• Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money
    57 replies, posted
[quote=politico] The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism." The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.” The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said. In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives. The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms. "What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks. The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!” Manipulating donors with crude caricatures and playing on their fears is hardly unique to Republicans or to the RNC – Democrats raised millions off George W. Bush in similar terms – but rarely is it practiced in such cartoonish terms. [B]One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively. [/B] The document, which two Republican sources said was prepared by the party’s finance staff, comes as Chairman Michael Steele struggles to retain the trust and allegiance of major donors, who can give as much as $30,400 a year to the party. Under Steele, the RNC has shifted toward a reliance on small donors, but the document reveals extensive, confidential details of the strategy for luring wealthy checkwriters, which range from luxury retreats in California wine country to tickets to a professional fight in Las Vegas. The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club. Sources at the event said the presentation was delivered by Bickhart and by the RNC Finance Chairman, Peter Terpeluk, a former ambassador to Luxembourg under President George W. Bush. The RNC reacted with alarm to a question about it Wednesday, emailing major donors to warn them of a reporter’s question, and distancing Steele from its contents. “The document was used for a fundraising presentation Chairman Steele did not attend, nor had he seen the document,” RNC Communications Director Doug Heye said in an email. “Fundraising documents are often controversial. “Obviously, the Chairman disagrees with the language and finds the use of such imagery to be unacceptable. It will not be used by the Republican National Committee – in any capacity – in the future,” Heye said. [B]The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group. The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”[/B] Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.” Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.” [B] The slide also allows that donors may have more honorable motives, including “Patriotic Duty.” [/B] A major Republican donor described the state of the RNC’s relationship with major donors as “disastrous,” with veteran givers beginning to abandon the committee, which is becoming increasingly reliant on small donors. The party’s average contribution in 2009, according to the document, was just $40, and the shift toward a financial reliance on the grassroots may help explain Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration. While the crude portrayal of Obama may be - as Steele ‘s spokesman put it - “unacceptable,” other elements of the presentation may be of equal interest to close political observers. The RNC plans to raise $8.6 million from major donors alone in 2010, less than 10% of its total 2009 fundraising take, which was primarily from small donors." The center of that plan is an extensive, and colorful, schedule of events. Along with traditional fundraisers with conservative luminaries including Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, the party plans to raise $80,000 for a trip to London to meet David Cameron, the British Conservative Party leader, on September 17. The RNC’s “Young Eagles” – younger major donors and the only group, according to a major donor, continuing to pull its weight financially – are invited to a “professional bull riding event” in October, expected to raise $50,000, and to a no-holds-barred Ultimate Fighting Championship fight in Las Vegas the same month, expected to raise $60,000. The RNC’s aim, according to one section of the document: “Putting the Fun Back in FUNdraising.” [I]CORRECTION: The RNC raised a total of $81 million in 2009. An earlier version of this story understated that figure.[/I] [/quote] [URL]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html[/URL] Another link: [URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217[/URL] This is pretty funny. Not surprising considering the democrats run on promises that may or may not get delivered while the GOP runs on fear.
Reminds me of this. [img]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030410/content/01125109.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg[/img]
This is hilarious I CHORTLE
Link to the original document?
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;20559655]Link to the original document?[/QUOTE] No idea.
[img]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/356/theevilempirelulz.jpg[/img] :cawg: [editline]04:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=RBM11;20559690]No idea.[/QUOTE] I found it: [url]http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100303_rnc_finance_leadership.html[/url] :cawg:
The Government? Using scare tactics to get things from Americans? By god this is unheard of!
Uhh...surprise? [QUOTE=^0mKTank;20559706]The Government? Using scare tactics to get things from Americans? By god this is unheard of![/QUOTE] More or less this /thread
Everyone knows about there tactics already, but now we have straight proof.
Can't say i expected any better from the GOP.
:commissar:
The American Gothic one is brilliant. But I'm not seeing the Scooby-Doo at all.
[quote]Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money [/quote] no way really?
The GOP is going to have to do a lot more than this to really surprise me.
[QUOTE=TH89;20560156]The American Gothic one is brilliant. But I'm not seeing the Scooby-Doo at all.[/QUOTE] "Like zoinks, scoob. This socialized health care sure is great, huh?" "Rure is Raggy. Rehehehe."
I fucking called it. They're a bunch of business men trying to grow their company. Not to say the Dems are [i]too[/i] much better, they just don't hate their donators, yet.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I] The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly why it will never work.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;20561380]Which is exactly why it will never work.[/QUOTE] At least until we can hivemind.
i am scared of future scare tactics take all my money
I thought they already did this.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I] The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE] My god.... Common sense.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I] The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE] That's communism not socialism get your isms right. socialism is where the government controls and owns all major means of production. Like the USPS, for example.
[QUOTE=Sprocket Shit;20562937]That's communism not socialism get your isms right. socialism is where the government controls and owns all major means of production. Like the USPS, for example.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that if the government gets big enough to own production, they can choose who to give it to. For example, the government could easily only give it to supporters of themselves.
Everyone does this.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I] The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE] That's Communism, buddy. Socialism is the same thing, but done through democratic means instead of totalitarian.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I] The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE] Good thing Obama isn't socialist.
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;20564695]That's Communism, buddy. Socialism is the same thing, but done through democratic means instead of totalitarian.[/QUOTE] wrong. communism is basically what the US system is today, however, the people get together and decide what they will produce over the year and what to spend money on. they don't elect people to represent them, they represent them selfs.
[QUOTE=Sprocket Shit;20562937]That's communism not socialism get your isms right. socialism is where the government controls and owns all major means of production. Like the USPS, for example.[/QUOTE] the USPS isn't socialized - it is not profit based, and they do not receive federal funding. they finance everything through the sale of stamps and shit as for socialism, there is nothing wrong with it at all. and in this day and age where the concentration of wealth is becoming more ridiculous than it has ever been in history, it is almost a necessity. capitalism requires at least two things to be successful in our certain situation: an informed public, or decent CEOs of companies. we do not have either. atleast if the government controls a program (like healthcare), we can have a say over what occurs through our election of representatives. otherwise, we have no say at all since corporations are only concerned with making profits and are ideologically tyrannical in nature. boycotts and such are effective in a capitalist society, but that requires (as said above) an informed public - which we do not. [editline]03:47AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Foda;20565080]wrong. communism is basically what the US system is today, however, the people get together and decide what they will produce over the year and what to spend money on. they don't elect people to represent them, they represent them selfs.[/QUOTE] what the hell did you just say
The Joker poster is the lamest propaganda that's ever come out, ever. It was literally made by a bored college kid, then some 14 year old internet idiot added "socialism" to it and somehow people have bullshitted it into sounding like it conveys some message, something about "pretending to be white" or something. Even though the criticism I've heard is the exact opposite: he's pretty much a white guy using the black half to get votes. So yeah, random boring picture gets turned into a "sooper deep" propaganda by extreme right idiots then a bunch of extreme left idiots whine about it being racist.
The Republicans are using "socialism" loosely, and it relies entirely on the "definition" that the government controls things and taxes you. This works in their favor because, -The American government is by and large, ineffective in meeting social demands -Taxation is a concern among citizens anywhere. Wrap that up with what Americans see as socialism/communism- the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, North Korea, China, and you have something that plays to their advantage. I remember reading an analysis of how Republicans have been able to get the support of the working class over the years, which was apparent in the 2000 Elections. Democrats were unable to meet the economic concerns of that group which left them to Democrat social stances, which were becoming too progressive for some of them. To that end they were wooed by Republican stances on arguably secondary and tertiary political concerns- gay marriage, religion, abortion, immigration, nationalism, populist rhetoric, etc. The only economic angle there was were tax breaks, which while favorable to Americans who lived with tax burdens, was ultimately more beneficial to the rich in the long run. To further the situation, paint the opposition (Democrats) as elitists who care little for the average American. The same is repeating here. The Democrats have been unable to make good on their economic promises, and it leaves them wide open to the controversial secondary and tertiary positions, and painting their politicians as elitist and out of touch. Also I have noticed that people have a very, very poor definition of what socialism is and how communism fits into it, and this is what they are playing to this partially. I've noticed some poor definition in this as well. Socialism is an economic arrangement where the means of production are owned COLLECTIVELY, rather than privately. Now depending on what kind of socialist you go to, they have differing opinions on how to do this. Some favor nationalization. Some favor letting socialism be handled locally through the people or unions. Others, mostly of the anarchist persuasion, favor a commune-like arrangement. Some argue whether it can be done through parliamentary participation or if it needs to be done by struggle. Those who went into parliaments tended to favor nationalization of major concerns and social spending, as well as labor rights. They referred to themselves as "social democrats", but please note that they were far different from the ones today. Anyways, to move on, some argue whether or not money should be used at all. We can look at it similar to the various sects of a religion- they come from a common ideal but have different ways of approaching it. Now Communism is a different concept. Communism entails a stateless and classless society, essentially anarchism. The way goods are distributed and produced are done in a socialist fashion. Marx comes in here with his theories on how to obtain such a state, by envisioning that capitalism would advance to such a state where it would alienate workers, and to the point that they would revolt. From there, a socialist state would be formed, which would transition society into communism. The state at some point would "whither away" so to speak.The problem that came in here is that Marx never really stated what this state should be like or do, and how it would "whiter away". In the Manifesto he outlines a brief 10 point summary of what it should be like (with modest things like income tax, universal education, nationalization of key industries, etc), but Marx and Engels later indicated in 1871, some time after the publication of the Manifesto, that those points were outdated and wished to updated them. Another point to make about Communism- some take the Marxist approach, others take the anarchist approach. They are the same in the final objective, but differ on the means. Anyways, all the "communist" states that existed were all going through their transition "socialist" state, but were bastardized into oppressive countries that collapsed on themselves or changed their nature (China). Thus, it can be said that all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Another point, nationalization is not exclusive to socialism. It has existed before it, and it was done by countries that weren't remotely socialist. It existed in the Imperial regimes of the 1800s, and was practiced by Western European nations. De Gaulle, who was a rabid anti-communist, favored dirigisme, which favored state intervention in the economy, regulation, public services, and strategic nationalization- which is what people seem to think "socialism" is. All this plays off misinformation and idiocy from the constituency. The Democrats haven't maintained themselves very well and are opening themselves up to this kind of tactics, but at the same time really the people buying into this nonsense are very, very stupid. They are really no more informed than the Obamazombies they think they are more "freedom loving" than. In fact, every day I drive back from work or university, I see a house with an American flag, and below it a banner that reads "FIGHT SOCIALISM" :911: It's one thing to have corrupt and idiotic politicians, but remember it is typically idiots and uninformed people who vote them in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.