August 10, 2012

Make no mistake about it. David Axelrod would have made Walter Lippmann and Edward Louis Bernays proud. Just as Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister, followed the teachings of the former, so does David Axelrod, President Obama's campaign director (both in 2008 and 2012).

Goebbels' official title in the Third Reich was "Minister of Public Enlightenment." That could be a good title for Axelrod as well, except for the Minister part ... sounds too religious.

Goebbels' famous dictate was: "Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will." Applying that axiom on the Presidential election, it would be best understood as saying something over and over and over again, even if it is totally fabricated and an outright lie, then people will start to believe it.

Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist to the high degree, always talks about the state performing "PsyOps" on the American people, to get them to believe anything by psychologically manipulating the minds of men and women.

The master at PsyOps (Psychological Operations) was Goebbels. He did say over and over again: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." He would also say that "the lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

This is where David Axelrod excels. It is also why the 2012 election will bring us the most vile, dirty, name-calling and (for the Democrats) the worst lying you have ever seen or heard. Combine his moxie for Chicago politics, his tutelage in the works of Saul Alinsky, and his knowledge of the teachings of Walter Lippmann (and hence Joseph Goebbels) and you have in Axelrod a man who is an expert at manipulation.

It's all about innuendo. It's all about "raising questions." It's all about distracting from the economy. It's all about colluding with Obama to define Mitt Romney.

There's no question that what Axelrod is doing here is ordering his lapdog media to engage in the art of "raising questions," where, with no evidence of any wrongdoing -- the media can open a narrative that begins each broadcast with, "Questions are being raised about Mitt Romney's finances…"

Which is no different from, "When did you stop beating Ann, Mitt…?"

Though Romney is in full compliance with any and all financial disclosure requirements, by using innuendo and suspicion, what the media intends to do here is to aid and abet Obama by tying Romney up in knots for as long as possible by making him prove a negative. Along the way, he will be smeared and tarred by the media as a shady rich guy -- and it's no coincidence that that's exactly what Obama wants.

Which brings me to this point: Axelrod would rather me be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine.

For as long as it can, the corrupt media, marching to Axelrod's orders, distracts voters from the faltering economy. This is why the media all but refuses to report that wages have fallen, manufacturing is contracting, the GDP plunged to 1.9%, and unemployment claims are creeping back up to the dreaded 400,000 mark.

These are not stories the media wants to tell, because the truth of the Obama economy will destroy the president's chance for reelection. So the Obama campaign keeps feeding the media distractions (War on Women, immigration, same-sex marriage, etc.) and the media EAGERLY runs with the White House talking points in order to avoid talking about an economy that might well be headed towards recession.

Now, we have PrioritiesUSA, an Obama SuperPAC, airing a campaign spot which contains four blatant lies, easily verified as such, showing a man who claims is wife died of cancer because the steel plant at which he worked was closed by Mitt Romney.

When he lost his job, Joe Soptic says, he lost his health insurance. "A short time later," he says, his wife got sick, but didn't tell him because they didn't have insurance. By the time he took her to the hospital she was diagnosed with cancer from which she died about two weeks later.

The story is true in its facts, but it is a total lie in the effects of Bain Capital closing the plant.

According to the Washington Post here's what really happened.

-- Bain bought the steel company in 1993. However, it had already gone from 4,500 workers in 1970 to about 1,500 workers in 1983. So, 10 years before Bain bought it, the company was in distress

-- In 1997 the union of which Soptic was a member, went on strike over personal benefits.

-- In 2001, with high debt, high electricity prices, and high natural gas prices the company declared bankruptcy as did "more than two dozen steel companies during that period."

-- By that time Romney was not actively managing operations at Bain Capital.

Ok, that's the story of the company. What about the story of the Soptics?

More from the Washington Post Fact Checker:

-- Soptic's wife had her own health insurance from her own job at the time the plant closed in 2001.

-- According to CNN, Soptic's wife left her job in 2002 or 2003 because of an injury which was when she lost her health insurance.

-- According to the Kansas City Star, Mrs. Soptic died in June 2006.

-- That's five years after Joe Soptic lost his job at the steel plant.

The Washington Post ended its analysis with, "A case could be made that Bain's involvement extended the life of a dying steel plant, in which case Soptic kept his insurance longer than he might have expected." The Post goes on to note, "On just every level, this ad stretches the bounds of common sense and decency."

For all of that, the Washington Post - not known as a mouthpiece for Republican causes - awarded the ad four "Pinnochios" - which is jamming the lie-meter to the far end of the scale.

But wait! There's more!

The lies just kept on coming when the Obama campaign - including White House aides - said they didn't know a thing about any Joe Soptic. Can't coordinate with a SuperPAC you know. Don't know the guy. Don't know where the PAC got the footage of him.


Stephanie Cutter - who was one of the most senior Obama White House aides until she left to be one of the most senior advisors to the Obama campaign - was among those who denied knowing anything about Soptic's story.

But reported Wednesday afternoon that "Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot."

To the surprise of no one, Bill Burton - the former deputy White House Press Secretary - who runs the PAC said they found the footage "at a union hall" but "we didn't know that he was doing an [Obama campaign] ad."

In another Washington Post piece, reporter Nia-Malika Henderson writes, "Joe Soptic, 62, has become a go-to figure for supporters of President Obama, appearing this week in his second campaign ad talking about being laid off from a Kansas City, Mo., steel plant that was taken over by Bain Capital in 1993."

Later, she quotes Soptic himself as saying, "I think the reason they keep coming back to me is because of everything that has happened in our life since the plant closed."

So, a Washington Post reporter knew that Joe Soptic had been used in an Obama campaign ad, Joe Soptic knew he had been used in an Obama campaign ad, the only people who don't know Joe Soptic had been used in an Obama campaign ad is the Obama campaign.

It should be noted that neither the White House, the Obama campaign, nor David Axelrod have anything to say about the ad and refuse to have it pulled from any possible airing.

Look for much more smear, more innuendo, more propaganda as we move into the last 88 days of this campaign. It's going to be so nasty, you'll be showering for a month afterward just to get the Alexrod stench off of you.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.