Not to mention so much more successful. If his goal were not ultimately success, he might as well join the Libertarian party.

If somebody asks if you're a racist, do you launch into an explanation, or do you say no in a sharp, focused way?

Do you win a Presidential debate by being right on all counts, or by convincing the majority of people that you are the better choice?

Effective communication is a critical Presidential skill. As the last six years have shown us, in comparison to Clinton and especially in comparison to Reagan. And when you communicate as President, or a Presidential candidate, you communicate not just to your side (which is easy, you speak their language and code), but to all.

No question that PR is something that the Republicans are far better at. Happily, as of 2006 it appears that there is a level of incompetence that PR can't cover. I wish that lever were much lower, but failing that I do hope that the Democrats dump the failed election consultants that have guided so many failed candidates.

Not all sound bytes are self explanatory. Also critical is to explain a soundbyte fast - before reality and facts arrive. Speed is one function of daily faxes (talking points) by the White House to so many Rush Limbaughs. All party loyalists are told today’s message – to explain and then repeat the sound byte. Only then does a soundbyte have meaning to brown shirts.

This was important to Goebbel’s propaganda machine. Describe in simplistic terms (spin) what a sound byte means. Then repeat that sound byte often. Having swallowed the first thing told (why myths must propagate quickly), then a loyal ideologue parrots that sound byte to all others. A message propagated without doing what is, for example, required by science and logical reasoning. A message *proven* by herd mentality. But a system must exist to *spin* that soundbyte.

There are no left wing or centrist equivalents to the Rush Limbaughs. Normally, that was not necessary when the majority understood that a statement without underlying 'whys' was not a fact. Today and to too many, statements automatically become fact when proven only by a political agenda; acknowledged long before logical reasoning can question it. As Hitler said, disparage the intelligencia and bourgeois. Why did so many believe Saddam had WMDs? Only because he must have WMDs. Circular logic - only possible when facts are accepted without first asking for 'whys' ... and the numbers.

No numbers; no underlying whys; get the message out too fast for logical consideration: classic propaganda from the Rush Limbaughs. Necessary to make sound byte reasoning work.