I found this brilliant piece in the comments on an article at The Atlantic. Written by someone called “Adam Kiernik”.
FROM: MR. BIG
TO: ALL MAJOR NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS
You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing Ron Paul’s message to reach so many voters already. Don’t you realize that if his message keeps spreading we could lose our ability to control elections and the government forever?
You created the surges for the wrong establishment candidates (Perry & Cain), and those too soon (Bachmann, Gingrich), or too late (Santorum). Now you could be left with just flip flopping Romney and Santorum. Possibly we could create a surge for Huntsman but it’s getting a little late for this.
You failed to consistently keep to the strategy of ignoring Ron Paul starting with too much face time during the last two debates. And then you didn’t bash him hard and consistently enough when he broke out of our containment policy, although you did a fairly good job of ignoring him last night (such as Erin Burnett & Anderson Cooper) and loved the hits from Sean Hannity who can always be counted on at the right moment.
You better get with the program now before the people get wise and Ron Paul explodes on a national basis. Thus if Ron Paul does not win Iowa, focus in big time on the ones who finish before him and tell the people that this can be the stepping stone to their nomination. You can also focus in on those who finish behind Ron Paul as possibly surging. Most importantly, declare Ron Paul as being completely finished constantly.
Win or lose give Ron Paul minimum face time and coverage. In the worst case, if he wins, tell the people that it’s his fifteen minutes of fame, that the victory is meaningless, that Iowans don’t represent the country, etc.
Take a lesson from Bill O’Reilly who disqualified Ron Paul’s victory in a poll taken on his show. Say that it was a conspiracy because supporters of Ron Paul agreed to vote for their candidate at the same time in the same state before the event. I don’t care what you do or say but this time you have to be effective in minimizing the importance of the victory, as the situation is getting dangerous. He was scoring low in Iowa but somehow he grew from there rapidly, and this disease can rapidly spread in other states as well.
If, sadly, he wins, during his victory speech you can go to a commercial break, create technical problems, or find a breaking story to take the cameras off Ron Paul. I don’t care how bad it looks. I don’t want the American people to see Ron Paul give a full victory speech, or anything close to this. We don’t want the people who have not heard him speak, read his books, or seen his videos to hear his message. The less the people know about him the better for us.
Whatever you come up with let’s not all use the same excuse so it’s not too obvious. Coordinate and work together on this, as you have done so well on occasions when ignoring or bashing him in the past.
Also I want to see a return to more repetitive slogans when mentioning Ron Paul – perhaps adding “radical” to “fringe,” and “unelectable.” If we can do such a good job of selling wars with our slogans, we should be able to destroy a candidate with ease.
Thus I want to see a bang up job this time on behalf of preserving the welfare/warfare state, which has given us a comfortable life. What I don’t want to see is any soft spots for journalistic integrity or patriotism. Those days are gone. Remember, we are a business with important relationships to preserve and we must win, because it’s either us or them.