Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Secret of Obama's Success: He Listens to George Lakoff

Posted by Trish , Pensito Review at 11:13 AM on February 20, 2008.


How can Obama score so many wins by offering so little--just hope--and yet everything? I can answer that question. It's because Obama gets it.
vert.obama.afp.gi
Obama

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank captured the angst foes of Barack Obama are feeling.

The Clintons in the past couple of weeks have done all they could to cook him up into an airy souffle, a candidate so light in substance that he collapses when speared. They exposed him as a guy who copies others' speeches and makes lofty pledges only to break them.
And yet: The Obama Souffle continues to rise.
Why that is has befuddled many Democrats, particularly Clinton followers. How can Obama score so many wins by offering so little -- just hope -- and yet everything -- hope?

I can answer that question. It's because Obama gets it. He's been reading the George Lakoff and Rockridge Institute playbook, Thinking Points and skillfully applying it. Lakoff rewrote the progressive strategy with the concept of framing. Had my guy, John Edwards, followed Lakoff's advice and like Obama, gone lighter on the policies and heavier on the values, he might be where Obama is today. Dennis Kucinich would have won a primary or two. John Kerry might be president now. Al Gore would not have needed the Supreme Court in 2000.
Richard Wirthlin, chief strategist for former president Ronald Reagan, made a discovery in 1980 that profoundly changed American politics. As a pollster, he was taught that people vote for candidates on the basis of the candidates' positions on issues. But his initial polls for Reagan revealed something fascinating: Voters who didn't agree with Reagan on the issues still wanted to vote for him...
Reagan talked about values rather than issues. Communicating values mattered more than specific policy positions. Reagan connected with people; he communicated well...It was not because all of his values matched theirs exactly. It was not because he was from their socioeconomic class or subculture. It was because they believed in the integrity of his connection with them as well as the connection between his worldview and his actions.

Is Lakoff saying that personality matters more than positions? Pretty much. Because if you don't have the right kind of the former, you will never get to act on the latter.

Issues are secondary--not irrelevant or unimportant, but secondary. A position on issues should follow from one's values, and the choice of issues and policies should symbolize those values.
One misunderstanding, common among progressive circles, is that the Reagan and George W. Bush elections were about "personality" rather than anything substantive. Nothing is more substantive than a candidate's moral worldview--and whether he or she authentically abides by it.
Wirthlin's discovery happened to be about a presidential candidate, but it applies much more broadly. It should be taken to heart by all progressives: Concentrate on values and principles. Be authentic; stand up for what you really believe. Empathize and connect with the people you are talking to, on the basis of identity -- their identity and yours.
In Hillary's better moments, before she stumbled and brought Bill and other surrogates out to take cheap shots, she was doing this. At some point, she allowed herself to morph into the candidate who does not represent change, the candidate who derides hope, the authority figure who announces the party is over and it's time to get back to work. Who wants to vote for that?

Lakoff lists 12 traps that progressives often fall into, and Hillary and her supporters exemplify many of them.
The Laundry List Trap. Progressives tend to believe that people vote on the basis of lists of programs and policies. In fact, people vote based on values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.
The Rationalism Trap. There is a commonplace -- and false -- theory that reason is completely conscious, literal..., logical, universal, and unemotional. Cognitive science has shown that every one of these assumptions is false. These assumptions lead progressives into other traps: assuming that hard facts will persuade voters, that voters are "rational" and vote in their self-interest and on the issues, and that negating a frame is an effective way to argue against it.
The Policies-Are-Values Trap. Progressives regularly mistake policies with values, which are ethical ideas like empathy, responsibility, fairness, freedom, justice, and so on. Policies are not themselves values, though they are, or should be, based on values. Thus, Social Security and universal health insurance are not values; they are policies meant to reflect and codify the values of human dignity, the common good, fairness, and equality.
The Centrist Trap. A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must "move to the right" to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right's values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.
Those calling for more steak and less sizzle from Obama should give it up. The senator's instincts are perfect, and there's only one thing better than perfection: hope.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, lakoff

Trish is a regular blogger for the Pensito Review.


Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bingo!
Posted by: jebpgh on Feb 20, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who can forget those long hours of senseless debates with the guys from the Progressive Labor faction of SDS? Who can forget How we inspired a movement to end the war with a simple, direct and heartfelt message? The new left disintegrated over its insistence on fighting over minutia. The Trots, the Leninists, the Maoists...all fighting over narrow, largely irrelevant distinctions while those in power were able to move ahead and consolidate even more power and turn the entire movement into dust. Obama has learned the lesson well, Saul Alinsky would be damn proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gee, it's really too bad
Posted by: badkitty on Feb 20, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't care much for George Lakoff back in the late 70s when I babysat for his son, and unfortunately, I do pay a lot of attention to policies and programs, which is why I am (still) for Edwards. If you want to know what someone's values really are, you'd better see if they walk the walk. It's my understanding that one (or maybe both) of Obama's two Harvard economist advisors supports partial privatization of Social Security. I trust Obama as much as I do Hillary, and "hope" and "change" really don't do it for me. I'll have "hope" when I see specific ideas which embody actual "change" from the last 25 years. No wonder this country is in so much trouble if people are voting on what they perceive to be shared values rather than past actions or actual proposed programs (of course, George Bush is such a liar it probably would have been difficult for those who thought they shared whatever specious values he said he had to make an informed judgement..).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gee, it's really too bad Posted by: Doubtom
This article is right on target
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Feb 20, 2008 12:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People don't vote for policies because they can't really understand them. That's why we have elected representitives.

I suspect the group that's going to get tied up with policy details are the Republicans as they try to explain their way out of the mess they produced in Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walking the Talk
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Feb 20, 2008 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps it's a function of my age ... these days I am much more inclined to focus on a politician's specific, documented accomplishments (votes, proposed legislation, etc.) than her/his promises. I'm sure we have all voiced many hopes and dreams for our lives and made many promises related to those hopes . . . and how many have we followed through on? I've been on many hiring committees and found myself charmed into hiring eloquent applicants with glowing resumes only to find out days after they rolled up their sleeves and started working that they did not have the capacity and/or commitment to actually do the job. Hiring a president should involve the closest checking of 'references' and past accomplishments. But the media focuses on completely banal aspects of the candidates. And TV viewing keeps people hopelessly focused on image and style and spin. And schools and some religious organizations discourage critical thinking. I have yet to see any article that closely reviews Obama's and Clinton's records. But maybe I'm one of only a small flock of rare birds who would care to read such a piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Walking the Talk Posted by: type22003
Right on the mark
Posted by: kyer on Feb 20, 2008 11:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's obvious that Obama has been studying the political principles that Lakoff and others have discussed regarding framing and winning elections.
It's not only good politics it's a lot easier to relate to than endless policy debates.
I say this as a progressive political wonk!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Feb 21, 2008 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To get elected, sure, it's vital to have values that appeal, sincerity (or at least the appearance of it) and NOT too much detail of your own policies because you can't afford to alienate more groups than you have to.

But policies are absolutely essential - so you must give the impression of having thought these out without being too specific.

For us aliens with no vote over the one political appointment that really matters to our lives, the important thing about your presidential election is of course US foreign policy. We have, the world has, suffered a disaster because GWB turned the world back to the policies of confrontation.

Mr. Obama - unlike any other candidate, has set out his foreign poilcy aims in Foreign Affairs for July/August last:

His summary - "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world not try to bully it into submission".

Just words? No - the best two sentences to describe the new US foreign policy which could give us real hope in a new future: this new era must be a new post-cold war era of cooperation not confrontation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dipconsult Posted by: master09
» RE: dipconsult Posted by: sunfire
Goodbye to Leaden Prose
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 21, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having loyalty supported Al Gore and John Kerry and watched as voters' eyes glazed over, it's hard to imagine why anyone would believe the same, leaden campaign rhetoric would be successful against the fear-mongering Republican machine this year. The gap between what people say as candidates and what they do when ensconced in the White House will always be with us, but Obama and his cohorts recognize that a laundry list of half-measures isn't inspiring.

Lakoff is on the money, but to be fair to Obama, he seems to be a naturally gifted speaker and writer, and if he borrows from close associates from time to time, I'm convinced it's because he cares about and shares ideas with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Goodbye to Leaden Prose Posted by: sageworks
Goodbye to Leaden Prose
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 21, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having loyalty supported Al Gore and John Kerry and watched as voters' eyes glazed over, it's hard to imagine why anyone would believe the same, leaden campaign rhetoric would be successful against the fear-mongering Republican machine this year. The gap between what people say as candidates and what they do when ensconced in the White House will always be with us, but Obama and his cohorts recognize that a laundry list of half-measures isn't inspiring.

Lakoff is on the money, but to be fair to Obama, he seems to be a naturally gifted speaker and writer, and if he borrows from close associates from time to time, it's because he cares about and shares ideas with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why can't Obama have policies as well as values? Policies are important because of corporate power
Posted by: Suzon on Feb 21, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tony Blair, just days before becoming prime minister in 1997, promised that "Labour will change what is wrong". Yes, he was elected (not by a majority--the UK doesn't do majorities) and the result was ten years of bitter disappointment. So much for hope and no substance. As the saying goes, "Fine words butter no parsnips".

I just can't see myself voting for Clinton as she seems utterly bought and paid for. Obama has taken corporate cash but would this influence his policies? "Hope" isn't an answer to that question but an evasion.

The senator's instincts are perfect, and there's only one thing better than perfection: hope.

Now there's an unconvincing statement if ever there was one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sssh
Posted by: rplevy on Feb 21, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shhh this is the BIG secret weapon! Obama himself is such a natural though, I think he has distanced himself from any direct credit to Lakoff, though you can look to Axelrod for a more direct possible links. And this very much relates to what got me interested in Obama to begin with. I've been an Obama supporter ever since I read Thinking Points, as I actually had not heard of Obama before that but had already been a fan of Lakoff. Kerry was the embodiment of disembodiment. When I found out about Obama, I realized, yes this is the perfect core-values & progressive conceptual framing candidate! This is a big part of how we are going to take back the country and create a lasting Democratic majority that answers to the will of the people and raises the standards and expectations for what is possible through "the system".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: STORMY78 on Feb 21, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE SECRET TO OBAMA'S SUCCESS IS KARL ROVE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY POWERS TO BE.
THEY ARE BEHIND THE MONEY AND SWITCH OVER VOTES.
HERE ARE TWO VERY IMPORTANT SITES TO READ.

www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/16/143326/350
www.cityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election

THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THEY CAN BEAT OBAMA, BUT HILLARY KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT. SHE CAN STAND UP TO WHATEVER MUD THEY SLING. SHE'S BEEN THERE AND SURVIVED.
OBAMA WITH HIS INEXPERIENCE WILL BE AN EASY DEFEAT FOR THE REPUBLICANS.

LOG ON TO THE ABOVE SITES AND GET THE TRUTH OUT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stormy7 Posted by: rplevy
Wrong!
Posted by: Andie927 on Feb 21, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's because he's Black, and no one can say anything!

When Edwards, Kerry and Gore tried talking in lofty rhetorical style, the MSM screamed: Substance!! Where's your position papers! How are going to pay for it? How are you going to do that?

Look at what happen in NC, exactly what was wrong with saying that, MLK needed Johnson, and without Johnson the legislation giving black person's civil rights, wouldn't have happened. It's historically accurate! Just like saying Jesse Jackson won in NC, on the Black vote! He did. It's historically accurate! NOT derrogatory, or racist!! But Bill Clinton, and I'm no fan of his, got hammered by the media for those statements, and Obama's campaign encouraged it!!

I was listening to a favorite talk show host last night, and he was ranting on, about how disgusted he was that everyone was 'picking' on Michelle Obama, that he hated to show his white face in public! Oh, Please!!! There were a whole lot of white people in those Civil Rights Marches!!A whole lot of WHITE legislator's that voted Civil Rights into law!
Are there Rednecks and Racists out there? Sure.
But they're the minority!

As a feminist, women in the late 60' I wanted equal opportunity, and pay!! I felt that if I wanted equality, I should take personal steps to prove I was equal! As my senior class mates, recent high school grads. in 68 were being drafted, I thought it was unfair I wasn't! I enlisted!!

Obama, Michelle want equality, without paying the price! Everytime someone says, show us, prove you can do it, where's the policey? He JUST last week comes out with an Economic Policey Paper? His healthcare plan has gaps and holes in it, you could drive a truck thru!

Why's he running for President??? To inspirer people? To motivate people?? Become a Preacher!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wrong! Posted by: mnascimento
Style over Substance: The American Way
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Feb 21, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Campaign promises -- public or private -- have never been worth much. They are little more than window dressing -- statements designed for maximum flexibility (even deniability), and minimum commitment.

Even if a candidate was 100% sincere in his/her statements, and as President was obsessive about honoring every promise, any attempt to change the status quo must be filtered through three sets of gatekeepers: Wall Street and its enablers will block any move that does not increase their access to money; both houses of Con-Grease will gut high-minded bills with a thousand shabby agendas; and finally, all else failing, there are always five Supremes willing to sell America for thirty more pieces of silver.

I have no proof that Americans were ever different from what we see now. The Pioneering Spirit of the 19th Century moved only a few, though thousands more were willing to tag along behind the trailbreakers. When the risks became too great, and the rewards uncertain, a large number of those "hardy pioneers" decided to settle here in the Midwest, rather than face the tough challenges of the Western Frontier. When America entered World War I, doughboys debarked in France were so unaware of the world that they expected to hear the French speaking English...and they were terrified by the killing machine in the trenches. While a majority of Americans supported FDR's domestic agenda, they were so adamantly in denial about "foreign wars": They might have kept Hoover in office if FDR had tried to present the hard facts of the Axis threat, so FDR promised to "keep our boys out of Foreign Wars". (He actually kept that promise after a fashion: When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the war was no longer "Foreign".) The massive demonstrations of the late 1960s and early 70s were not a joyous coming together of like-minded hundreds of thousands: The movements of that time were led by true believers, but most of the followers were more scared of being drafted than they were angry about government policy.

Is it any wonder that a suave style, ready charm, and a well-framed quip carry the day? Comfort and denial (unto naievete) have been the most persistent factors in American character: They have been elaborated in an American Dream state that was for two centuries isolated from the intrusion of the rest of the world's views, while America's growing class of Princes and Princesses repeated the sins of all their greedy power-addled predecessors around the globe. In exchange we got platitudes about Torches Being Passed, and Morning In America. Americans, by and large, have shrunk from the naked truth so many times, for so long, that it would require a stunning change in our national character to achieve anything different now.

If you hope for big changes, be patient: Global climate change, water shortages, fossil fuel shortages, along with our growing dependence on other nations to feed us and manufacture our Things will force the soul-searching and reassessment we all hope for. The question is whether progressive thinking will capture that day, or will lose to the us-them concoctions of a dictator. Recent history gives me little assurance that work and shared sacrifice will carry the day against the rise of another Great Leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the excitement?
Posted by: willymack on Feb 21, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the enthusiasm for Barak Obama's candidacy? It's because Sen. Obama articulates the IDEA of democracy, equality under the law, and a just society. This is the original idea of our Founders and is still a living, breathing force in our society, often imitated and admired by other nations. The neocrooks, with bush as their principle stooge, have been hell-bent on dismantling our democratic society in favor of a fascist dictatorship, but, it seems our people haven't forgotten what it's like to be free and unfettered. Sen. Obama gives eloquent voice to the legitimate longings of Americans in every nook and cranny of the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

listen to rush limbaugh on mc-cain but should be obama
Posted by: sageworks on Feb 21, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
quoted from today's NY Times: Mr. Limbaugh said, according to a transcript posted on his Web site. “The lesson is liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them.”
Wake up Mr. Obama! They don't want to make nicey nicey with you. Just like they didn't with Bill Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thebigkate
Posted by: Thebigkate on Feb 21, 2008 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say that Obama is all hope and no substance is very naive on your part--and cynical in the extreme! To the contrary, he is a very intelligent, thoughtful, strategic and pragmatic man--and he gets the systemic way of viewing the world, as no other candidate does. Nor, apparently do any of you!

I hope that Obama gets the nomination, wins the election and appoints Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court--where she would be absolutely taking on Clarence Thomas and the know-nothing Neo-Cons!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» HMM-m-m-m.... Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
Obama, "hope" and media bias.
Posted by: johnp on Feb 21, 2008 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Hope," "inspiration? Bullshit. The "secret" of Obama's success is staring everyone in the face, and has nothing to do with Obama (except that he's a convenient tool, to dispose of easily, in the '08 election for McCain). It's media stupid. Do you have to have a degree in media studies to notice how desperately and mercilessly media have been attacking and demeaning Hillary, and bolstering, boosting and soft-soaping Obama? But media have the benefit of a society too half-witted not to give them the benefit of the presumption of impartiality, though their bias against Clinton is so monumental, you've got to have an IQ far below Bush's, not to see it. It's hard to believe that more people actually can't see how media, owned and operated as they are, by some of the most rabid, right wing elitists, would do anything that would benefit the democratic party; and that's why they're so fiercely promoting Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about "winning," for a CHANGE
Posted by: johnp on Feb 21, 2008 11:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a tedious, pointless and predictible essay. The democrats don't need to win their own internal nominations, they need to win elections. You can RAH RAH RAH, all you like for Obama. It's not that inspiration, or hope, are not good things, it's that Obama has no balls.
jp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DOWN WITH CORPORATE MEDIA - UP WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Posted by: Michael_D on Feb 25, 2008 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is a mouthpiece for the CFR. Like so many, most likely caught up in the crossfire of all this massive, bureaucractic nightmare that is the US government/media/corporations today. Many, (NOT all), of our politicians can and are bought routinely bought out for special interests. Obama says "change" allot thus proving his inexperience or will to tackle some of Americas REAL problems. He is no different than the other rich, elitist, fake leaders that do not care about the American people, or the US Consitution.

Realize this fact too
Coke Bush

The revolution is on. Wake up to what has been and is still going on with our American mainstream media and their ability to keep us all uninformed, brainwashed, and shopping.

These globalist, neocon-type media faces and leaders like O'Rielly, Hannity, Kristol, and yes even Obama are all in bed with AIPAC, the U.N., overthrowing governements with the CIA, etc. and pretty much dominate American TV. They are all being mislead themselves or are part of it now aren't they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul or Nader 2008
Posted by: Michael_D on Feb 25, 2008 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to see some REAL patriots look here
REAL American Hero
REAL American Hero
REAL American Hero
REAL American Hero
REAL American Hero

and watch this TRUTH too
REAL American Hero

They do this by contolling information and by GREATLY influencing our elections with the BUSH-CHENEY connected DIEBOLD MACHINES.

Wake up if you love American freedom and hate needless war for profit and/or overthrowing of governments and confusion of the masses by corrupt CIA and all the neocons!

http://ronpaul.meetup.com

This is what the media/government has done to us for too long. The internet and people rising up with the TRUTH after all these years of media lies is the only thing that can help America now. There is no left or right in America at this moment. Only corruptness and media lies so big that most can't see though it.

McCain is one of the WORST puppets out there!!! His top four contributors, (like most candidates, are... BANKS!

R E S E A R C H

Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.

The “Top Contributors” figures can be found at www.opensecrets.org.

JOIN the rEVOLution to restore America people.

IT IS DUTY.

When big media blocks Ron Paul out, it blocks YOU (and all your kids and family) out. Why do you think they spew so much about "terrorists"?

Starting to get the picture now? Are you believing this bs about "islamo-fascism"? Looking back at what we now know... WHAT A FRIKKEN JOKE.

The time is now.

Shun the non-believers - for our fight is to help them too.

TaxDay08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]