By Fred Graver
Rock Center
Chris Lehane sits in a well-appointed home in the upscale Presidio neighborhood of San Francisco and ponders the fate of political candidates. As a veteran “Opposition Researcher” (or “Oppo” man) who still carries a few scars from the rough scrum of the Clinton Administration, Lehane knows what’s ahead for anyone who yearns for higher office.
“Every single aspect of your life is going to be turned over and scrutinized,” he smiles. “You, your spouse, your kids, everything that you’ve ever done is going to be looked at.”
Lehane is just one of the many people who are fully-employed this election season, digging up the dirt that will be turned into the mud that gets slung all along the campaign trail. Lehane’s advisory firm is one of many who advise candidates about what dirt they can sling and what might be slung at them. There are even Super-Pacs, such as the Democratic group “American Bridge 21st Century,” who are funded solely for the purpose of doing oppo.
As befits the age of internet transparency, Oppo people no longer hide under the dark rocks of the political landscape. From Rodell Mollineau at “American Bridge” to Jonathan Collegio at the conservative “American Crossroads” (co-founded by White House veteran Karl Rove), they are more than open about what they do.
We are, they say, living in the “golden age” of opposition research, where the Internet has not only made it easier than ever to find negative details about a candidates life, innovations like YouTube and Twitter allow them to take their message right to the people. As Ben Smith of Buzzfeed.com puts it, “The Super Pacs have become their own media outlets.”
Oppo research is most often associated with negative campaign advertisements and was a major part of the effort to inflict major damage against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. The “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” organization's ads have been called a deciding factor in the Bush-Kerry race. Research surfaced a group of men who had voiced doubts about John Kerry’s war record. Negative ads, which ran in the final months of the campaign, spread the “Oppo” into the political bloodstream.
While opposition research relies on diligent investigation of sometimes arcane facts (for example, that John Edwards spent $400 on a Beverly Hills salon haircut), it’s the weaving together of many of those facts to create a negative storyline that makes this approach such a powerful weapon. “A voter is not going to go through all of these data points and decide whether or not they’re going to vote for someone,” says Jonathan Collegio. “They need to have a package for them.”
Rodell Molineau defended that packaging and says that the public can’t be “spoon fed” lies.
“The way we look at our role, is to find the truth,” he said. “It needs to be grounded in some sort of fact, because the American people are not stupid.”
As for the coming general election – both sides say they’ve got a few aces up their sleeve, whether it’s Mollineau’s claim that Romney’s habit of saying the wrong thing at the right time is “the gift that keeps on giving” (should he be the Rebublican nominee), or Collegio’s admission that “our strategy for President Obama is something that would be very close to our chest.” Either way – it’s going to be a long hard slog through the mud to this November.
Editor's note: Rock Center's inside look at opposition research airs Wednesday, Mar. 28, at 10pm/9c on NBC.
Leave a Comment:
"...it’s going to be a long hard slog through the mud to this November."
Which is why we can't find decent, reasonable candidates. Who needs to have every aspect of your life disected, distorted, tweeted, blogged, and generally declared open season on. Only an egotistical maniac would subject themselves willingly to that.
The worse part is that the public re-enforces this behavior by allowing themselves to be swayed by these "campaign messages". Why would a candidate not want to sling some mud if going to translate into a bump in the polls.
Quartermass, you mentioned "distorted" in your list of concerns - Let's just analyize the quote above. He in essence appears to be saying that "Truth" needs to be grounded in some sort of fact. Uhhh, truth shouldn't be "grounded in some sort of fact," IT SHOULD BE FACT. When you take a fact and DISTORT it, you aren't dealing with truth any longer, you are dealing with invective and that's why "oppo researchers" are scum. The fact that they aren't still hiding under rocks tells you how rotten our pollitical world has become.
I'd also note that if you can take the a fact and successfully distort/twist it into a negative narative believed by the American people... Well they might not be "stupid," but that certainly smacks of ignorant and ill-informed if nothing else.
GREAT! Then we will know all there is positive and negative about the Republican candidate and concentrate on the great pretender.
Everyone should know what this fool we have as a president has done in the last few weeks. He took credit for the Arizona Solar energy plant, the Nevada Solar energy plant, he congratulated that Flake Fluke for lying to congress, Planned Parenthood has an office 15 minutes from Georgetown Law School and the 3 years contraceptive costs "$96.00" not $3000 and would have helped her lesbian friend and her friend with a cyst if these people actually existed. As she proclaims herself a "Contraception Activist" she knew all this and deliberately lied. Then the Comic In Chief congratulates her for lying.
In the Martin case, the Comic in Chief tells the world that he wanted a son just like the son who was suspended three times and was carrying around a baggie that held marijuana.
GET rid of this fake, fool, fraud and dope.
Congratulations dic (can I call you dic?). In your role as oppo researcher, you've demonstrated that they are liars willing to make $hit up and pretty much say anything to smear their opponent. In your role as a citizen, you've demonstrated that they can be stupid, ignorant, and ill-informed. Regardless of which hat you are wearing, you have validated the point of many of the posters ahead of you. Let me guess...you're being sarcastic. Or is this an "art" project?
"...it’s going to be a long hard slog through the mud to this November."
Only if we watch this shiite and believe it in.
When people turn away from this, people will stop doing it.
Alas, people seem more interested in the latest "gaffe" by a candidate, than any real issues.
Sigh.
But you're forgetting something Robert. John Q public is borderline retarded. Or, at least enough of them are such that this type of advertising is very effective at turning an election. Watch the attack adds this year. I can guarantee that they will be vicious and many of them will be outright lies that will then be repeated by supporters of that candidate without actually checking their validity. This is because many people are either too stupid or lazy to actually check facts or analyze them before taking a pre-packaged 5-10 second slogan. These adds can even be accompanied by a hand motion to demonstrate it because this is what's actually important to the voting populace, not the issues in an election or the future of the country.
I think I'm seriously coming to the conclusion that voting should be restricted to those that can actually articulate their candidates position. This would preferably be accompanied by a paragraph or two regarding the future result of a particular position and at least one paragraph regarding why the other candidates position is inferior to their chosen candidate.
Quatermass, that egotistical maniac is already in the race. Goes by the name of Santorum.
This is one the reasons that I think that the Republican party would be doing itself a favor by pulling a dark horse candidate out of their hat at the convention instead of running any of the clowns that are currently running.
It would send these people into fits trying to dissect their lives in a hurry before November.
Obama already knows everything that he needs to know about any of the current four that are running. Everything but whether they wear boxers or briefs has already been exposed to the light of day.
You being disingenuous when you say that opposition research "found" a group of people questioning Senator Kerry's war record. The official Navy record states that Kerry earned a silver star, a bronze star in addition to purple hearts. Kerry had his full record, other than medical, on his web site and each and every fitness report was very positive. There were people who disliked Kerry because of his protests when he returned, but even Nixon, on the infamous Nixon tapes, was told be his people that Kerry was a genuine hero and "clean".
The fact is that the SBVT were funded by Bush funders, like Pickens and Perry and the group shared a lawyer with Bush/Cheney (Ginsberg). This was not "research", it was creative writing! This dishonorable bunch of liars simply made things up about Kerry's service rather than just attacking his protesting, which was completely honorable.
It's true, Kerry goes to 'nam, machineguns loads of Vietnamese for often dubious reasons, is decorated for his service, and then gets slimed for not doing any of the above. Even more disturbing is that people uncritically buy it.
Truth or Lies. The wall separating the two is kind of thin many times. People have been accused of crimes that they did not committ but there are 'eye wittnes accounts' that will convict them. The factors may be misconceptions, optical illusion, hatred towards the person(s) or just the person(accused) being different from you (accuser). In criminal justice system that has happened hundreds of times. In politics, however, we are looking at the thinking process or rationalization of the candidate ( Dem or Reps). Is the person for the good of the masses or is he (she) pandering to specific groups of race, power freaks, religious following, gender bashing, education levels and controller of economic resources. That is what separates a MAN from the boys. The MAN looks for the good of all he (she) is going to lead with honesty and dignity. The boys are just being nasty bullies for a few brief moments of showmanship and eventually fall by the wayside. Let us see who is going to be the MAN in 2012 election.
Slander and vicious distortion belong to traditional American politicking
A. Lincoln --> Ape (long Darwinian legs), atheist (deist)
T. Jefferson --> Atheist (deist), father to slaves (mistress a slave)
When DNA testing became available, it established TJ's (often alleged) paternity. There was no way to fact check TJ's contributions to the slave population.
Neither man was an atheist -- just not xian. Darwin's Origin of Species appeared in 1859 -- Lincoln in 1860 was perfect for unflattering political cartoons.
One Simple Question: How much are these "'Oppo' men" paid?
Really, I'd like to know.