Rewarding Research

[H2O Man]

"Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research." – Malcolm X; Message to the Grass Roots; Detroit Council for Human Rights’ Northern Negro Leadership Conference; November 10, 1963

I was doing a bit of research on the Nixon White House’s tactics for manipulating the media during the 1972 presidential campaign. There are a few books that contain fascinating information on how Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan started a small operation which coordinated phone calls and "letters to the editor" in an attempt to influence how television stations and newspapers reported events.

Some of the most important information is found in The Senate Watergate Report. Chapter II is titled "Campaign Practices"; it contains large sections on the administration’s tactics between 1968 - ’71, and on the 1972 campaign. On pages 236 - 246, the report covers "Public Relations in the White House: Letter-Writing, Direct Mailing; Citizen’s Committees. In the upcoming week, I plan to write about how progressive democrats from the grass roots can learn from, and indeed use, some of the basic "tricks of the trade" that Buchanan developed.

However, I found something that I thought was worth starting with. It’s a Nixon White House tactic that I think we will see being used by the republican party in 2008. This is from the section on the 1972 campaign. Read it and see if it sounds like something we can expect:

"The political strategy of the Committee to Re-elect the President in early 1971 and 1972 was unambiguous: undercut Senator Muskie in the Democratic primaries, divide the Democratic Party so that it could not unite after the convention, and assist where possible in getting the weakest Democratic candidate nominated. The absence of a serious fight for re-nomination gave the CRP and the White House the luxury of focusing their political efforts during this period on potential Democratic opponents rather than serious primary contenders within their own party. In the meantime, the various Democratic contenders had to concentrate their own political efforts on obtaining their party’s nomination.

"The Nixon strategy was best embodied in a series of political memoranda written by speechwriter Patrick Buchanan ….. In addition, Buchanan advocated concentrating on dividing the Democrats so that they would be unable to unite for the general election. In a July 2, 1971 memo, Buchanan advised:

" ‘(We) maintain as guiding political principle that our great hope for 1972 lies in maintaining or exacerbating the deep Democratic rift between the elite, chic, New Left, intellectual avant garde, isolationist, bell-bottomed environmentalist, new priorities types on one hand – and the hard hat, Dick Daley, Holy Name Society, ethnic, blue collar, Knights of Columbus, NYPD, Queens Democrats on the other.

" ‘The liberal Democrats should be pinioned to their hippie supporters. The Humphrey Democrats should be reminded of how they were the fellows who escalated and cheered the war from its inception.’ "

I am not attempting to discourage discussion and debate within democratic circles during the primaries. In fact, I think that the socially progressive, anti-war democrats should use this season to move the party at the grass-roots level. In fact, as Minister Malcolm X used to say in his messages to the grass roots, too often the difference between a democrat and a republican made elections a choice between a fox and a wolf.

We have our work cut out for us. It is tempting, after last night’s first republican "debate," to take for granted that our candidate will win in ’08. Let’s make sure we find the correct candidate, with the most progressive platform. And let’s increase our gains in the House and Senate, and in the state houses across the country.

[Me.]

1. I Believe You're Right

We can see shades of it right now and would like to ask anyone interested who do they think the publicans would love us to nominate and who would be most vulnerable to swiftboating.

At the end of the debates last night I thought it totally unprofessional and unwarranted for Mathews to use Bill Clinton as a punchline. Yet he did. Why is Clinton still a "joke" after all the years of *, a horrible president? Where do they get the nerve? Yet this falls right into what you're suggesting will become a trend.

In the interests of full disclosure I will admit to being one of those who wishes Gore would get in, yet I can already see what they will put him through. You can see it with his global warming campaign.

The question is, how do we combat this? It would help if the media were fair, but that ship has sailed.

[H2O Man]

7. "The strategy

Buchanan advocated was to force Muskie to take more stands on controversial issues and to have President Nixon attack Muskie 'on those issues that divide democrats.' The anti-Muskie plan involved much 'negative campaigning' against the Senator rather than positive campaigning on behalf of President Nixon." (page 248)

[Steven_S]

2. Sound advice..

Not for a second do I take for granted that our candidate will win.

There is and will be much work to be done.

Another great post, by the way!

[H2O Man]

9. I found this interesting ....

(From the NY Times)


Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix: Did Gore, Thompson Win Debates By Default?

By Craig Crawford, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: May 4, 2007

Who won the first round of Democratic and Republican debates? The answer might be two former senators from Tennessee who weren’t there: Al Gore and Fred Thompson.

Perhaps it is in the nature of watching the first presidential campaign in decades with no heir apparent from either party. No one comes across as truly presidential, making the debaters come across as high school students who get to play principal for a day.

All the more reason that the debates seemed to fuel Democrats’ interest in Gore, who segued from the Senate to vice president to almost president, and Republicans’ fascination with Thompson, the lawyer turned actor turned senator turned actor again.

But Gore’s absence did not loom over last week’s Democratic debate quite as much as Thompson’s did over the Republicans Thursday night. Pre-debate polls showed GOP voters much less satisfied than Democrats with their choices. After last night’s Republican session, that gap could easily widen to Thompson’s favor.

See more:

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/05/04/cq_2676.html

[Horse with no Name]

3. Great post waterman.

Just curious what you think about the threats on Obama and Edwards? Do you think it is RNC directed or just one of the nutty base?
The Reich Wing REALLLY want for Hillary to be the nominee.
I believe that they are capable of anything at this point.

[truedelphi]

4. Have you read the post about Palast's analysis of Hillary

And the money machinations behind her - she will be very easy for the MSM to smear once she gets the trophy of the Democratic nomination.

You can link to it here:

http://tinyurl.com/yvfay2

[Me.]

8. The Bernstein Book Is Coming In June

The rumor is he's spent 5 years going in-depth.

[H2O Man]

6. Interesting question.

I think that this administration, more so than any in the past 100 years, has created a climate of hatred, jear, and paranoia. And we have a president who shows a willingness to use massive violence to impose his will.

When I've discussed individuals, I sometimes quote something my friend Rubin says: that hate contaminates the vessel which contains it. That same law holds true for society. This administration is a tumor of hatred, and they have released cells of hatred into the larger body of society. That hatred will become manifest in many ways .... some they control, and many that are totally out of control.

[rosesaylavee]

5. Look no further than DU this past week

to see the 'divide and conquer' RW talking points against Durbin.

The bad news is - the tactic stills works. DEMs overall are slow to learn apparently.

The good news - we can shine a bright light on it and dilute its effect whenever possible.

Happy to give Rec #5. Another great post!

[Blackhatjack]

11. Look at the attacks on Democratic Candidates ....

Edwards opposes the war, puts out a plan to bring 40-50,000 troops home immediately and the rest in 12-18 mos, and he gets attacked relentlessly for the vote on the IWR which he admitted was a mistake and apologized for.

Hillary and Obama are not immune either. Expect more of the same.

There just does not seem to be any ground with some of these folks to like more than one candidate, and they think the rest of us should attack all others.

I can support any one of the Democrats that gets the nomination, and I see no reason to have to attack the others just because I prefer Edwards.

I have to wonder if there is not another agenda at work with all these 'concern threads' that end up creating chaos and hard feelings.

[bleever]

10. Very thought-provoking.

Will the Republicans seek to exploit the differences between the netroots/grassroots and the DLC/corporatist/moderates?

Will we let them? How can we guard against that kind of exploitation?

I'm optimistic in this sense: the intense discussions on the internet over the last six years have forged strong relationships and reputations, and many more people are well-informed and engaged than in the years before the internet. Red herrings and agents provocateurs will have a more difficult time exerting influence because of this.

One example comes to mind: in the hours and days after the 2004 election was stolen, there were stories and sources planted on the internet to throw researchers off and pollute the story, much like the forged TANG documents that got Dan Rather into trouble even though the story was true.

The serious people sleuthing the story weren't thrown off. We've got our game on.

[Me.]

13. It Might Be Hard To Exploit The Differences Between The DLC & Grassroots

The DLC has already done it. They did it when they tried to marginalize the grassroots. In doing so they made the grassroots VERY aware of their presence. Also, in the years since 2004, and the losing DLC advised candidates, things are trending against the insider/corporate mindset.

[bleever]

17. Great point.

Which raises a question: do the grassroots/netroots need to be united with the DLC to win?

Another question: can the DLC faction win without the grassroots? Who's driving the bus on this?

And who decides who drives the bus?

All great questions, that I'll be thinking about.


:thumbsup:

[Me.]

19. I Don't Think The GrassRoots Need The DLC, Quite The Opposite

I found it interesting to watch and contribute to Blue America over at FDL during the last election. Not a lot of money, certainly not millions. But they choose their candidates wisely and were able to give money to people who were being ignored because they were considered too progressive. They had some real and encouraging scores with the contributions made.

The problem for me with the DLC was/is they are too inclined to go along to get along, no matter the issue or who they have to deal with. They went after corporate money with a passion and corporations expect to call the tune. And it goes on. It's the same access game that has made the media so ineffective.

Who needs who is a good question, and alliances can be helpful if they are properly framed. That being said, unless there are significant changes in their attitude, I would not agree to the DLC driving the bus.

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Let's make sure we find the correct candidate .......

Well, "we" (grassroots) don't usually have much to say about it. We THOUGHT we did with Howard Dean, but the DLC and other Washingtonians (as I like to call the Establishment , inside the beltway, usually Clintonista Dems) brought him down. They weren't the ONLY ones, and it's not like the Dean campaign didn't make any errors, but I believe he'd have survived and triumphed were it not for all the dirty tricks waged against him by his own party and the other candidates. It was as ugly as I ever want to see, and I don't know how you stop it.

Something that didn't help at all (and both Trippi and Dean talked about it here and there) was how close in time New Hampshire was to Iowa, and this time we've got a pile-on instead of a primary calendar. It meant that whoever won Iowa was the likely "winner" for the duration (and that's why they blew ALL their money on Iowa), and that's EXACTLY how the previous DNC folks wanted it -- they wanted to be able to control the whole thing and do the selecting: the people be damned. Dean tried to spread the primaries out after his ugly experience and look what happened to those efforts.

So, how ya gonna make sure the people get to do the picking????

[Cleita]

14. I got a letter from the DNC and Howard Dean asking for money

today. Of course. I was tempted to write back that I wouldn't send them a red cent until our Democrats in Congress reformed the election process before 2008. Maybe if we dried up the funds, they might do something.

Unfortunately, I think we are going to have to do it the old fashioned way by showing up in such overwhelming numbers at the polls that we will win no matter what crap they pull.

[Me.]

15. It Can Be Astounding How Much $5 & $10 Contributions Can Add Up To

That has been a huge message this year to candidates and politicians alike. It is saying you don't have to sell your soul to corporations. It is right and fitting that they be beholden to we the people, but got the message to be truly effective, we have to ante up.

[many a good man]

16. I say Dems should follow Pat's play book

Turnabout is fair play. After such a long period of Republican rule, "the hard hat, Dick Daley, Holy Name Society, ethnic, blue collar, Knights of Columbus, NYPD, Queens Democrats" seem pretty sick and tired of the hard right religious extremists, chicken hawks and war profiteers. The lefties that used to bug them in the sixties and seventies have faded from memory.

Rove showed that Republicans can only win a national election with strong turnout from the base on the religious right. We need to work on a plan to divide and conquer. Fracture their tenuous coalition: libertarians, fundamentalists, populists, and country clubbers. Emphasize their contradictions. "Exacerbate the rift." May the worst candidate win.

The time for an electoral realignment is long past due.

[H2O Man]

23. Yes.

It does not mean we should consider Pat Buchanan's beliefs on social issues as rational, sane, or of any value. But it would be foolish not to study the tactics of our foe, and use what would benefit our side.

[Me.]

24. .

:kick:

[Bosso 63]

18. "increase our gains in the House and Senate, and in the state"

And, school boards, city council, and dog catchers.
Full court press.

[H2O Man]

22. Key.

The grass-roots' real power is found in its ability to make changes at the foundation of our society. When I was in college, I made money in the summers doing "mud" work. I was working with concrete, block, and stone in the holes where people were building a new house. It was hard work. Dirty work. And someone driving by wouldn't appreciate what I was doing, because I was underground, so to speak. My efforts were not visible, at least at first. But the most important part of a new building is a good foundation. If you try to build a palace on on weak foundation, it will crumble to the ground.

We need to build that strong foundation. It definitely includes those school boards; county, city, town, and village boards; and dog catchers. When we do that, we build the strength to decide who goes to the White House, and who goes to that dog house.

[antigop]

20. So what, exactly, is "the most progressive platform"?

>>
Let’s make sure we find the correct candidate, with the most progressive platform.
>>

Will we find agreement on what "most progressive platform" means?

I distinctly remember a thread about trade agreements where voting records on trade agreements were presented. Many people on that thread considered their own representatives "progressive" even though those same representatives voted for trade agreements that did not include human rights/labor/environmental protections.

[H2O Man]

21. Right.

There are issues that people are divided on. No question about that. And those are the exact areas that the republican forces who were trained in Buchananite tactics will seek to exploit.

I recognize that I do not have all the answers, and that some of the issues are complex to the point where simple answers don't cut it. But being simple-minded, I have few options, so here goes: we need to concentrate more on those things that unite us, rather than be focused on the issues that divide us.

We can find overlapping areas of interest in issues such as the environment, the anti-war effort, the need to invest in research for alternative energy sources, improving education, and making health care affordable. And we can identify that the one thing that most of us share is a common enemy: you might black, brown, red, yellow, or white; young or old; male or female; live in a city or in a rural area; employed, underemployed, or unemployed; married, separated, divorced, or denied the right to marry; a liberal democrat, a progressive democrat, a conservative democrat, a radical democrat, a democratic socialist, a green, or an independent ..... and if you are living in the United States of America today, you should recognize that you and the others listed have a common enemy. That enemy is a system that puts George W. Bush into the Oval Office, and that allows Dick Cheney to be in control behind the scenes.

We are never going to have agreement on 100% of the issues that are important to us. Anyone who thinks that can or should happen is a fool, and anyone who insists upon getting their way on everything simply gets in the way of the group. 2008 requires a higher degree of maturity and insight. If we can agree on 75% of issues, we are doiung good. If we agree on 85%, we are doing great.

Alone, each group/"special interest" is like a finger that our enemy can isolate and break; together, these groups form a powerful fist that can be used to protect our common interests from the threat posed by our common enemy.