Category Archives: Campaign Tactics & Analysis

Presidential campaign years offer many opportunities for people, young and old (but mostly young) to get involved in the day-to-day operations of a political campaign. Every four years it seems the size of both incumbent and challenger presidential campaigns grows, and the affiliated positions available at “coordinated campaigns,” political parties, and other races for US Senate, Congress, Governor, Dog Catcher, etc. are all available to those who really want to get their hands dirty in the inner machinations of politics.
The catch is that most of the actual “work” on political operations like these have little to do with policy, politics, ideas, or Big Important Things. Instead, as the Deputy Assistant Political Director for the Very Big Wig Campaign for Whatever, one’s job is as likely to be about figuring out what one-horse town to have a rally at, or making sure enough baseball caps are available for assembled third-tier celebrities at a press conference, as they are about anything else. In other words, unless you’re at the very top of a campaign, your job is more about moving things around on time and under budget, than it is about “politics.”
It’s important that those considering a move into the “political business” understand this early, because every year the streets are littered with the burned out remnants of political operatives at the bottom rungs of the ladder disillusioned at their station in life, because they thought they were getting involved in something important and “meaningful.”
They did get involved with something important, if one accepts the idea that elections are, but what they didn’t’ realize is that for the most part, your job on a Big National Campaign is to make a big machine work, and most parts of a big machine are small. And replaceable. Cheaply.
If you accept that your job is that of a production-line employee, moving things and people around on time and under budget, you can take pride in a job well done and use those skills in politics, or in life. But if you don’t accept it, you’re setting yourself up for a nice run in with a brick wall known as Reality.
More importantly, to those who are working their fingers to the bone for Sen. Kerry or President Bush in the hopes of attaining some lofty position in a future Bush II administration or a Kerry Administration need to realize that while their hard work in service of electing said folks was duly noted and appreciated, it is no guarantee they’ll be getting anything more than a computer-signed photo of said candidate in the future. In fact, if history is any guide, working on a Big National Campaign almost ensures that one does not get a future gig with President Whomever.
That may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s been proven over and over again by both parties over many, many years. Unless you happen to be one of the few people at the highest levels of the campaign hierarchy, or you happen to have raised an incredible amount of money, the sad fact is that the future administration does not particularly care much about what happens to you once November 3rd rolls around. To be true, there are exceptions, but I’ve met too many people who gave up way too much for these big operations only to end up very disappointed when inauguration time comes around.
That’s why I can’t stand how so many of these people behave during the campaign. You find that unless you work with particularly mature, or intelligent people, many of the middle management types are particularly forceful when elbowing you or others perceived to be “in the way” of their ambitions to be in a future administration. I’ve often said the most dangerous place to be in a presidential year is between a mid-level position and an overly-ambitious political wannabe.
One can attempt to reason with said folk, and encourage them to work towards the common goal of electing Candidate Whomever, but it tends to fall on deaf ears. That elbowing and jockeying for position can create situations in even the best run campaigns where people are quibbling amongst themselves over perceived slights and perceived perks, forgetting that their job is not to help themselves, but get someone much more important than themselves a new job (or keep one).
There was a time when I found such behavior irritating, but nowadays I find it more amusing than anything else, since I know what happens next. No one believes me now, but come January 2005, I’ll be proven right, or at least sort of right, once again.
It’s nothing I take much delight in – I’d rather see people more realistically understand what it is they get into so they get the maximum out of it they can, but I find that with younger staffers these days, the only way they learn is the hard way. I suppose there’s some amusement in that, especially after you listen to some 22 year old who just got out of a training session at the DNC or RNC tell you why it is You Don’t Get It And They Do.
Indeed.
For those of you looking for a fun way to get involved with politics and potentially win $100,000, I strongly urge you to follow my link to VoteOrNot.Org and enter the contest. It’s really simple – you register to vote via the site (or if you’re already registered, just enter the contest) and you will be instantly entered into a contest to win $100,000!
Here’s the groovy part – by using my link, I get a chance to win too. So if you win $100,000, I win $100,000 too!
Think of the possibilities. With one click, you can enter and possibly win enough money to buy something really nice – or if the wrong guy wins election, a ticket to Amsterdam.
Either way, it’s a great deal and I encourage everyone to follow the link. If I win, I’m buying all of my loyal readers a drink at the Waterfront Cafe over by my place.
You win. I win. And America wins! Woo hoo!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

2004 has become the Year of The Documentary with an Axe to Grind. Mere mention of Farenheit 9/11, OutFoxed, The Corporation, Uncovered: The War in Iraq, The Hunting of the President and now Bush’s Brain is enough to send certain partisans into hissy fits that make the most emotional leftist seem calm by comparison. More interesting is the fact that with the exception of Fahrenheit 9/11, none of these films were slated for a theatrical release, but now almost all are seeing some basic distribution in movie theaters in advance of the November election.
Most recently, Bush’s Brain was released in the Los Angeles area, and a premiere held on September 3rd featured a Q & A session with the producers of the film, Joe Mealey and Michael Shoob. I missed the big event due to my extended trip to Pennsylvania on behalf of Progressive Majority, but I did manage to get ahold of a copy on DVD and checked out the film.
To be honest, I was not thrilled about this movie, not so much because of any concern as to whether it might hurt Karl Rove’s feelings, but because I tend to wince at the suggestion that political consultants have all that much power in our political system. It’s a nice media hype that makes reporters feel good when penning a half-researched piece on the election cycle, but the sad fact is that the “power” of political consulting is limited at best. (Just ask anyone who’s worked for a winning candidate who’s been stiffed on their paycheck! Yes, it really happens!)
That said, I still wanted to see the film and hear what the creators had to say. To my surprised it was not as much a film about the alleged “power” of Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime campaign manager, but instead a recounting of the kinds of tactics Mr. Rove has been willing to use, be it running for the presidency of the Young Republicans in the 1970s, or running candidates for office in Texas, or for President.
The picture painted is not a very pleasant one, and even I, who knew who Karl Rove was long before most people even knew who George “W” Bush even was, learned some new things about the person the President puts his trust in to run his campaigns. None of it was particularly good. It’s worth seeing – to try and repeat the entire film in this space would take too long, and not have nearly the impact, that seeing the film has on the viewer.
For me, the message was simple: Rove is not a “genius” in the sense of a master strategist who has an intimate knowledge of public opinion and history. Rather, he’s an asshole. An asshole, who will do whatever it takes – lie, cheat, steal, attack, slander, and claw his way to the finish line. More to the point, he’s an asshole with over $500 million dollars and the leverage of the federal government’s executive branch to manipulate public opinion. Hooray for him.
To me that’s not a genius, and I regard him for what he truly is. Let’s be clear – give me 500 million dollars and deny me free access to Pabst Blue Ribbon  and I can get anyone elected President, too. Heck, cut off my access to my Netflix DVDs and you can ensure that your candidate of choice will get elected.
Why? Because you’ll have on your hands someone with the enmity and the overwhelming resources, to engage in every single sneaky, lying, underhanded tactic and whim needed to get your clown elected, ethics be damned. Anyone.
This may sound cynical, but it’s not – it’s more of an appreciation of the landscape we live in these days. This is the era that substitutes honesty and straight talk for lawyer-like obfuscations, the hair-splitting lie, and the wink and a nod when it comes to what is said versus what was meant. It’s what allows people to put things out in the media to create an impression, while at the same time giving themselves wiggle room Nixon could only dream of to avoid any accountability if someone tries to call them on their foolishness.
That’s why you can do a photo-op on an aircraft carrier with a banner that says “Mission Accomplished” and then say it wasn’t you who put it up there when you find out more people died in Iraq after “mission accomplished” than before. Don’t take responsibility, don’t fess up – make up some nonsense saying it wasn’t really your idea and you don’t really know who put that up in the first place, and oh by the way, didn’t they just say ketchup causes cancer today?
It’s also how you can have a sitting Vice President lie about a statement we all know he said and rather than just cop to a mistake and move on, have to weasel his way out with bluster and foolish rhetoric. In fact, I don’t know that any member of the current administration who has the ability to cop to a mistake or even admit they’re less than perfect – no matter how much they screw up.
But then I remembered this is a hallmark of the Rove style of campaign, and win or lose, we’ll be seeing more of this kind of nonsense from more than one side in the future. It’s unfortunate that most voters won’t call their own people on such foolish behavior. If they did, it might stop. Might.
PS: For another example of the kinds of sneaky, underhanded tactics being employed by self-styled Rove wannabes, the Attorney General race in Washington State has produced a truly nasty situation, one worth condemnation by good people of all parties and ideologies.
A rash of nasty TV ads attacking Deborah Senn, a former Insurance Commissioner and Democratic candidate in the September 14th primary, have popped up on the air, with no disclosure as to who is paying for the ads.
The group’s spokesman is engaging in classic lawyer doublespeak to try and evade any sort of disclosure as to who is doing this smear campaign and why, hoping that by the time anyone finds out who did what, the election will be over and the damage done. It’s not unlike those anonymous smear ads that hit Howard Dean during the primaries earlier this year.
Whatever it is, it’s disgusting, and I’m urging people to send Deborah Senn the support she needs to stand up to this kind of crap. She is not only someone I consider to be of unimpeachable character – she is also someone I consider a friend with whom I had the pleasure to work for during her re-election campaign in 1996. I often cite “the Commish’s” hard work and straight talk when I coach candidates around the country on how to be effective and thoughtful candidates on the campaign trail. Go get ’em, Commish!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

This week a number of high profile organizations announced some equally high profile music concerts aimed squarely at the presidential race. In the past there have been celebrities on all sides who’ve helped out campaigns or causes, but this marks the first cycle where we’ve seen so many larger-scale events, with many musicisans who don’t usually do this sort of thing. It’s an interesting phenomenon, and it makes me wonder if in fact we’re seeing something permanent to the scene, or if politics is the “fashionable” thing to do this year.
In Los Angeles, the RedefeatBush.com team is putting together an all-acoustic show, entitled Unplug Bush at the El Rey Theater on August 10th.
The Redefeatbush.com folks seem to have a knack for organizing events that appeal to a younger, more alternative crowd – but they don’t just put on a good show, they also get people to actually do something while having fun. If you live in the greater LA area and are looking for something fun to do, buy a ticket online and you might even see me there lending a hand.
Also interesting was the announcement that Bruce Springsteen agreed to headline the Moveon.org PAC concert tour this fall. Springsteen has been asked by both parties to participate in elections since the 80s but he has always declined to do so for various reasons. Thus it was significant that he’s finally decided to come out of the woodwork, and has done so in support of a group like MoveOn.
I have to admit, I was rather surprised, not in a “good” way or a “bad” way, just surprised to see he was getting involved so publicly. I’ve seen this over and over again – people who never get involved in the process are voluntarily getting involved in the process like never before. It’s fortunate we have so many options and organizations for people to choose from to do so, because quite frankly, I don’t know that aging party apparatuses (apparatii?) have the ability to assimilate so many diverse people into their ranks and put them to work.
In an era of 527s, and other assorted organizations, we now finally have more and more ways for more and more people to get involved the way that is best for them. The whiners and killjoys in politics may bemoan so many new groups, but it’s safe to say that without ’em we’d be stuck with too much “politics as usual” (i.e. boring) – and that’s no fun for anyone!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Normal posting has been delayed due to my rigorous schedule providing candidate fundraising coaching for Progressive Majority here in Washington.
I’ve had the chance to travel to suburban cities across King and Pierce Counties so far, and spent the day in scenic Sequim today. Tomorrow I’m off to Portland, OR, Vancouver, WA, and on and on.
I’ve always enjoyed assignments such as these because it gives me the chance to spend time on the ground all over the state, and work one-on-one with grassroots candidates outside of urban, Democratic Seattle. On Friday, I met with Tami Green, a promising candidate for State House recently endorsed by Democracy For America (aka Dr. Dean’s organization).
She is running a terrific grassroots campaign that is sophisticated enough to combine a organized field effort with a well researched and funded voter contact plan. That may sound like Campaign 101, but you’d be surprised at how many campaigns think “grassroots” has to mean “unorganized and wasteful.” This one doesn’t.
Tami ran for office once before in 2000, and lost by only a few votes, in a truly negative, nasty campaign, featuring some very rude, personal, non-issue oriented attack peices from incumbent Republican Mike Carroll. Most people would not step up to the plate again after such a race, but Tami was inspired by Howard Dean’s campaign to run again, despite the challenges a political campaign places on someone these days.
This is yet another anecdotal story that tends to confirm something I’d been wondering about for a while – the effect of Dean’s campaign in ways not measurable at the ballot box or at the media’s latest “poll.” True, his campaign, besieged by the DLC, a hostile media, and a few mistakes may not have been successful.
However, the impact he had on grassroots Democrats, restoring “Democratic Pride” is having an effect on the political system most pundits and prognositcators have yet to figure out. He made it ok to stand up for one’s values once again, and has shown others that the solution is not in some cult of personality, but in themselves – and people are heeding the call.
Another candidate I’ve enjoyed working with is Kevin Van De Wege, a firefighter and president of the International Association of Firefighters in Sequim, WA (the sunniest part of the state!). Kevin is running against a longtime incumbent who has not been seriously challenged in a long time, a common occurance in Washington. Usually the cycle goes like this: feeble incumbent raises lobbyist cash, politicos on the other side don’t even try to find a candidate, some self-selected gadfly files his papers, and does little to get elected, and feeble incumbent gets re-elected without a serious challenge.
That isn’t happening here. Kevin is a very articulate and energetic candidate who has spent his time knocking on voters’ doors across the 24th Legislative District.
Sounds easy, until you realize how big this district is – it includes the Olympic National Park and three huge counties! Kevin has also enlisted the support of hundreds of people in the district, and relies primarily on individual donors for his campaign’s war chest. So it’s worth the long drive out to Port Angeles to visit him at Clallam County Democratic Headquarters.
Traveling out there also made me appreciate one of Kevin’s issues he’s running on – the improvement of highways on the Olympic Peninsula. After getting off the Edmond/Kingston Ferry, I was driving along State Highway 104 to get to US 101 (yes the same 101 we Southern Californians use!) to arrive on time for our meeting. However, a 5 car pileup near Discovery Bay shut down the entire highway for almost two hours!
As we were in a rural area, without lots of turnoffs, there was no way for me to take an alternate way into town – I was stuck in the middle of rural Jefferson County without any way to get out. Now, couple this with Kevin’s perspective as a firefighter and paramedic and you realize that poor quality highways aren’t just an inconvenience – they’re a public safety menace too.
For that reason alone I’m sending in some money to Kevin’s campaign – how often do you have someone talking about an issue that actual voters discuss and care about? He’s the kind of guy you want voting on a budget somewhere and his hard working campaign and clearly articulated views that are in sync with his district make him a star to watch. The fact that he looks like Neil McDonough can’t hurt with some of the voters either.
Working with people like Tami, Kevin, and the many other candidates I’m meeting out here is always fun for me because it gives me a chance to bring the kind of coaching and training normally reserved for someone running for the US Senate or US House to the candidates who can really make use of such help, but wouldn’t normally be able to afford it. It’s also nice to be working in areas that aren’t 100% “D” or “R” – these races are where real politics are practiced. Cushy re-elects may pay the bills, but they also dull the senses.
Plus it’s also refreshing in the era of partisan foolishness to meet people who are running for an office like state House in Washington state, because to do so you really have to want to do something for others with a position like this. It does not pay very well (I think city councilmen in Lynnwood, CA make more in perks!)l, it does not have a lot of glory or media attention, and you’re working year-round despite the fact it’s technically “part time.”
Depsite these and other hassles, there are some good folks out there running for the right reasons. I’m happy to give them a hand, and I urge others to do so as well. It’s time to stop whining about the quality of our elected leaders and take proactive steps to elect some good people for a change.
Cynicism and nastiness need to give way to common sense, and folks like Tami and Kevin aren’t waiting for someone to come along and do it for them – they’re taking the lead in their communities right now. Now it’s our turn.
UPDATE: Read this article that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution today that mentions Kevin by name – and my training! Right on Kevin!
Coming Up: Watching my past predictions come true regarding Washington State’s primary foibles, their impact on the Sims vs. Gregoire gubernatorial race, and California’s latest attempts to cure a disease that doesn’t exist with a potion more poisonous than the ailment it claims to cure.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Most people have no idea what President Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” buzzwords mean, as most people aren’t running church oriented social service organizations. That’s fine. I’d argue that those forceful advocates of making sure government money goes to church run organizations and programs have no idea what it means either.
That may sound like it makes no sense, but it’s the “faith based” organizations, (who tend to be more conservative), who are the ones with no idea what they’re getting into as they advocate for their cut of federal tax dollars for their work.
It’s nice to think that there are all these great organizations out there, doing the Lord’s work in the Devil’s cities, who could use a few more bucks from Uncle Sugar to help further their mission of helping the downtrodden.
There’s no denying that many wonderful organizations, run by evangelical Christians, Jews, and any one of a number of the seemingly innumerable religions out there do some good and need all the help they can get.
As someone who once seriously considered going to seminary to become a Protestant minister, I’d say that I probably appreciate this work more than the average political foot-solider of the right. At least I know what a faith based homeless shelter does.
That said, the determination to ensure that religious groups get their “cut” of federal dollars is a disaster in the making, one that will ensure the destruction of the autonomy of religious social service organizations and one that will seriously undermine the cause of the conservative movement in ways they can’t even begin to see. Which ultimately is bad – if we have one side die off from self-inflicted hara-kiri, we’re ensuring the other side gets a pass on being called on their bad ideas, and that’s not good for anyone.
How? Simple. By making religious organizations yet another draw on the dollars out of Uncle Sugar’s pockets, we introduce a whole spectrum of new problems. Lobbyists will be hired at great expense to ensure that each religious group gets their piece of the taxpayer sponsored pie.
Religious organizations will have to get more political (and in the process endanger their tax exempt status) in order to get the money they need. They’ll be subject to the whims of the party in power, and if “their guys” get pushed out (and they can!) they’ll be looking at a huge hole in their budget where government dollars used to be. Not fun.
But more to the point – by making these organizations first the happy recipients of a bonus from Uncle Sugar, then addicting them to tax dollars, we are ensuring that the government maintain its complex and high taxes as they are now – and will continue to be maintained and increased, regardless if the people in power have an “R” or a “D” next to their names.
These same new recipients of Uncle Sugar’s wallet will have to fight to defend that tax collection system – regardless of how oppressive or bureaucratic it may be. Yet another whole group of people will work to ensure that the state can continue to use its ultimate authority to jail and penalize taxpayers with a mandatory collection system to get them their piece of Uncle’s pie.
We’ll have yet another class of well organized folks who will never say “no” to more money – they’ll want more. If you think this won’t happen, check to see which of the many social service agencies we already pay for actually said “No, take some of that money back, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.” If you find one, I’ll buy you a pint.
Worse, as we all know, government money comes with strings. Don’t believe it can happen? Just ask the fine folks who run Hillsdale College. This private school takes no federally funded student aid, instead opting to find private sources for student aid to pay tuition. It’s one of the few schools in the nation to do so. Yet it maintains a solid academic reputation, and manages to provide aid to those who need it.
Why do this? Because if they took federal student aid, they’d take the many mandates and strings that come with it. Doing so would compromise their academic mission they envision for their students, and they’d rather stick to their beliefs than compromise for a few federal tax dollars.
It’d be nice to think that somehow we could pass some laws that would make it possible for private organizations to take federal money with no strings attached, but there’s just too many reasons why that pipe dream isn’t going to happen. And if it can happen to colleges, it can happen to social programs too.
The concept of a Catholic-run health care facility being compelled to provide abortion services may defy logic to most folks – but if they’re taking Uncle Sugar’s dollars then someone can make them do it regardless of their religious beliefs. Already Catholic health care systems are being required to cover contraceptive services in employee health plans – several lawsuits have ensured this already.
Yes, that sucks, given that they’re being forced to go against their own very important beliefs, and yes, it defies common sense. But it also sucks for the millions of taxpayers who aren’t Catholic that they have to pay for it because of their very important beliefs. And on down the rabbit hole we go, in a spiral of “you can’t make me pay for that” and “you have to pay me for that.” And this is better how?
It’s the ultimate irony that people who call themselves “conservative” and for “less government” would endorse any plan that would ensure that the state maintains a massive bureaucracy with complex and confiscatory tax laws that are as much as about controlling personal spending as they are about collecting the government’s money.
Think about it. Sure you get a “deduction” for all sorts of goodies – but you’re still missing the cash out of your pocket. Wouldn’t it make more sense if you just paid less in taxes, and then could do more of what you wanted instead? Isn’t that “conservative?”
In other words, it’s yet another example of how American “conservatives” aren’t really for less taxes and less government – they want more government to pay for the things they want. This latest plan is yet another prop to support an all-powerful central government and ensure that a redistribution of money to ensure dependence on federal government whims is extended to yet another group.
It’s really too bad we don’t have some real conservatives who advocate things like a low flat tax and and letting people keep more of their own money to do what they want with it. It’s something even many liberals would support – and would ultimately free up more money for those faith based initiatives some claim they support.
Ah, it’s just as well we let President Bush pursue this latest scam. At least we won’t be listening to pastors laugh about how they screwed over folks like those guys at Enron did. Right?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

When you work in the world of “political consulting,” you work in a world that everyone thinks they know about and have an opinion on, yet few actually understand, or bother to learn about. For 3 years and 9 months of a 4 year cycle, I decline to tell people what I do for a living, simply to avoid some pointless conversation, and to talk about things more fun and interesting when I’m “off-duty.” (It has also been a primary motivator for me to transition away from the profession entirely.)
The only time it’s worth saying the worlds “political consultant” in a bar is when the last few months of the Presidential race are in gear – then you get free drinks for your “insider” knowledge of “the system.” It makes for some good nights out for a few weekends.
When I read things like this little jewel of “reporting” from Yahoo News/PCWORLD, I find I am confronted with the latest example of ill-conceived and poorly researched “journalism” that is considered to be “objective” in today’s discourse.
After reading it with a critical eye, however, it was full of distortions, double-entendres, and overall painted a very deceptive picture of how campaigns are using the Internet to communicate their views. It also reinforced negative stereotypes about the work I do. Hence my evasiveness in public.
So, for today’s fun, I decided to dissect the rhetoric, and the failed attempts by PCWORLD’s “reporter,” to get that Woodward-esque Pulitzer nailing “The Man.”
Using this article, I shall illustrate how the press can tell you something that may have its some of its fact straight, but uses characterizations and innuendo to imply something else.
Let’s look at the “lead.” With emotion-grabbing intensity playing off the reader’s inherent dislike for unwanted email (the bane of all of us on-line) with this witty little opener:
A new class of spam is sliding into in-boxes alongside pitches for Viagra and low-interest loans. It’s coming from President George Bush and Democratic frontrunner Senator John Kerry (news – web sites) and their supporters.
Oooohhh! Scary! A picture is painted of the evil, mind-numbing tentacles of Politician Propaganda, devouring the disk space of the Proletariat. Help us, o valiant reporter and expose this dastardly conspiracy!
Seriously though, this is an example of a mischaracterization that smears the President and Sen. Kerry needlessly and unfairly. While there are plenty of things to tag both men with in their quest for the presidency, this is not one of them. This opener immediately prejudices the reader, regardless of the facts (using the slur of “spam” for their communications). It sounds great, and I am sure he got a pat on the back for being so creative. Too bad that it’s not really true in this case.
I know people at the Kerry campaign, and while I have no direct knowledge of the operations of Bush/Cheney ’04, I can say with almost 100% certainty that they do what the Kerry people do with their email blasts – they send them only to people who’ve signed up to get their daily missives – not to anyone else.
To be sure, there’s the occasional wise-ass who signs up his pro-Bush boss for the “Liberals for Kerry” list after getting outsourced, but both Bush and Kerry provide very easy means for someone to never receive a message from either campaign in their lifetimes if they so desire.
This fact is nowhere in the article, and it’s most likely because either a) the “reporter” didn’t bother to do the research to prove or disprove this assertion or b) has little knowledge on this subject (political communications) so instead discuss what they do know (in this case commercial spammers).
But our intrepid “reporter” does not fire all of his missives at Bush and Kerry – citizen organizations get the slur as well:
White House hopefuls aren’t the only folks taking advantage of the ubiquity and low cost of e-mail. Conservative and liberal groups alike use spamlike tactics (emphasis added) to promote their causes.
The conservative GrassFire.org is an issue-driven group that recently sent 300,000 e-mail invitations to view an online ad that calls Massachusetts senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy “opponents to conservative values.” GrassFire.org representatives say they hope its e-mail will be forwarded repeatedly. Their goal is for 1 million people to view this ad online.
This slur against a conservative citizen’s action group (along with another one aimed at the liberal MoveOn.org group) is particularly clever. Notice how the writer used the phrase “spamlike tactics” in the characterization of each group’s activities.
This gives the reporter a nice way out of a hole should he be confronted with a nasty note from Grassfire.org or Moveon.org. Rather than slur them with the term “spammer” he can say “Oh, but I didn’t say you were spammers – just that your tactics are spam-like. And well, don’t spammers sent out lots of emails? Don’t you?” That sound you hear next is the libel suit going out the window. The vagueness of English once again benefits the lazy writer.
Curious to know more about Grassfire,org, a group I had only heard about in passing, I went to their site and found the following statement in their FAQ:
Do you spam?
Grassfire.org is an opt-in service. We do not spam. Virtually all our online team came to Grassfire.org from the referral of a friend or family member.
Steve Elliot, the president of Grassfire, was kind enough to respond to my inquiry on this issue with this statement:
“Grassfire.org is an opt-in network of more than one million citizens who are using the tools of the Internet to impact the key issues of our day. Every month, hundreds of thousands of citizens give us their personal endorsement by forwarding our messages to their friends and each time. This means more to us than anything the media may or may not say about what we are doing. We believe we are on the leading edge of the future of political involvement and are excited to watch the influence of our online team grow.”
As of presstime, I did not have a response back from Moveon.org, but in the interest of fairness, I did notice this at the bottom of my Moveon.org email message:
This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself (Schadelmann) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=2532-3392348-L.LBqKvSE3s3VZEvAD3Oyw
When I get a response, I’ll edit it in here. Really.
Now, without some real evidence to hit these guys with the spammer label, such as oh, I don’t know, a primary source (remember that term when you got your Communications degree, guys??), slamming Grassfire.org simply isn’t fair.
Similarly, as a subscriber to the moveon.org list, I know for a fact they only send email to the people who ask for them – just like Grassfire.org does. Not only is it a matter of political practicality – no group wants to annoy people who don’t want to hear their message – it’s also a matter of logistics – harvesting emails is not an easy task, and would be foolish for any political group to pursue. The negative response and the media attack from one’s opponents would not be worth it.
Thus, the “spamlike tactics” label prejudices the reader about each group’s work unfairly. While I may or may not agree with what some of these groups do, I don’t think that slamming them with a false label does any good.
If the reporter had perhaps consulted with many of the leading anti-SPAM resources out there, such as Emailabuse.org, SpamCop or similar sites, perhaps he’d find that neither group appears to be seriously considered “spammers” as we know the term today. They aren’t using the tools, tactics, (and suffering the consequences) of blasting out unwanted mail to people who don’t want to receive their messages.
Oh, but it gets better. After pissing off the reader with the threat of “political spam” we get the final touch:
Outside the Law (emphasis not added)
If you don’t like the political spam you’re getting, you’re out of luck this season. That’s because the recently enacted Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, known as CAN-SPAM, applies to unsolicited commercial e-mail only, not to unsolicited political e-mail.
For the record, both the Kerry and Bush campaigns told me their bulk e-mail lists are homegrown and generated exclusively by people who have opted in to receive the candidates’ e-mail.
Here you see the most common tactic of reporters, political and non political, when they want to slur an elected official without much in the way of facts, or in this case, with the facts, but ones that do not fit the construct created by our intrepid “journalist.”
(Side note: look at how the response of the Bush and Kerry campaigns explaining their activity was buried in the story. Perhaps it was inconvenient to mention way up at the top?)
In this case, the bold headline “Outside the Law” implies that all the folks mentioned in this piece are doing something illegal. That of course is false, as the next paragraph states – in the most recent legislation, political advertising was exempted from the anti-spam law, as were phone calls, direct mail, and other forms of communication.
What he fails to understand, or even find out, is why. Over the years, as more and more consumer legislation has been passed to eliminate the harassment of the telemarketer, the junk-mailer, and the junk-emailer, there have been consistent provisions exempting political speech that may make use of the telephone, the Postal Service, or the Internet.
That’s because any time such an attempt has been made to restrict the freedom of citizens to talk to other citizens about political and social issues it’s been struck down by this funny little gadget known as the First Amendment to the United States. Commercial speech designed to sell you something for money has always been considered separately from political/social speech in court decisions and the law.
Now, in this article, you read none of that. Instead the implication is that the “mean politicians” gave themselves a legal break. Right after they’re accused of doing something illegal. It fits nicely with the cynicism that journalists cultivate to claim “objectivity” and feeds into people’s inherent dislike of public officials. Unfortunately in many cases such reflexive cynicism does little to inform people with facts – instead it’s all about fueling emotions to make a great “story.”
Now, if our intrepid “journalist” had done some actual research into real-life cases of politicians who do spam, he may have found out something not only that would perhaps be accurate in the “political spam” debate, but also something quite relevant to campaign 2004: the case of former Secretary of State Bill Jones’ past spamming activities. Bill Jones is now running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 in California.
For those of you who weren’t following Campaign 2002 in California, a quick recap is here at Wired Magazine. Using a forged email header, and routing a list of unsolicited emails through a elementary school server in Korea, Jones’ campaign sent out millions of unsolicited emails promoting his campaign – even to people who didn’t live in California.
A quick Google search revealed many postings by folks who were not from California who got their “Vote Jones” spam. Picking links at random I found some here and here among many, many posts at blogs, Slashdot, and other sources, mainstream and not. Go to Google and do a a search of your own – it’s rather a long list I’m afraid.
But even more fascinating was this link here which would appear to indicate they’re planning to hire the same pack of yahoos who sold them this dumb idea in the first place. Attempts to contact the Jones campaign were not successful as of press time.
Now in this case, the spam slur I’ve decried doesn’t apply to Mr. Jones. Why? In this case, we have well-documented cases of Jones’ campaign using the tools, tactics, and suffering the consequences of blasting out unwanted mail to people who didn’t want it, and should not have received it, for the benefit of both Mr. Jones’s campaign, and the many recipients involved.
Obviously if I were working for a more mainstream publication, I would not discuss this issue as an aside, based on Google research – I’d spend the time, to go talk to many sources and verify everything. Given that Mr. Jones is challenging an incumbent Senator, and has made claims he is in touch with “high tech,” it’s worth a look to see if he practices what he would seem to preach and find out what the actual facts of the matter were then, and now. If they give Mr. Jones a black eye, so be it. If not, so be it as well.
In other words, I’d be doing for PCWORLD or the LA Weekly (or whomever would be willing to pay me) what I thought most reporters were supposed to do – get off their backside and their cynicism and find out what’s going on – not just write a good “story.”
Enough. I’m off to the Waterfront Cafe to discuss the latest about the movie I’m working on. Who woulda thought that telling someone you’re a producer would be more reputable than telling someone you’re a political consultant? After reading coverage like this, you begin to see why!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com