In a public service to the community and the world at large, LWR publishes in a world exclusive, the official, renown 'Republican Playbook'.

First, a bit of history. The latest edition of the famous 'Playbook' dates from 1983, a year before that high watermark of Republican power that was the reelection of Ronald Reagan. Before that time, the Republican Party had enacted a ten year policy of tribal, largely oral record of meetings and executive meetings, on the heels of the fateful Watergate crisis that cut short the presidency of Republican Richard M. Nixon. Given the nature of what became known as the Watergate scandal, Republican operatives chose to conduct party business in neither written nor oral form, choosing instead to communicate via sign language, a procedure that necessitated a quick training of all party hierarchy that paralyzed the political movement at the crucial time of Gerald Ford's reelection campaign, with unforeseen, undesired results.

Finally, a year before Ronald Reagan's second victory, the party had gained enough confidence in their resurgence that they proposed to change the party protocol, and it is at that time that the playbook, the most venerable document of the Republican party was finally committed to paper. This extremely secretive document has been accidentally declassified in the paper of former Republican double-agent and former Senator Zed Miller, and now, through LWR, becomes available to the public at large, for the first time in history. What follows is an excerpt from said document, remarkable in that its historic subject matter has gained clear relevance, given the political developments in the past couple of weeks.

Republican Party Playbook Excerpt One - Page 132

HOW TO REDEFINE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT. By Mark Shambles.

The success of an election campaign depends heavily on the redefinition of your political opponent, from what he or she (there has been talk of female political candidates nowadays) is to what he or she is in our view.

This process should not be difficult to undertake, and it is not at all impossible to change the general impression of a candidate, from what he is to what we think he or she is. To demonstrate how plausible this is, it should suffice with one's own example. Either in how we see our opponent, or how our opponent sees us, this remarkable metamorphosis of demonization has already happened at least once, either in your opponent's view or yours. It is only, then, a matter of time and effort to turn a few more views around, until you turn around enough voters to coast toward election victory.

First of all, it is important for Republican operatives to circumscribe themselves to what is possible in the political arena. It is impossible, for example, for a Republican operative to change the real name of the candidate toward a name the regular voters would consider as a term of derision. Therefore, no energy should be put into trying to change a Democrat's name into a hateful name like Ghandi, Adolf, Mao or Fidel. To be caught in such an underhanded operation could seriously hurt the candidate's campaign and have a negative influence in his day-to-day talking points.

Quite another thing would be if the Republican candidate is blessed by an ending vowel in a candidate. First of all, though, a quick English gramma primer to understand this point. The English language, as a thoroughly unfit tongue to be used with the universal Latin Alphabet- the letters in the words that you are reading at this moment -has always had a grudge toward the complications that ensue from the discrepancies between pronunciation and the written word. Unlike Latin languages, where, except for French, the correlation between the spoken and written word is quite uniform, the English language has been inadequately served from the Latin alphabet. The Anglo-Saxon temptation, whose ancestral urges you can sense within your very soul, to ditch this for a thoroughly original alphabet was avoided at the last historic minute, not to be judged as the total contrarians of Europe, as the English are in every other regard, from distance and liquid measures to currency and eating habits. Therefore, English speakers retain an understandable love-hate relation with names with a Latin base of some kind, as if the easy pronunciation and writing of as some kind of an evil, underhanded advantage.

The result of such psychological complex used to burst forth in what was historically known as Lutheranism. In our more civilized society, however, this takes the form of mockery. Therefore, if your candidate happens to have a last name with a vowel letter in the end, and if this is not a silent vowel, most probably he or she is the recipient of a Latin based name, which in political circles is also known as 'The Godsend'.

All the candidate has to do, then, is to pronounce the opponent's name by exaggerating the vowel pronunciation. As in C-UH-OH-MM-OH, for instance, or in A-RIH-AH-NN-AH. The candidate is, in effect, redefining the political opponent in the most underhanded of ways, because the candidate cannot do much about this particular problem, except for becoming a candidate in a Latin-speaking country.
Furthermore, the opponent cannot react in kind without welcoming ridicule from the media and the neutral onlookers.

In this regard, it is always good advice to go back to the rule of gold of Republican politics - Dumb is not as one does, but as the other reacts. Republican tactics are always purposefully handed over to our candidates with a heavy coating of critic-proof idiocy. This is the number one concern of every Republican candidate. To be caught with a woman or with a book is the equivalent of giving away crucial political headway to our national opponents.

Exercise: Try to identify the people in your staff with a Latin-based name. Try to pronounce their names with exaggerated emphasis in the vowels of their name. Watch the reaction of co-workers and friends as they get into the act. Once this is achieved, await the opportunity of an exchange with said person of any kind, substance is never importance here, and quickly suggest that their response is typical of an Anti-American. Watch for the approving reaction of your entourage and proceed to fire the individual, to further establish a code of loyalty within your are of influence.


EDITOR'S NOTE: In future publications we will continue with the revelations of this fascinating historical document. The next chapter is entitled 'HOW TO DEFINE YOUR WORDS AS ACTION AND THE WORDS OF YOUR OPPONENT AS LACK OF ACTION OR WORSE'