Businessweek, “The Secret Side of David Axelrod -The master of “Astroturfing: has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations-

by Howard Wolinsky 3/14/08

An excerpt:

“From the same River North address, Axelrod operates a second business, ASK Public Strategies, that discreetly plots strategy and advertising campaigns for corporate clients to tilt public opinion their way.

He and his partners consider virtually everything about ASK to be top secret, from its client roster and revenue to even the number of its employees. But customers and public records confirm that it has quarterbacked campaigns for the Chicago Children’s Museum, ComEd, Cablevision, and AT&T.

ASK’s predilection for operating in the shadows shows up in its work.

On behalf of ComEd and Comcast, the firm helped set up front organizations that were listed as sponsors of public-issue ads.

Industry insiders call such practices “Astroturfing,” a reference to manufacturing grassroots support. Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd Ward, who has been battling the Children’s Museum’s relocation plans,

describes ASK as “the gold standard in Astroturf organizing.

This is an emerging industry, and ASK has made a name for itself in shaping public opinion and manufacturing public support

hmmm ok, sure…Axelrod had absolutely nothing to do with the Gov Palin smear campaign…Axelrod doesn’t know what the heck the fuss is all about.

Undercover Blackman is either unaware of Axelrod’s methods (from past campaigns) or he’s just playing coy.

Wiki content should always be verified-

I check last edit dates on wiki to see when last changes/updates made.

I check the references that are posted at the end of the wiki article. For me-this is a dead give away as to how much credence I should place on particular fact passed on in the article (i.e. if statement is sourced from tabloid which writes about flying saucers versus a conservative news publication versus a liberal website).

Whenever I read any articles about topics that can be politically sensitive-I proceed with GREAT caution when reading WIKIpedia.

Again-I check the source at the bottom of article whenever I encounter any ‘fact’ that I think might be slanted.

Wiki has its good points and bad points but I think we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater .

We can’t quote wiki as an irrefutable source of info either.

In general though, I refer to to it quite often as good starting off point.

I also verify anything controversial on the site to a second source.

This story is taking a life of its own and getting more interesting.
I’ve been surfing google and getting some great info’s about it.

Erick Erickson…

“The ties from Winner & Associates trace back to David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama. As previously noted, Axelroad is a master of astroturf campaigns. After the Jawa Report broke the story, someone mysteriously edited Axelrod’s Wikipedia entry to delete all references to his various astroturfing campaigns.”

“Couple the circumstantial evidence with the ongoing coverup — Axelrod’s Wikipedia entry suddenly edited, eswinner and friends removing evidence from the internet, etc. — and it appears the Jawa Report has uncovered a real story of organized online astroturfing designed to smear Sarah Palin on behalf of the Obama campaign”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28656&s=rcmp

Ray Robinson…

“video from the Detroit Mayor’s office produced by Mayor Archer’s political consultant David Axelrod was noted as a key part of the Winner directed effort. This revelation places Axelrod in a direct working relationship with the Chuck Winner PR firm in a past campaign.”

“Axelrod is considered by many to be a master of planting campaign messages on the internet to look like they did not originate from an organized campaign, a practice know as “astroturfing” (because of the fake grass-roots nature of the message). The joint effort on the Prop E campaign is the first public indication of a direct tie between the Obama campaign team and the Winner PR firm.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-701-National-Defense-Examiner~y2008m9d22-PR-firm-behind-Palin-smears-has-history-with-Obama-media-chief-Axelrod

Granted these two reporters aren’t mainstream, but the details in the report seems plausible.
The one that will solidify this story would be the female voices on the video ads I’m sure there’s a more of out there. If they are proven to be the same…we have an “Astroturf-gate in our hands. Ohhh I’d love to see it on MSM breaking news.

http://archives.neuralgourmet.com/2007/03/22/obama_campaign_astroturfing

Look at how Soros’financed “Media Matters’ is trying to spin this (astro turfing) story in an effort to dismiss what may have really been going on.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200809230002?f=h_top

Published Tue, Sep 23, 2008 9:00am ET by Eric Boehlert

an excerpt.

“Jawa was at the center of an overexcited right-wing blog launch Monday morning (”extensive research” was involved!) with a completely circumstantial report that basically accused somebody who may or may not have had indirect relations with the Obama campaign of posting an anti-Palin video on YouTube “aimed at discouraging people from voting for McCain/Palin.” Period.

We know, it didn’t make much sense to us either. We guess Jawa’s point was that the Obama campaign was somehow trying to create the perception of a viral video when in fact the clip was professionally made. We’re talking real above-the-fold breaking news, right?

Well, it turns out the Los Angeles-based public relations specialist who Jawa accused of being the Obama bag man on the YouTube clip, Ethan Winner, did in fact create the video. He did it himself and paid for it himself and the campaign was not involved in making or spreading the YouTube clip. (Even if the Obama team was involved, so what?) ”

End of excerpt.

So…they think its okay why?
Media Matters thinks this is okay?
Media Matters…Remind us again what your mission statement is please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America

Excerpt from wikipedia.org

“Funding sources
In May 2004, the New York Times reported that Media Matters has received “more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals” and “was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress”.[23] According to the Cybercast News Service, Media Matters has received financial support from MoveOn.org, Peter Lewis, and the New Democratic Network.[24]

According to Bill O’Reilly and others, George Soros is funding Media Matters through Democracy Alliance — an organization of progressive donors.[25][26] The Democracy Alliance does not collect and distribute money on behalf of its members. Alliance members donate directly to the organizations of their choice.[27] Media Matters has stated publicly on numerous occasions that Soros has never given money to the organization either directly or through another organization.”

I bet Sean Hannity would be interested in it, he would love to nail that pretensious bastard.

Thanks,
Matthew

But to your questions:

Do we talk about McCain’s confusion?
What confusion? Or, are you subtly addressing his age with a stereotype?

…lobbyists working for McCain too?
If I understand correctly, there are no active lobbyists working for McCain. One recent accusation was found untrue–the guy and his company haven’t had any accused work in something like three years. The question over lobbyists is a bit disingeneous anywas as both candidates have folks working for them who have at some time in their past worked as lobbyists–either directly or indirectly. Is there a meaningful complaint about this or simply an attempt at gotcha?

They are all crooked politicians, McCain just has had more practice at deception and no one calls him on his crap.
Okay, what about McCain do you find as crooked? By comparison–Michelle Obama got a nearly 300% raise from her employer and Barack then secured a $1M+ earmark for them. That’s crooked wouldn’t you think? What about Obama’s ‘boneheaded’ real estate deal with Rezko (and the many lies and omissions about it)? Now, about McCain, beyond his link what 20 years ago to S&L, he’s been clean. Have you anything specific to suggest otherwise?

It is time to throw both parties to the sidewalk.
Your general statement won’t get much dispute by most folks.

Crooks and liars the lot of them.
Again, please be specific–some are but many are not.

The deregulation king has forgotten he was for it before he was against it. McCain looks like a fool along with every other politician.
I beg to differ on this. McCain’s been complaining about many excesses for years–see his legislative proposals from 2005 regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. While he may be for deregulation, he’s had a long repuation against fraud, abuse, and so forth.

This country is on the verge of collapse so let’s put McCain in charge? He helped this happen with all of his cronies. Enough.
McCain isn’t responsible for the collapse and he’s got a track record that suggests he’d take a very different approach on many issues. I haven’t seen him surrounded by party or business cronies that would raise question about his positions. Obama by comparison has no experience–either in legislation or otherwise. Last week Obama said he agreed with Paulson and Bush, opting to stand aside. What a cop out! We don’t need Bush 3, even if by a Democrat. Now he’s out parroting McCain and Clinton. Why not put either of them in instead of a wannbe that has nothing directly to offer?

Anyway, I’m sure others here at NoQuarterUSA will disagree with some of my points–we are not monolithic. No respectable conversation is shut down, even if off-thread. And as SusanUnPC wrote earlier today, email a topic suggestion or post if you’d like to engage in a specific discussion–include good, solid references to substantiate your points.

Matthew

That you and other African-Americans voted as a block for skin and not for policy reveals that you are not optimistic. You are dwelling in the past, and you are blaming your allies for those historical mistakes. In other words, you have alienated those of us who are committed to racial justice. You shot yourself in the foot, and now you must deal with it. But I do not care, for you vote for pigment and not for policy. In fact, you are only involved in this election as a result of Obama’s perceived blackness.

Your racially motivated vote disgusts me, you pig. You debase the political process, and you are the reason the world views America as a third world country. How else does one explain an entire constituency voting unanimously for one candidate? It is not a product of thought. Indeed, it is motivated by fear and hatred. And you are a mere symptom of that hatred.