Anita Dunn once proved to be one of Obama’s greatest assets; now, she is one of his greatest missteps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today…well, perhaps, aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has most recently been Obama/the White House’s communications chief.

Recently she quietly stepped down from her post and is attempting to tip-toe out of the administration.  No doubt, her past revelations will haunt her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Chief; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her.

In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns:

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you:

“A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people — calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money — skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or are able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders.

Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant”. She still has the ear of our president and leaders, but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity. During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting excess out of the payroll instead of simply changing titles.

As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas, but that is simply a mirage. She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much-needed guidance.  Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation:

“I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid. She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on.

Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents. Suddenly, we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it—based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle.

While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda. How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate? Let’s ask Anita:

“There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?… “What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are propably thinking, “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans? Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email.

I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”

Sources:
http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/anita_dunn/
http://www.mahalo.com/anita-dunn
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567701,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568706,00.html
http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6078486
http://brainphartspoliticalrefuse.popsugar.com/6049851