|
||
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.
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....' [These groups] 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:
The Common Purpose meeting every Tuesday afternoon at the Capitol Hilton brings together the top officials from a range of left-leaning organizations, from labor groups like Change to Win to activists like MoveOn.org, all in support of the White House's agenda. The group has an overlapping membership with a daily 8:45 a.m. call run by the Center for American Progress' and Media Matters' political arms; with the new field-oriented coalition Unity '09; and with the groups that allied to back the budget as the Campaign to Rebuild and Renew America Now.
Unlike those other groups, however, the Common Purpose meeting has involved a White House official, communications director Ellen Moran, two sources familiar with the meeting said. It's aimed, said one, at "providing a way for the White House to manage its relationships with some of these independent groups."
Common Purpose was founded by Erik Smith, a former aide to Dick Gephardt. The group's political director is former Obama aide, Miti Sathe. "Common Purpose is formed as a 501(c)(4), which leaves it focused on policy, rather than electoral, work," notes Smith. "Part of the group's role is to enforce a kind of message discipline." He tells the story of how last month "some of the more liberal members of the coalition" were launching a campaign against conservative Democrats under the banner "Dog the Blue Dogs." The White House, Smith alleged, "was in the midst of discussions with members of the congressional Blue Dog caucus, and objected to the slogan, which was promptly changed, and the page describing the drive is gone from CAF [Campaign for America's Future, a participant in the Common Purposes calls]'s website."
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.
Read more from Jeremy Scahill
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Is this the same Common Purpose that Christopher Story, a former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Eurosceptic Brian Gerrish which characterrize it as a cult type of organization? See http://www.stopcp.com
I am on the email list for most of these groups, and I've seen no evidence of what is portrayed here. Yet.
Progressive ideals aside, once I attain power...I want to keep it. In this country, if I forcefully pursue certain liberal agendas, I may not be in power long. Rahm Emanuel wants to keep power. This country isn't full of progressive liberals. If it were, this country would be hell of a lot different socially and politically. Karl Rove played the same game, but miscalculated the conservative numbers. Blue Dog Democrats suck, but it's better to have a Democrat from that district than a Republican. For Rahm, it's easier to assuage a Blue Dog than a dye-in-the-wool Republican. principles help you sleep better at night, but it won't keep you in power long.
Good for Rahm. Somebody has to inject some real life common sense and reason into the unhinged left circles.
At least to try to. Not that it’ll be successful.
If the Campaign taught me anything as a progressive is that we (progressives and liberals) need message control as well as the ability to see the big picture and not just what we want how we want it and when. There is a lot going on behind the scenes that we have no clue about and or cannot get for various reason like protected presidential info. So with that said it is important that we remain on message.
Even though rethug ideologs have been in the minority for years they still manage to win the message war because they stay on message...faithfuly. Where as Dems, liberals and progressives are all over the place. Add to that our own ideologies getting in our own way, tearing down ideas befor they get off the ground and it's a cluster F*** mess.
Message control is desperatly needed
So, luvangelHussein, what would be "the message" you'd suggest regarding the bank bailouts? Seriously, give me a one or two sentence message that progressives could credibly cough up to others.
does the phrase "catapulting the propaganda" ring a bell? More and Bush like with every passing day.
Oh pahleez!! That comment is such a cop-out and exactly the reason folks like yourself need message control. You don't get what you want when you want it how you want with no clue as to how politics are done. And when you don't get it, then you throw a liberal temper tantrum and accuse the President of being just like Bush...get real!
Obviously you have the message down.
I notice how you dodged freelyb's questionabout bank bailouts.
why don't you attempt to answer it.
And as for his use of 'catapulting the propaganda', he is making a very good point about how Obama (and his minion Rahm) are quite Bushian these days.
I know how politics are done, are you sure you do?
Please get your facts right. They are NOT supporting wars because their guy is in the White House. They are supporting the right efforts to wind to war in Iraq down and for us to do what we were supposed to have done in Afghanistan for the security of America. You cannot just fold up your tent and leave because you are so peeved by the war.
Don't pick up your pen and write just because you can. Think well next time before you do. I hope you are not instigating that these Liberal groups have been bewitched by the White House?
No matter what happens, there is always some rationalization put out as to why the Iraq occupation must continue. Just as we accomplished nothing other than the execution of Saddaam Hussein in Iraq, we will accomplish nothing by occupying Afghanistan. I think it is obvious that the writer is stating, not "instigating", whatever that means, that Move On and Center for American Progress have been co-opted by the White House. And clearly, they have.
...So, we're just suppost to LEAVE after invading thier country, dismantling their army and running over half their ciitzens away. No, (thanks to the Bush administration) we now have a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY in Iraq. We OWE the citizens of that country a great deal becuase of our prior presidents STUPIDITY! So, we're just supose to say oops...our bad...gotta' go!?
OMG--just read the threads on huffpo and all the excuses made for Obama's bad behavior and then tell me a large number of liberals here haven't been blinded by party politics.
If you cannot fold up your tent and leave as you say, why did Obama say just that when he ran for prez---that within 6mos he would fold and bring the troops home?
Bewitched Bothered and Bewildered all over the place.
It's true in every scenario and in every age, that at some point the insurgents BECOME the establishment, and the cycle starts all over again.
Same here. As always, the spineless Dems owe us an apology. They got it wrong yet again.
Who got what wrong? Rham getting it wrong that he could control liberal groups? Because I am on the mailing lists and I haven't been encouraged to boldly go forward with Obama's agenda but instead am being asked to pressure him and my representatives to fire the Treasury Secretary. The "journalist" who wrote this piece might have actually checked out whether or not these meetings were proving to be effective.
But you're not a liberal, so your point is disproven.
Don't hold your breath.
As is with all over-sized bureaucratic institutions, the primary goal becomes expansion and self preservation. The two party system is no different; creation and coercion of allies is no surprise.
What else do people expect from Rahm Emanuel? He's not exactly Dennis Kucinich.
A few of us frowning old pessimists said that something was wrong when Obama began veering rightward after securing the Democratic nomination last year. We said it again when he chose Emanuel as his chief of staff. We said it yet again when his suspiciously unprogressive cabinet picks were revealed. And guess what? We were right. Obama has been on the wrong side of just about every issue since taking office, and it's no accident. We can expect more of the same.
That is the sad truth. What's even more sad is seeing so many pseudo-liberals gleefully accepting each betrayal, each slap in the face as if it were a loving pat on the head.
Yes. And they often try to pressure others to do the same. Independent thinking in the Democratic party is under assault.
Mindless hero worship used to be for Republicans only, but now it is infesting the Democratic party.
And neocons like Rahm are doing everything they can to make it happen faster.
second
You folks didn't bother to read what Obama said in his books or listen to what Obama actually had to say during his campaign. Now you're whining that he is pursuing his agenda instead of yours.. For instance, Obama and Clinton have virtually identical political stands. Both are in fact middle of the road Democrats.. Obama is the better "people" politician although Clinton may well have more formidable legislative skills. Neither is a "progressive" except as compared to members of the GOP. http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
Obama is doing his very best to honor his campaign promises. Rahm Emmanuel is making certain that people "remember" what those promises were. Revise history as you like. Being a wing nut isn't about holding any particular stand; It's about self-delusion. It's about being a reactionary instead of a thinker. Left wing nuts and right wing nuts have more in common with each other than they do with the members of their respective political parties.
"Old progressives" have sacrificed the Democratic Part y on the altar of political correctness before. In my life, they helped elect Nixon to his second term. They helped put Reagan in office. And, their support of Nader made it possible for Bush to be elected to his first term. So, pat yourself on the back about how "right" you are. Admire your perspicacity. Then, look around and see what it takes to actually accomplish social engineering in a democracy.
I'm not sure why you think that the refutation of every and any criticism of President Obama is the the critic has not read his books or heard his campaign speeches. As always, with presidential politics, most of us voted for the lesser of two evils. President Obama is, no doubt about it, pursuing the fruition of his campaign "promises". That fact in itself is no kind of argument that his policies are correct, or that they should automatically be accepted without criticism. How about retiring the "you weren't listening, and now you're whining" cliche. You and others like you produce it at every turn, just like a dog salivating at the sound of a whistle.
"Old progressives" may finally FINALLY give up on the Democratic party. Everybody would be happier if they would oppose the "New Democrats" from outside the party.
"Obama is doing his very best to honor his campaign promises." Really? Like removing all combat brigades from Iraq?
You're right, bubbuh: someone is engaging in revisionism. And it's you.
Obviously liberal orgs never wanted the 2006 Democratic congress to defund the Iraq war. The war was a fantastic source of political capital for Dems. Ending the war would have been killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Nevermind all those dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Winning the White House was worth a few corpses.
Obviously you didn't get the emails because the ones i got from liberal orgs were not doing as you suggest. We were and are still fighting to bring them home alive. It sickens me deeply that people like yourself actually believe that winning the White House was worth a few corpses for liberal groups. Absolutely absurd, obviously.
You're a dupe. Left-leaning orgs actively fanned public outrage against the war for political gain, while making no more than token efforts to pressure the Democratic Congress to defund the war. It was all a big con, and people like you fell for it. I bet you donated generously to Democrats in 2006 and 2008. That's what they were really after. Your outrage was the tool they used to pry open your wallet. Democrats were never going to end that war, not while there was so much to be gained by letting it drag on.
You're saying the at liberal orgs did not want defunding yet that's exactly what they were calling for.
You may be projecting your own motives for action onto others here.
That's funny, I just received an email encouraging me to tell Obama to get rid of his Treasury Secretary. I am on the email lists and if anything moderates have been complaining the left is being too hard on Obama on major issues and not blindly supporting his agenda. This is probably one of the worst posts I've seen here in a long time. This charge that liberal groups are not being critical of Obama is flat out false.
I concur.
Oh good! The liberals are back to eating their own again.
All is right with the world.
All is not quite right with the world, but definitely better. And liberals could eat fully half of their own and still beat "conservatives" in 2012.
If we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan two years from now the smartest thing the Republicans could do is call for the end of our presence in those countries.
By that time, Obama will definitely own the responsibility of those conflicts...Bush got us in but Obama broke his promise to get us out. They'll promise to get us out and then they'll keep us there for some 'good reason' too.
Both parties choose war over peace and snow the people into believing the opposite. I highly recommend seeing the movie 'War Made Easy - How Presidents And Pundits Are Spinning Us To Death". You'll see what I'm talking about.
http://www.warmadeeasythemovie.org/
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
