members generating?

  • Who has more compelling solutions?

    Strategy: Be vague

    The RNC leadership is wanting for specifics. They make vague statements. Vague criticism indicates that they have no real desire to help, but sew the seeds of doubt based on non-sense.

  • How specific are their reasons and plans?

  • How credible are their plans?

  • Is the plan success oriented?

  • Does the plan incorporate what is most likely to go wrong?

  • What are the options should there be a problem?

    Here’s what’s needed

    Although the Downing Street Memo is important, avoid getting focused on the Downing Street Memo as “the answer” to all the evidence.

    There are broader themes that cross many lines of evidence. For example, now that we know that Rove willing lies to the Grand jury, we can also raise reasonable doubts about his statements regarding the President’s competence, leadership, vision, options, and plans.

    Some things the DNC and Downing Street Memo coalition can do is to ensure they demonstrate their activities meet the standards that they want the world to comply with. If you are serious about getting results, then show that your plans and discussions are respectful of opposing views. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with them; but at some point you’re going to have to consider the situation from their point of view to find common ground.

    Show that the standards that you have freely chosen to embrace are openly enforced, not simply asserted as a standard that others should meet. For to remain silent or do nothing about these deviations sends a signal that you’re no better than the RNC.

    Areas to inquire when reviewing information

  • Who is actually setting the pace of the consequences?

  • Are the allegations backed up by credible results?

  • What is the basis for defining this information as not acceptable?

  • What is being done to distract attention from the most important issues?