RNC Propaganda Checklist: Mobilizing your disloyal base and opposition to unite on an irrelevant issue
The goal is simple: When your base is collapsing because the Presidents unlawful NSA activites, get the rumbling base to unite with the opposition on an irrelevant issue. They will assert principles, but fight for the wrong cause.
You do not have to win, you merely have to avoid being defeated.
This is the same as victory.
[ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]
RNC Propaganda: Shifting the outrage from misconduct over the unlawful NSA activities
The trick to this approach is twofold:
When all is said and done, people will have made their points, and the world will believe that the RNC is waking up. Actually, the world hasn’t woken up: We haven’t changed. We’re still not taking responsibility for the NSA unlawful activity.
Accept: The public and your disloyal RNC members know there are widespread legal violations in re the NSA issue.. Goal: Focus the outrage over these violations on an irrelevant issue. This will tie up Congress, and diffuse attention from the NSA. Recognize there is a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to effectively oversee and organize. Goal: Channel the public’s outrage about this incompetence on an irrelevant issue. The success of this ruse depends on framing themes one and two in terms of what will support our greatest asset. We will impose discipline on those to assent to our non-sense. |
Avoid: Do not mention the following:
|
[ ] Appropriateness: Argue whether something should or should not be done – but make no mention that that debate of “what should or should not e done” was not done in the NSC on the matters of the law over the unlawful NSA issue.
[ ] Conflicts: Argue over a conflict of interest, but make no mention that the leadership has a conflict with the Constitution.
[ ] Fictional problems Keep getting the public to focus on “the problem” -- but distract attention from the NSA.
[ ] Themes: Change the issue from whether or not the US government is or is not violating the law; and focus on the flames of that “big scary story.” It doesn’t matter if we make up facts.
[ ] Dissent: Get the RNC leadership to argue with the President on issues that are unrelated to the Constitution or the rule of law.
[ ] Cavalier attitude toward Constitution: White House treated the NSA illegal activity like it was routine.
Due Diligence: Problem: Continuing Lack of RNC due diligence on the unlawful NSA programs
[ ] Change the issue from whether or not the President can justify his unlawful NSA activity to whether or not the critics can justify whether or not there is a basis to question whether or not these was due diligence on an irrelevant issue.
Solution: Distract attention from the NSA unlawful programs
[ ] Refocus the issue on whether or not a deal is stopped, not whether the law is followed.
[ ] Create independence on issues unrelated to NSA and the illegal programs.
Assert the issue is neutral – do so in a way that does not appear t o be partisan
Debate: Use the issues related to the NSA, but recast these principles in the irrelevant issue
[ ] Get people to ask questions unrelated to the Constitution, and frame the questions in terms that are focused on issues outside the rule of law. Emphasize themes.
[ ] Oaths: Surprising, “we can’t guarantee” is a standard that should apply to the US approach to the Constitution: They should guarantee their oath, but they do not.
[ ] Point to the agreement – but ignore the real agreement that has been ignored: The oath to the Constitution. Where was the outrage over that? There was none.
[ ] Law Who controls the law; who controls the Constitution? Why wasn’t that brought up?
[ ] Compromise: Get them to talk about the compromises that could have been made--make no mention that Gonzalez could have compromised on something, and talked to the Congress about what he should not have compromised on.
[ ] Arguments: Say people are or are not making a “good case” on this irrelevant tissue.
[ ] Evidence: Point to disagreement as evidence of something; ignore all mentions whether this disagreement is relevant to a review of the unlawful NSA program.
[ ] Relevance: Change the subject from whether the FISA is or is not relevant; and get the public to debate on whether the other irrelevant issue is or is not relevant. Bait them to:
Debate over irrelevant issues.
[ ] Point to incomplete information related to irrelevant issues.
[ ] Argue over facts that are irrelevant.
[ ] Assert ignorance about whether irrelevant things are irrelevant.
[ ] Argue over irrelevant definitions and distractions on irrelevant issues.
[ ] Tell people what they should or should not do on this unrelated issue. They’ll debate that, and forget the NSA illegal activities. Maybe not.
[ ] Say that this “irrelevant issue” is wrong – but make no mention why this wrongness is “more wrong” than the violations of the constitution.
[ ] Participation: Change the issue from the FISA court “being locked out” to whether or not the Cabinet was or was not involved, or locked out.
[ ] History Point to history as the basis for review, but do not mention that the same historical period is the time that FISA was brought into being.
[ ] Legislative changes: Focus on amendments to irrelevant issues, but ignore the FISA amendments which Gonzalez didn’t raise until 2004, three years after 9-11.
[ ] Inquiry: Focus on whether the inquiry did or did not occur on an irrelevant issue – but do not examine whether this inquiry did or did not occur on the NSA issue.
[ ] Use emotion and passion that should be put toward the Constitution
[ ] Act shocked over the RNC defections, but do not let them talk about the defections to impeach the President over the unlawful program
This has to do with Congressional oversight, and our internal problems. The goal here is to give the public irrelevant issues to focus on.
Oversight:
[ ] Have speedy inspections and reviews of issues unrelated to the Constitution.
[ ] Ignore what the NSA and White House did not brief to the Committees. Change the issue to whether the US did or didn’t focus on the right briefing, not the law.
[ ] Change the issue from whether the NSA is or is not obeying the law, to whether or not this Congress is or is not being fair, kind, or friendly.
[ ] Get Congress to investigate irrelevant things. Why weren’t the lawful options explored with the NSA? NO answer on that.
[ ] Change the subject from the cursory review of the NSA program, to a cursory review of an unrelated, irrelevant issue: The world will mobilize, agree, and unite on an irrelevant issue.
[ ] Get people to talk about whether unrelated issues were or were not rubber stamps; and make no mention that the US government expected the FISA to rubber stamp things. When the FISA Court should not rubber stamp, we ignored the FISA court.
[ ] Reviews: Act shocked about what is or is not reviewed; never mind that there was no shock over the similar lack of review given to the FISA or the Constitution.
[ ] Interagency: Get people to talk about interagency panels, but make no mention that there is another interagency panel called the Joint Staff which assented to the illegal NSA program, and has waged unlawful war.
[ ] Assert management and oversight, without connecting it to the Katrina issue
[ ] Change the subject from whether or not the NSA issue was or was not lawful or effectively overseen, to whether or not the “process” to “oversee” an irrelevant issue was or was not followed. Avoid all mentions of the Katrina debacle; then tackle it head on.
[ ] Procedure: Discuss whether or not procedures were or were not followed – make no mention that the White House ignored the procedures when it came to NSA acquisition.
[ ] Approval Argue over approvals, but ignore the lack of lawful programs inside the NSA Appeal to ignorance over who did or did not approve the irrelevant issue.
[ ] Authority: Pretend that the review was or was not done at the wrong level. This will insulate the President, and make others think that there is a problem inside his department. This is a ruse. Notice, they’re not talking about who was or was not involved.
[ ] Leadership:
Act confused about who was involved, not involved in the unrelated issue; this will distract attention from the NSA issues.
[ ] Debate over who can or cannot address these irrelevant issues. Make no mention that there was no debate on dissimilar issues related to the NSA. There was no discussion on whether the problems with the NSA compliance were or were not address.
[ ] Trust: Get the public to raise questions about who to trust – and apply that doubt to an irrelevant issue.
[ ] ResponsibilityMake the problems of the White House everyone else’s problem.
[ ] Concern: Assert that the public has reason to be worried, but make no mention whether that worry is related to anything relevant to the NSA. Give the public a chance to voice concern, but do not let them voice concerns about their liberties. They are only allowed to voice concerns about your issues, which are irrelevant to the Constitution.
[ ] Focus: Point out what people haven’t noticed – but make this “lack of notice” related to something that does not matter.
[ ] Clear focus on irrelevancies: Say that things are clear, even though it is not clear: Why are there so many boneheads in Congress who like fascism and NSA unlawful activity?
[ ] Seriousness: Argue whether they are or are not taking something seriously, -- never mind that they’re not taking the issue of the Constitution seriously.
[ ] Competence:
Accuse the leadership of suffering from things which they suffered from in the NSA issue: Inability to follow the law, but don’t mention the NSA
[ ] Imply the underling failed, but do not explain why they cannot be identified. They do not exist. This is a sham. The underlings take orders, they do not think or caret policy.
[ ] Point to illusions of who is or is not able to do something, band make no mention that the NSA should have been able to do their job. The issue is who got in the way.
[ ] Standards Who should or should not follow the standards?
[ ] Compliance Why is it OK to say that people should or should not follow the law on irrelevant issues, but make no mention of whether the law does or doesn’t apply.
[ ] Options: Do not discuss that they are discussing rejecting options related to irrelevant issues.
[ ] Limitations: Acknowledge we can’t do everything, then make than the DNC’s problem: they cannot do what we cannot do. Lower the standards for all on an irrelevant issue.
[ ] Decision Criteria: Make the basis for the decision on our favorite theme, even though this factor is unrelated to anything meaningful, and the issue is irrelevant.
[ ] Solutions Celebrate solutions, but ignore the fact that the solutions were ignored when addressing the impeachment of the President: Why hasn’t he resigned?
[ ] Accomplishments Point to all that has been done, and make the world believe they are being unreasonable: They didn’t stand up for or against this irrelevant issue.
[ ] Point to problems in the area that you just said was doing well. This will make you think that you’re being critical, but make no mention of the real issue you should have been critical about: The NSA program.
[ ] Mystery: Get the leadership to refrain from making comments – this will suggest there is a cover-up; but this is a ruse. It is merely an opposite of approach of what failed with the NSA issue: Openly bragging what was or was not done. We made an error. Oops!
[ ] The White House cannot explain why the President was well involved with the NSA issue, but is not pretending that “lower level “people are the blame in this unrelated issue.
[ ] On one hand he takes responsibility for the illegal act – but Congress does nothing; then when it comes to time to find out, Congress finds out – only if they do not have to point the finger at the President on a real issue related to the Constitution.
[ ] Argue over whether the form and substance of the irrelevant issue is or is not appropriate.
[ ] Rewrite history on whether the President is or is not involved
[ ] The goal is to raise doubts
[ ] Change the subject form the assertion that a program is legal, to the opposite: That this president has no clue. The President made fatal admissions that he ordered the NSA unlawful activity; in this case, simply make him appear to be uninvolved. This will raise doubts about whether or not he was or was not actually involved in the NSA issue.
[ ] Create in the mind of the public the impression that the leadership is out of touch; the public will believe that the same “out of touch” attitude/approach is what is behind the NSA unlawful activity. This is the desired conclusion: "How can this crew possibly be held accountable for something they are so clueless about?"
[ ] Contrast the organized, NSA approach with the bungling; this will make the public believe that there is confusion about the NSA program. In fact, it is well managed to engage in illegal things, unlike Katrina which was poorly managed to do legal things. The problem is even when they give them selves the power to violate the law; they can’t follow the procedures on how to violate the law. They undisciplined criminals.
[ ] Repeat our themes.
[ ] Argue over issues which the RNC cannot explain: But couch them in a positive way.
[ ] Acknowledge the non-sense, and make the DNC responsible for it all.
[ ] Use themes which have been discredited: Mushrooms clouds, Iraq WMD.
[ ] Include Iran in the scapegoat list.
[ ] Make a reference to small animals. Create an image. Induce shock. It will be personal.
[ ] Argue over perceptions, how things are received, whether or not someone’s judgment is good.
[ ] State risks in terms that are consistent with our themes. Why is it good to control things that are illegal, but bad to control things that are irrelevant?
[ ] Blame: Any problems with RNC and White House integrity – blame the democrats. If there’s a negative label about the White Houser on the NSA issue, accuse the DNC of suffering from that.
[ ] Time Use slogans. Refer to summer themes. They’ll think it’s beyond Spring an almost summer. Then they’ll give up, “Not enough time to do anything before the election.” But it’s really still winter. Oh, well – remind them of global warming, and they’ll think it’s November, and nothing can be done.
[ ] UrgencySay this is a crisis. But don’t explain why the same problems in the NSA were not also a crisis.
[ ] Slogans: Debate over the unrelated issue. Emphasize favorable slogans consistent with our strong points.
[ ] Katrina: Debate things which failed during Katrina. Boost the moral of those who failed during Katrina.
[ ] When cornered: Say they are with AlQueda for not singing the White House tune on this non-sense.
[ ] Recast the rebels as supporters
Claim those who do not support the President are against him; make no mention that those who are standing up for the Constitution have to be against those who are against the rule of law.
[ ] Recast the supports of the Constitution as rebels
State those who are in the RNC who are standing up for this irrelevant issue are bold, even though they are not bold when it comes to preserving our system of checks and balances and Bill of Rights.
[ ] Berate those who do not embrace the non-sense diversion
Pretend those who are getting sucked into this non-sense are “reluctant to wake up”
Complain about lack of oversight and vetting, but distract questions from whether this vetting was or was not done on the unlawful NSAS program
Band wagon
[ ] Blame those who do not join your band wagon. Point to their inconsistencies on this irrelevant issue – frame it in terms that focus on our themes, not theirs.
[ ] Reframe the DNC discussion on the NSA program in terms of a scolding – say they missed the boat on “our issue.”
[ ] It’s time to join the bandwagon on the non-sense issues. But why?
[ ] Say that the bandwagon is speaking for all those who have not joined. Don’t ask, just go with it.
[ ] Say things don’t matter. Imply we all agree.
[ ] Say the “new non-sense” is obvious. If it is, why bother pointing it out?
[ ] Make the problem/issue whether or not the DNC does or does not buy into your non-sense.
Media: The convenient scapegoat -- we used them in Iraq WMD, let's use them again.
[ ] Blame the media for missing the point – on issues that are irrelevant. Accuse the media of doing what the White House does: Slander, being mean, and just being all that exhaustive. Make up irrelevancies.
[ ] Argue over whether the media does or does not have the “appropriate” reaction to the irrelevant event.
[ ] Make additional references to the media on the unrelated issue. This will exhaust your audience.
posted by Constant @ 6:19 PM
<< Home