A Look Inside Congresswoman Lowey’s PR Machine – OR – How Messages Are Created

Have you ever wondered why we receive the messages we do from our politicians and what, if anything, determines the contents and timing of communications like Saturday’s email from Congresswoman Lowey?

If you live in NY’s 18^th Congressional District you may have received an email from Congresswoman Nita Lowey Saturday reminding us of the Congresswoman’s support for the Respect for Marriage Act, how much she enjoyed meeting with and looks forward to meeting more LGBT people and how discrimination and bullying have no place in our 18^th District.  

Notice she specifically highlights her support for anti-bullying efforts.  I’ve included a copy of the note from Congresswoman Lowey below.

So why did Congresswoman Lowey send this particular note on this particular Saturday and why choose to highlight support for bills that have been languishing in Congress for some time and for which her support has been previously announced and is well known. 

And most of all, why would a politician feel it necessary to draw specific attention to the fact they support anti-bullying initiatives?  Would you not assume Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey, NY 18^th District opposes bullying – doesn’t this seem like a no-brainer?

If you, like me, assumed Congresswoman Lowey opposed bullying, you would be wrong. Until this past week I did assume Congresswoman Lowey opposed bullying, bullies and all those who support them. But this simply is not true.

So why make a point of saying something specifically about bullying and why now?

I’m about to give you a rare look inside the PR machine that decided Congresswoman Lowey needed to make a specific statement about bullying on this specific day.

I’m 15+ year professional communicator and spent 10 years before that in tactical uniformed service, so I understand how the public relations machine works and I understand combat.

And make no mistake, much of the communications we receive from our elected representatives are part of larger political battles we never see and are never told we’re being drawn in to.

A tremendous amount of thought, effort, money and resources are invested in crafting these communications to constituents. They are designed to leave we the people, we the targets, with a very specific take-away message. 

Such is the case with Saturday’s email from Congresswoman Lowey.  The communication is designed to remind her targets that she is a decent American, just like us, who would never support a bully’s right to bully other children.

Okay, before I go any further, let me state without any ambiguity I certainly cannot and do not speak for Congresswoman Lowey. I was warned in no uncertain terms by Congresswoman Lowey’s Director of Constituent Services there would be consequences if I attempted to tamper with the carefully crafted messaging from the Congresswoman.

Also take note I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I believe in a meritocracy and in the integrity and positions of an INDIVIDUAL, not the political party they represent.  To be honest, the blind devotion to a particular political party always struck me as more a communist thing than an American one.  But I digress.

Please understand my interpretation, examination and dissection of Congresswoman Lowey’s message below is based solely on my more than 25 years combined communications and tactical operations experience along with specific conversations I had with members of Congresswoman Lowey’s staff over the last few days.  

Before you scroll down to read the note again or for the first time, take a few minutes as I walk you through what all my experience, training and personal involvement with Congresswoman Lowey and her stance on the anti-bullying movement tells me went on behind the scenes and just how this note found its way to your Inbox on a Saturday evening.

Before we begin the dissection it’s important to take a look at the whole picture.  Any coroner, fatality investigator, market researcher or combat vet will tell you to examine the whole as presented before digging around and tearing things apart to look at how it is assembled.

.

First off, at the most basic level the purpose of any communication is to deliver a message from one person or group to another person or group.  Presumably that specific message is ultimately in support of a larger business, organizational or personal goal.  Buy my product; support me in the next election, etc.

In this example Congresswoman Lowey wants her constituents to know she supports a same-sex marriage bill currently making its way through our legislative process and is concerned and engaged with LGBT people in her District and does not tolerate or support discrimination or bullying.

Notice Congresswoman Lowey specifically calls out her support for anti-bullying initiatives.  This is a crucial point in the communication as it ultimately turns out to be in direct contradiction to the position stated to me by her staff earlier this week and described in detail in this article.

That’s certainly a strong statement to make so, how do I know the Congresswoman doesn’t support ant--bullying? 

On 17 February, 2012 a staff member attempted to explain the Congresswoman’s position on bullying and those who support the bullies. 

I recently brought an individual named Israel Kalman, to Congresswoman Lowey’s attention, as not merely a supporter of bullies but someone who travels our Country giving lectures and teaching community officials and mental healthcare professionals not to take a stand against bullying or bullies.  

This staff member, who later in the conversation backpedaled saying she could not speak for the Congresswoman after speaking for nearly half an hour for the Congresswoman, told me that while she personally did not think she would approve of Israel Kalman but he had the RIGHT to support bullies and bullying and that Congresswoman Lowey supported his RIGHT to support bullies and bullying.  She called it free speech.

The staffer proceeded to explain by supporting Mr. Kalman’s right to lobby our schools, police, medical and other community leaders to support bullies and the bullying of our children did not mean that Congresswoman Lowey in any way supported bullying or bullies.

What?

It is fortunate the staffer stated this directly because I feel that if you support something you support it, if you oppose it then you oppose it.  Perhaps my view of the World is more limited, simplistic and naïve than the Congresswoman’s because I cannot follow the logic of her reasoning here.

If you support Mr. Kalman’s right to educate people in our communities to support the bullies of our children, then you are supporting those same bullies.

So how do I know any of this?  And how did I come to be involved in this discussion with my local Congresswoman? Fair questions both.

I recently engaged both my own time and my company’s resources in support of the anti-bullying movement. I learned according to our very own Centers for Disease Control (CDC), some 4,400 kids are dead after tragically taking their own lives directly because of being bullied. I wanted to help do something, I wanted to save children’s lives and stop the terror and torture of bullying. 

Did you know that fewer Americans were murdered in all the 9/11 terrorist attacks, than children die from being terrorized and tortured by bullies.  I do now and I will help make my community a better and safer place for all children.

Imagine my surprise as I looked for support from local politicians, including Senator Gillibrand, Congresswoman Lowey and Assemblyman Castelli, to simply take a public stand against bullying and those who support bullying.  So far Senator Gillibrand has managed to remain silernt and detached while Assemblyman Castelli’s staff is looking into Mr. Kalman and his lecture series.

Shockingly though, Congresswoman Lowey’s aid told me that Mr. Kalman’s right to support bullies is more important to the Congresswoman than our children’s right to be  safe in our own neighborhoods.  Again, it’s a freedom of speech thing, she embarrassingly explained and the Congresswoman’s hands were pretty much tied by the First Amendment. 

I had no idea Congresswoman had such a fundamentalist view of our Constitution and was such a staunch defender of freedom of speech.

So I did some checking and found the Congresswoman condemned talk show host Jimmy Fallon’s choice of introduction music for Michele Bachmann’s appearance last year on 21 November, 2011.

The Congresswoman said, “The choice of song to introduce Michele Bachmann on ‘Late Night With Jimmy Fallon’ last night was insulting and inappropriate,” and went on to add, “I do not share Michele Bachmann’s politics, but she deserves to be treated with respect. No female politician — and no woman — should be subjected to sexist and offensive innuendo like she was last night.”  Damn well, said Congresswoman and well done and I agree. The Congresswoman further called on Fallon’s to publically apologize for the hurt and harm they caused Representative Bachman and all women.

The question burns as to why Congresswoman Lowey suddenly decides that Kalman’s preaching and education to support those who bully our children to death falls should be protected under freedom of speech and yet Fallon’s band is not entitled to the same protection in the Congresswoman’s opinion.

You be the judge; if protecting our children from bullies who directly cause them to take their own lives is at least as important as playing a few seconds of an offensive song to grown and powerful political adult.

To me it is the same as arguing that Osama bin Laden’s right to preach hatred against Americans and Israel and train others to this philosophy who ultimately kill innocent people, which is exactly what Mr. Kalman does,   is more important than our right to live in safety and without fear of terrorist attacks. Whether they come from Al Qaeda or the local bully; terror is terror, hurt is hurt and 4,400 dead kids and 2,752 dead Americans on 9/11 are still dead.

I’ll be the first to admit I can be aggressive when pursuing a goal on behalf of a client and I cannot think of more deserving clients then our kids or a better cause than preventing children from killing themselves – but I never expected to be threatened by my own Congresswoman’s staff simply for asking her to say bullying is wrong and supporting bullying is wrong. 

All I ask of the Congresswoman is to put a link on her Website or Re-Tweet or share on Facebook that she stands against bullies and Israel Kalman who comes into our communities preaching his support for bullies. In the same way she proactively spoke out against the bullying of Bachman by Fallon’s band.  It’s a form or terrorism against our kids that kills them.  Israel Kalman’s teachings are no different than any other terrorists’ they kill even if not by their own hands. 

Osama bin Laden didn’t kill any Americans on 9/11; but for years dedicated his life traveling World and teaching terror, supporting the terrorists and training people to be terrorists and terrorist supporters, just as Israel Kalman does in our communities.

And on 11 May, 2011 the heroes of SEAL Team VI shot bin Laden dead on the direct orders of President Obama. Hooyah! God bless our Navy SEALS.

I asked Congresswoman Lowey’s staffer how a person can support another person’s right to be a terrorist supporter and yet claim they are not supporting the terrorist themselves.  

For example let’s say Congresswoman Lowey argued Americans have the right to donate money and weapons to Al Qaeda or the Taliban because it’s a form of freedom of expression. And at the same time claim she cares about protecting America from terrorism and does not support terrorists or terrorism. 

That seems to be the Congresswoman’s argument. Frankly I find it more than a little hard to swallow.

Well fortunately Congresswoman Lowey’s aid informed me she is an expert on First Amendment issues and provided an example that would clear the whole misunderstanding up and clarify how supporting a terrorist supporter is not the same as supporting the terrorist themselves. 

I can hardly wait, I thought.

The example the staffer, an expert, in First Amendment issues choose to provide went something like this. 

Many years ago the Ku Klux Klan decided to march in and carry out KKK operations (whatever these may entail) in a predominately Jewish American community.  The ACLU defended the Klan’s right to carry out operations and their right spread hate and this is really what the Congresswoman was doing here with regard to bullies and those who support them.

Huh?

So in this example is Congresswoman Lowey a member of the KKK or one of those who defended the Klan’s right to promote genocide against Jewish, African and myriad other Americans. Either way it seems like the Congresswoman is on the wrong side of what’s right and decent.

In light of the KKK loving, Jewish genocide supporting example chosen by Congresswoman Lowey’s aid; I pointed out to the expert the KKK was declared a terrorist organization by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 also known as the KKK Act which made the organization illegal precisely because they promoted hatred against people which all too often resulted in real terror and death.

When I told the staffer she had really proven my point, that supporting those who support terror, torture, bullying or genocide IS the same as supporting terror, torture, bullying and genocide and, I thought most other Americans would probably see it the same way I do, she became flustered and threatening.

I further told her I planned on continuing to proactively look for support against the bullying of our children through articles like this one and see if national news organizations would also see it the way I do, I was told to wait for Congresswoman Lowey’s PR Machine to craft a specific response and clarify her position on her support of terrorism against our kids. 

Okay, now read the communication below from Congresswoman Lowey’s office. And decide for yourself how and why this specific message was targeted to you at this specific time.  Telling you she does not support bullies.

Dear Friend,         

 

   I recently met with representatives from the LGBT community in the Lower Hudson Valley to discuss the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and anti-bullying campaigns for gay and lesbian youth. 

 

         Discrimination and hate have no place in our community. Unfortunately, LGBT students and their families have limited resources to fight discrimination and hate in schools. I am proud to have cosponsored H.R. 998, the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide recourse for students who are victims of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. 

 

         In addition, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1116, the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA and provide equal rights for gay and lesbian couples under federal law. I strongly believe that individuals should be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of gender, and should receive all rights available to other couples.

 

         I look forward to continuing the conversation with members of the LGBT community to ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to fully participate in every aspect of our society.

         As always, please do not hesitate to contact my office at www.lowey.house.gov if I can ever be of assistance.  If you do not already receive my regular electronic newsletter, News from Nita, I hope you will click YES and SUBMIT in the box to the left to subscribe.


Sincerely,









Nita Lowey
Member of Congress