Mediaboss Marketing

Forty years ago, the federal Liberals were keeping their leader inside a bubble that their opponents wanted to burst.

That's because Pierre Trudeau and his party were in the midst of an election campaign, which saw them leading in the polls with a month to go before Election Day.

And the party was employing a so-called "peekaboo campaign" strategy that was seeminglybuilt around limiting Trudeau's exposure something Peter Mansbridge said wasamarked change from the previous election cycle.

"This year, with an apparent big lead, things are a lot different," Mansbridge reportedon The National on Jan. 18, 1980.

"Trudeau quietly reads from a prepared text, he rarely answers questions and his party platform still lacks detail."

Alan Frizzell, a pollster at Carleton University, said the lead the Liberals held did not ensure their eventual victory at the polls.

Noting the shift in thepolls that had then favoured the Liberals, Frizzell said a fickle electorate could easily movein a different direction.

"If it can swing one way, it can swing the other," he said.

The election outcome would all come down to what voters decided, of course, including whether they approved of the Liberals' campaign strategy.

"Surely, leaders can be judged on the basis of their unwillingness to speak to the issues and that's the risk they take if they choose a tactic that doesn't permit the voters to make an informed judgment on the basis of issues," said Fred Fletcher, a political science professor at York University.

The Liberals' strategy had been under some scrutiny before the campaign had reached its mid-point, however.

Earlier in January of 1980,CBC had reported on the Liberals'decision not toparticipate in a televised leaders' debate, leaving PC Leader Joe Clark and New Democrat Leader Ed Broadbent without a platform to square off against Trudeau.

Liberalstrategists had confirmed that doing so was a purposeful part of their campaign strategy.

Broadbent called the decision to skip the debate "the height of arrogance" andClark had then suggested the Liberals were "trying to induce Canadians to forget what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did during the 11 years he was prime minister."

Before 1980, Trudeau had led his party through four elections, winning three of them and serving as Canada's prime minister for almost allof the 1970s.

But the 1979 election saw the Progressive Conservatives take power in Ottawa as a minority government and Trudeau eventually stated plans to step down from politics.

His plans changed when Clark's government was defeated, triggering the 1980 election that returned Trudeau and the Liberals to power.

Excerpt from:
The 'peekaboo campaign' the Liberals hoped would return them to power - CBC.ca

There are always those people.

The people who revel in being the exception to the rule. The women who want everyone to know that they're "not like other girls" and in fact think male chauvinism is super great. The Republicans who hate Trump. Black people who don't believe racism exists. Former liberals who think "something" has just gone "too far."

If you're thirsting for a ton of positive attention, if you want to feel truly valued and special, it's certainly one way to go. If I were to suddenly become a Republican, accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, declare feminism a societal evil, or oppose abortion, not only would I be endlessly showered with praise, but everything I said would be considered to be extra valid and extra validating to those praising me. I could be used as a weapon against those I used to agree with. People love that shit almost as much as they love unlikely animal friendships.

Yesterday, The New York Times ran an op-ed titled "I'm a Liberal Who Thinks Immigration Must Be Restricted," by one Jerry Kammer, a senior research fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. It was not good.

In this op-ed, Kammer explains that he opposes immigration because of how immigrants drive wages down, which he appears to think is a brand new argument and not a large part of the justification for many of our more embarrassing anti-immigration laws, starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and moving forward. The act was a serious blight on the history of the labor movement, as it was supported by nearly every major union, with the notable exception of the Industrial Workers of the World.

He then pointed out that, once upon a time, other Democrats were also shitty on the issue of immigration, thereby justifying his own position today.

In 1970, Senator Walter Mondale warned that "we have a massive poverty population coming into the country" from Mexico. In 1983 a New York Times editorial argued that while the country needed immigrants, "what it does not need is such an uncontrollable flood of illegal migrants that it tries public patience." In 1994, Barbara Jordan, the civil rights icon chosen by President Bill Clinton to direct the Federal Commission on Immigration Reform, told Congress, "As a nation of immigrants committed to the rule of law, this country must set limits on who can enter." In 2003, Hillary Clinton declared that she was "adamantly against illegal immigration."

But by the time Mrs. Clinton was running for president in 2016, she was courting the Latino vote, pledging not to deport unauthorized immigrants who did not have criminal records.

Yeah, see, that's the thing about being a progressive as opposed to a conservative. Your views change over time and you learn and grow and you try to get better. Or at least that's what we all hope to do.

He also danced around suggesting that part of the reason immigration is bad is because it causes, ahem, "anxiety" and "social division" and "societal fracturing."

In Phoenix I spoke with Donna Neill, a volunteer organizer in a working-class neighborhood and the driving force in the construction of a park that was used primarily by immigrant children. Nevertheless, she supported Proposition 200.

She pointed to crowded classrooms, apartments where two or three families crammed into a space meant for one and home additions in violation of housing codes that went unenforced. "We're losing the simple things that make a society a society, but no one wants to step forward because they're afraid of crossing some line and being called a racist," said Ms. Neill.

And what line would that be? Why are these people so anxious? What exactly are the "simple things that make a society a society"? It sure seems like a lot of things have been glossed over here in service of trying to make racist people look like they are not racist.

Which, actually, is not all that surprising given that the Center for Immigration Studies, where Kammer works, is a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group known for promoting the work of white supremacists. In fact, a study conducted by the SPLC found that the CIS had promoted white supremacist material 2,012 times with much of it coming from VDARE, John Derbyshire and American Renaissance, the site owned by white supremacist Jared Taylor.

Now, Kammer can call himself a liberal, or, as he says, a "moderate Democrat," just like I can call myself a banana. He can even vote for Democrats if he likes, who am I to stop him? But despite my distaste for gatekeeping I'm going to say that working for an actual hate group pretty much disqualifies anyone from actually being a liberal in practice.

If he is truly so concerned about labor, if that is his first priority, there are many things he can do and and advocate for that don't involve attacking immigrants or working for a think tank that frequently links race and IQ.

Via the SPLC:

Oh. So if nothing else, all the CIS fellows could get Bret Stephens's job. A free pair of calipers comes with it!

[New York Times]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

More here:
Meet The NYT's 'Anti-Immigration Liberal' (Hint He Works At A Hate Group!) - Wonkette

There might have been a time when Democrats could have taken back the White House by simply letting President Trump implode, but instead they opted to one-up his self-destructive behavior. Now theyre finally realizing they are more than likely set to lose.

Liberals in the media can usually put on a brave face when they know their political party of choice is heading toward a cliff, as with the Mueller investigation and impeachment, but there was no denying what we all saw this week: the decomposition of the Democratic presidential field.

The debate this week was a disaster, and everyone is admitting it. (Except, that is, for the Washington Posts Eugene Robinson, who wrote in earnest that the debate gave Democrats reason to hope that the happy ending they seek for might actually happen, an assessment divorced from reality.)

Immediately after the debate, CNNs Van Jones said the event was dispiriting.

Democrats are going to have to do better than what we saw tonight, he said. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible. There was nothing tonight that if you're looking at this thing and say any of these people are prepared for what Donald Trump is going to do to us.

Well said. But wait! Theres more!

The next day on MSNBCs Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough said the candidates performances at the debate should send a chill up Democrats spines, because these people are still not ready for prime time.

On the same show, Al Sharpton said: I didnt see anybody on the stage last night, or in the ring, that really said, Im taking charge. I can be president. I can take on Donald Trump.

Liberal CNN commentator Angela Rye, my favorite, needed to psych herself up to make the same admission, but she eventually went through with it Wednesday on Cuomo Prime Time.

Asked by Chris Cuomo if she believed after the debate that any of the Democrats demonstrated they can beat Trump, Rye let out an exhale that could be felt through the screen.

I have to be honest with you because that is my pledge as a person who has a platform on TV, she said, and I have to be honest with you, that debate stage last night frightened me."

Rye said she didnt see a whole ton of strength among the candidates and that we have a lot of groundwork to do before this party can beat Donald Trump.

Democrats have accepted their fate, and its a lot of fun to watch.

See the original post:
Liberals admit that 2020 Democrats aren't ready to face Trump - Washington Examiner

Knives Out, an Agatha Christie-style whodunit that will likely snag some Oscar nominations soon, is not really political.

You can enjoy the film as a pretty standard murder mystery without unpacking its characters beliefs, from the Trumpism of one character to the open borders rhetoric of another. One of the most interesting things about the film is the way its able to lampoon both.

Liberal magazine Sojourners described the movies perspective as a merciless skewering of white privilege. More fundamentally, its a critique of hypocrisy.

Hollywood liberals took a beating this week when Ricky Gervais blasted their double standards: touting moral lessons about society while cozying up to Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. Knives Out follows suit.

The film is about a rich, white man and his rich, white family, who hope to inherit his wealth after his mysterious death. During a discussion at old Harlan Thrombeys birthday party the night before he dies, his son-in-law and daughter-in-law get into an argument.

Richard, whom daughter-in-law Joni pejoratively refers to as red-hat wearer, echoes the pull yourself up by your bootstraps rhetoric of the GOP. Immigrants should be rewarded for entering the country the legal way, etc.

Joni, an Instagram influencer who meditates and spouts platitudes in a way that would make Gwyneth Paltrow jealous, responds that the government is putting kids in cages.

To settle the argument, Richard calls in Marta, Harlans Latina nurse. She did it the right way, he explains. But Marta has a secret: Her mother is undocumented.

Marta becomes the unofficial protagonist of the film, leading detective Benoit Blanc through the idiosyncrasies of the family and ultimately to the truth of the murder. And while the film had a chance to present the liberal, excessively pro-immigration side as heroes, it turns them, as well as the right-wingers, into villains.

No one in the family can remember which country in South America Marta is from, and at least three different options are mentioned throughout the film. (Brazil? Paraguay? Educador?) When it is revealed (spoiler alert) that the unselfish Marta will receive all of Harlans fortune, the Thrombey family goes ballistic.

In an effort to wrest the fortune back for themselves, they threaten to expose Martas mother as an undocumented immigrant unless Marta gives them what they see as their rightful inheritance. All of the characters, from the MAGA ones (one of whom calls Marta an anchor baby) to the woke liberals, are in on the scheme. That talk about caring about immigrants seems pretty empty when one immigrant becomes an obstacle to a huge wad of cash.

Instead of using the political tension in the film to stir controversy, Knives Out plays off it for humor, particularly in the scene where the family begins fighting and hurling insults from alt-right troll to SJW student.

Everyone kind of sucks, except Marta, who, like many young immigrants in America, grew up in a difficult situation that she did not choose. The film refrains from overly politicizing her plight, but it does offer this commentary: Neither conservatives nor liberals are really on her side.

The film's director, Rian Johnson, has said Knives Out is not a "message movie." But, he told the Associated Press, it was important that the film seem modern.

"Right now, if you have dinner with your big family and you have a few glasses of wine, and you start arguing, guess what you're going to be arguing about?" he asked. "It's the same stuff we're all arguing about. And so hopefully the movie portrays that in a way where you can go with your family and you can all kind of laugh at yourselves a little bit."

View post:
In Knives Out, both liberals and conservatives are the villains - Washington Examiner

MSNBC personality Lawrence ODonnell made a mistake in liberal land this week he told the truth. Allowing peeks behind the curtain in the land of left-wing politics is a no-no, audiences are not allowed to see how the sausage is made. Larry, a rich white guy, accidentally not only pulled back the curtain, he set it on fire.

Larry told disgraced former Senator Al Franken, forced to resign after multiple women came forward to accuse him of unwanted sexual advances (including unwanted touching and forced kissing), that MSNBC doesnt even bother having anyone on who is pro-Trump. Thats one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC, ODonnell said. Because he knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him. Because we dont bring on liars. I dont bring on a liar. I wont do that.

What ODonnell admits there is his employer is not a news organization, its an activist for-profit TV network. When asked if you have to lie to defend the president, Larry was unequivocal, saying, Yes, absolutely you do. How else do you defend a liar, a pathological liar who lies about everything? You have to lie.

Larry does not watch MSNBC or even listen to the words coming out of his mouth, apparently. Was there more than a day in the past three where he hadnt declared the president colluded with Russia in the 2016 election? What hasnt ODonnell and his fellow travelers at the peacock cable outlet accused someone named Trump of doing? Murder, maybe, but thats only because its just about the only thing the family hasnt been accused of yet. (Give it time.)

Its been a rough time for the old, white, on-air personalities at MSNBC, so you can understand why Larry would try to stand out and create some buzz for himself. The truth-teller had to eat a huge steaming pile ofum, crow after he lied on air about Russians close to Vladimir Putin co-signing for loans for Donald Trump. It was such a bald-faced lie that it didnt even meet MSNBCs standards, which is saying something.

Imagine being a 68-year-old narcissist, a self-proclaimed socialist with expensive tastes, single (his wife finally bugged out after two decades of dealing with him), and facing rumors of losing his show at the end of the year the thing from which he seems to derive meaning in his life. Is there a market for an unemployed, over-the-hill has been, incapable of loving anyone as much as himself who hates hammering?

You begin to see why maintaining the echo chamber he works in is so appealing to him if he loses his staff, who else would want to be around him?

Someone the Daily Beast described as an insider at MSNBC said the heads of ODonnell and Chris Matthews could be on the chopping block this year. According to the report, it all depends on what happens with the election. You could see either or moving on to other endeavors or staying for another round.

When your fate is up in the air, you need all the buzz you can generate.

But there wouldnt be speculation about anyone leaving the network if things were going well. MSNBC lost 25 percent of its viewers aged 18-49 in 2019, coming in 26th on basic cable and well behind the Lifetime network. That means their audience is old, and getting older. Not what companies want, especially when your numbers arent huge to begin with.

Also reportedly on the chopping block is none other than Chuck Todd. They cant fire him, hes the face of their news division, but they can demote his show Meet The Press Daily. The anchor Todd is an anchor on ratings as well, apparently, as he is a low point for MSNBC, mostly because Todd is laughably biased and a horrible, arrogant host himself. He took the MTP brand and embarrassed its legacy even more than former host David Gregory did, which is saying something.

Theres talk of moving Todds show to 9:00 am, a major demotion that has Ginger Avenger and his staff upset. No one likes being told they arent liked, but its better to find out in a way that keeps your job than it is to find out by losing it.

Todd famously announced hed no longer have anyone who disagrees with liberal orthodoxy on climate change on his show, setting the tone for the network. Hes extended that to anyone who disagrees with him on pretty much anything, which, as Larry confirmed, has also metastasized to the rest of the network. His decisions made ripples throughout the organization and they were all bad.

All of this comes as a surprise only if you live in an insulated world where everyone tells you how great you are, how smart you are, and how wonderful you are. Unfortunately for the personalities at MSNBC, they surround themselves with people who agree with them and people who depend on them for their livelihoods. Whos going to tell them no? Turns out, viewers.

Derek is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of a daily radio show onWCBM in Maryland, and author of the book,Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses.Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.

Read the original here:
The Insulated Life Of Liberals - Townhall