Washington Times Surprisingly favorable article on Sinema

[PandoraAwakened]

3. Boilerplate Rethuglican Fundraising

From the desk of: The American M.O.B. (Majority Opinion Blowback)

"My American M.O.B. over the GOP-Russian Mob any day, any time...Let's roll!"


In answer to your question regarding why the Washington Times would print a supposedly "favorable" article about a Democratic candidate (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/22/kyrsten-sinema-pulls-even-martha-mcsally-arizona-s/):

This is actually a commonly used tactic to induce specific Washington D.C. PACs to send cash to a Rethuglican campaign viewed by local operatives on the ground as "in trouble."

Make no mistake about it, there are very specific D.C. PACs that are being targeted to read and react to the WT article. Those particular PACs will have tangential ties to the specific Rethuglican political operative quoted in the article, which almost always is the only person interviewed for "background" on the Democratic candidate.

Aides for the Rethuglican PACs are tasked to scan the right-wing rags for just such articles and if the name of the political operative quoted in the article is on that PAC's "heads-up" list, it will be walked right up to the top, followed by a money trail shortly thereafter.

Timing is also critical. The WT article follows on the heels of the conservative Arizona Republic newspaper (the state's largest) coming out in support of the Democratic candidate, which they rarely do.


So, let's analyze this particular article for the "tells" that give it away as a fundraising dog whistle:

1.) Headline about Democratic candidate is designed to capture Rethuglicans' attention and scare the bejeezus out of them.

2.) Sure enough, the only person quoted as to the "merits" of the Democratic candidate comes from Stan Barnes, one of Arizona's top Rethuglican political operatives. The framing of his quote is entirely boilerplate and follows "the rule of threes," a writing principle that suggests a trio of statements is most effective in engaging readers. Here's an analysis of Barnes' three-sentence quote:

a.) Set the Democratic candidate up as the smartest cookie in the room: “She is perhaps the single best politician in Arizona today.” This is code for: "HELP!" She's kicking our ass!"

b.) Follow with a set of 3 adjectival compliments (2 real and the 3rd underhanded, which is designed to lead into the final sentence of the quote): "engaging, funny, and mirrors people."

c.) End with a slapdown to convince Rethuglican donors that the Democratic candidate is so clever that she's able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes: "She makes people think she agrees with them, even if she doesn’t.” This is code for: "Holy shit! Even Rethuglicans are voting for her!"

3.) The remainder of the very short article will feature the main talking points being used in the Rethuglican candidate's on-air ads, which is what the political operative is asking certain D.C. Rethuglican PACs to help fund more of.


So, there you go, that's the answer to your question. I keep an eye on Washington Times articles during an election just to identify the boilerplate fundraising articles that tip the hat on which Rethuglicans are in trouble.