Guys - PLEASE heed - Red Meat Red Alert: Required Reading here:

[calimary]

Fellow DUer CWebster posted this in another thread, and it's f-in' BRILLIANT! Should be one of the first chapters in our bible.

"What's In A Name? Everything.
How Progressives Can Start Winning Again By Renaming Their Opponents and Reframing The Debate

Progressives are losing the war for America. At every level nationally - and, via disastrous foreign policies, across much of the world as well - we are in retreat. The country lurches further to the right every day, and every election cycle, because we on the left sorely lack ideas, the outlets to express them, quality candidates, compelling leaders, conviction, message and strategy.

But more than anything, progressives are getting creamed where it counts the most, and where small successes at little cost produce the largest dividends. We are losing the battle of framing. When it comes to the portrayal of issues, the contestants fighting those issues, the moral choices at stake, and the consequences of those choices, we are being severely outgunned on every front.

There are so many ways in which this is true that the magnitude of our drubbing is quite staggering. On at least four levels of political discourse we are losing badly before the fight even begins, because of our inattention to the overriding importance of framing."




http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0208-21.htm

Again, this isn't my find, it's CWebster's. MANY MANY kudos and thanks for that, CW! I didn't want everyone else to miss this. This, George Lakoff, Howard Dean and Barbara Boxer will take us OFF life-support for good (in more ways that one).

[calimary]

1. Here's the thread in which I found it. Thanks again, CWebster!

You did good, CWebster. You did GOBS of GOOD. As did Professor David Green who wrote the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1578769

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. "don't think of an elephant" Lakoff ..know your values frame the debate

i just started reading the book yestterday and it is BRILLANT!

www.rockridgeinstitute.org

How to Respond to Conservatives


http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/howtorespond


An excerpt from the book Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.


This book is written for Progressives are constantly put in positions where they are expected to respond to conservative arguments. It may be over Thanksgiving dinner, around the water cooler, or in front of an audience. But because conservatives have commandeered so much of the language, progressives are often put on the defensive with little or nothing to say in response.

The earlier chapters are meant to explain who conservatives are, what they stand for, what kind of morality they see themselves as having, and how their family values shape their politics. They are also meant to make explicit what is usually felt but not articulated — progressive family values and how they carry over into progressive politics. And finally there is an introduction to framing — what mistakes to avoid and how to reframe, with some chapters providing examples of how framing works.

But sooner or later, you are in Penney’s position. What do you do? Penney’s instincts are impeccable, and provide us with guidelines.
Progressive values are the best of traditional American values. Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true patriot because of your values.

Remember that right-wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern our national morality and politics.

This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history—from the emancipation of the slaves to women’s suffrage, Social Security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights acts, and Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Each time we have unified our country more behind our finest traditional values.

Remember that everybody has both strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively, perhaps active in different parts of their lives. Your job is to activate for politics the nurturant, progressive values already there (perhaps only passively) in your interlocutors.

Show respect to the conservatives you are responding to. No one will
listen to you if you don’t accord them respect. Listen to them. You may disagree strongly with everything that is being said, but you should know what is being said. Be sincere. Avoid cheap shots. What if they don’t show you respect? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Turn the other cheek and show respect anyway. That takes character and dignity. Show character and dignity.

Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires a culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war.

Civil discourse is the discourse form of nurturant morality. You win a victory when the discourse turns civil. They win when they get you to shout.

What if you have moral outrage? You should have moral outrage. But you can display it with controlled passion. If you lose control, they win.

Distinguish between ordinary conservatives and nasty ideologues. Most conservatives are personally nice people, and you want to bring out their niceness and their sense of neighborliness and hospitality.

Be calm. Calmness is a sign that you know what you are talking about.

Be good-humored. A good-natured sense of humor shows you are comfortable with yourself.

Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense.

Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing control.

Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitist. Don’t give them any opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways. Expect these stereotypes, and deal with them when they come up.

By the way you conduct yourself, show strength, calmness, and control; an ability to reason; a sense of realism; love of country; a command of the basic facts; and a sense of being an equal, not a superior. At the very least you want your audience to think of you with respect, as someone they may disagree with but who they have to take seriously. In many situations this is the best you can hope for.
You have to recognize those situations and realize that a draw with dignity is a victory in the game of being taken seriously.

Many conversations are ongoing. In an ongoing conversation, your job is to establish a position of respect and dignity, and then keep it.
Don’t expect to convert staunch conservatives.

You can make considerable progress with biconceptuals, those who use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With biconceptuals your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, just which parts of their life they are nurturant about. For example, ask who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they have to those they care about, and how they carry out those responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate to political issues. Example: Real family values mean that your parents, as they age, don’t have to sell their home or mortgage their future to pay for health care or the medications they need.

Avoid the usual mistakes. Remember, don’t just negate the other person’s claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just by stating the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent’s claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe.

If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense.* Why? Because that’s what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame.

Never answer a question framed from your opponent’s point of view.

Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames.

Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values you really hold.

A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: *Wouldn’t it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. Example:* Wouldn’t it be better if we had a president who went to war with a plan to secure the peace?

Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don’t control the floor, can’t present your case, and are not accorded enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don’t play.

Tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the story. Build up a stock of effective stories.

Always start with values, preferably values all Americans share like security, prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and so on. Pick the values most relevant to the frame you want to shift to. Try to win the argument at the values level. Pick a frame where your position exemplifies a value everyone holds — like fairness. Example: Suppose someone argues against a form of universal health care. If people don’t have health care, he argues, it’s their own fault. They’re not working hard enough or not managing their money properly. We shouldn’t have to pay for their lack of initiative or their financial mismanagement. Frame shift: Most of the forty million people who can’t afford health care work full-time at essential jobs that cannot pay enough to get them health care. Yet these working people support the lifestyles of the top three-quarters of our population. Some forty million people have to do those hard jobs — or you don’t have your lifestyle. America promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work. These workers have earned their health care by doing essential jobs to support the economy. There is money in the economy to pay them. Tax credits are the easiest mechanism. Their health care would be covered by having the top 2 percent pay the same taxes they used to pay. It’s only fair that the wealthy pay for their own lifestyles, and that people who provide those lifestyles get paid fairly for it.

Be prepared. You should be able to recognize the basic frames that conservatives use, and you should prepare frames to shift to. The Rockridge Institute Web site will post examples from time to time. Example: Your opponent says, We should get rid of taxes. People know how to spend their money better than the government. Reframe: “The government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our interstate highway system, for example. You couldn’t build a highway with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health — great government investments of taxpayer money.
No matter how wisely you spent your own money, you’d never get those scientific and medical breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with your tax refund?

Use wedge issues, cases where your opponent will violate some belief he holds no matter what he says. Example: Suppose he brings up abortion. Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rapeinduced pregnancies. The wedge: If he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government-supported facilities no less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice — once by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative.

An opponent may be disingenuous if his real goal isn’t what he says his goal is. Politely point out the real goal, then reframe. Example: Suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out that conservatives don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce Departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programs — programs that invest in people, to help people to help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on — the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our nation has stood for.

Your opponent may use language that means the opposite of what he says, called Orwellian language. Realize that he is weak on this issue. Use language that accurately describes what he’s talking about to frame the discussion your way. Example: Suppose he cites the “Healthy Forests Initiative” as a balanced approach to the environment. Point out that it should be called “No Tree Left Behind” because it permits and promotes clear-cutting, which is destructive to forests and other living things in the forest habitat. Use the name to point out that the public likes forests, doesn’t want them clear-cut, and that the use of the phony name shows weakness on the issue. Most people want to preserve the grandeur of America, not destroy it.

Remember once more that our goal is to unite our country behind our values, the best of traditional American values. Right-wing ideologues need to divide our country via a nasty cultural civil war. They need discord and shouting and name-calling and put-downs. We win with civil discourse and respectful cooperative conversation. Why? Because it is an instance of the nurturant model at the level of communication, and our job is to evoke and maintain the nurturant model.

Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four really important ones:

Show respect
Respond by reframing
Think and talk at the level of values
Say what you believe

[calimary]

18. Yes, yes, and AMEN. Also, DUer JohnOneillsMemory had a REALLY

great contribution that I would like to help spread:

This was VERY worthwhile reading - a GREAT Public Service Post and another one - about psy-ops (which this is) that just blew my socks off. World-Class and WELL worth revisiting. And I took the liberty of throwing in a little more mouthing-off of my own if you'll bear with the insufferable me...

From JohnONeillsMemory: Amen. Learn what works. Do it. There are lessons to learn in psy-ops.
Because this is what is used on us to create the brownshirt culture we must turn back into something more humane. This is how they got to so many people in the last 25 years:

http://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html
(Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
Army Manual 33-1 1979)

The target groups for the Armed Propaganda Teams are not the persons with
sophisticated political knowledge, but rather those whose opinion are formed
from what they see and hear. The cadres should use persuasion to carry out
their mission. Some of the persuasive methods that they can use are the
following:

Interior Group/Exterior Group. It is a principle of psychology that we humans
have the tendency to form personal associations from "we" and "the others," or
"we" and "they", "friends" and "enemies," "fellow countrymen" and
"foreigners,""mestizos" and "gringos."

The Armed Propaganda Team can use this principle in its activities, so that
it is obvious that the "exterior" groups ("false" groups) are those of the
Sandinista regime, and that the "interior" groups ("true" groups) that fight
for the people are the Freedom Commandos.

We should inculcate this in the people in a subtle manner so that these
feelings seem to be born of themselves, spontaneously.

"Against" is much easier that "for." It is a principle of political science
that it is easier to persuade the people to vote against something or someone
than to persuade them to vote in favor of something or someone. Although
currently the regime has not given the Nicaraguan people the opportunity to
vote, it is known that the people will vote in opposition, so that the Armed
Propaganda Teams can use this principle in favor of our insurrectional
struggle. They should ensure that this campaign is directed specifically
against the government or its sympathizers, since the people should have
specific targets for their frustrations.

Primary Groups and Secondary Groups. Another principle of sociology is that
we humans forge or change our opinions from two sources: primarily, through our
association with our family, comrades, or intimate friends; and secondarily,
through distant associations such as acquaintances in churches, clubs or
committees, labor unions or governmental organizations. The Armed Propaganda
Team cadres should join the first groups in order to persuade them to follow
the policies of our movement, because it is from this type of group that the
opinions or changes of opinion come.

Techniques of Persuasion in Talks or Speeches:

Be Simple and Concise. You should avoid the use of difficult words or
expressions and prefer popular words and expressions, i.e. the language of the
people. In dealing with a person you should make use of concise language,
avoiding complicated words. It is important to remember that we use oratory
to make our people understand the reason for our struggle, and not to show off
our knowledge.

Use Lively and Realistic Examples. Avoid abstract concepts, such as are used in
universities in the advanced years, and in place of them, give concrete
examples such as children playing, horses galloping, birds in flight, etc.

Use Gestures to Communicate. Communication, in addition to being verbal, can be
through gestures, such as using our hands expressively, back movements, facial
expressions, focusing of our look and other aspects of "body language,"
projecting the individual personality in the message.

Use the Appropriate Tone of Voice. If, on addressing the people, you talk about
happiness, a happy tone should be used. If you talk of something sad, the tone
of the voice should be one of sadness; on talking of a heroic or brave act, the
voice should be animated, etc.

Above All, Be Natural, Imitation of others should be avoided, since the people,
especially simple people, easily distinguish a fake. The individual personality
should be projected when addressing the population.

>snip<

The result desired is a guerrilla who in a persuasive manner can justify all of
his acts whenever he is in contact with any member of the town/people, and
especially with himself and with his guerrilla companions by facing the
vicissitudes of guerrilla warfare.

This means that every guerrilla will come to have effective face-to-face
persuasion as a combatant-propagandist in his contact with the people, to the
point of giving 5-10 logical reasons why, e.g. a peasant should give him a
piece of cloth, or a needle and thread to mend his clothes. When behaves in
this manner, no type of propaganda of the enemy will be able to make a
"terrorist" of him in the eyes of the people.

DU thread:
Dean Admires Gingrich, Not Clinton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1573363


BTW, brothers and sisters, we will now see an AVALANCHE of press about how flakey Dean is, how weirdo Dean is, they'll haul out that scream videotape, they'll laugh at him, they'll try to marginalize him and sneer at him, and laugh at how we just self-immolated as a party. That will be wishful thinking on the enemy's part, and their patsies and other stenographers in the press will be dutifully recording this. But the rumors of our death will prove to be greatly exaggerated.

Just please remember to disregard it all. It's being sent as a message to us to stay down like good little doggies. tim roemer was a trojan horse. I'm glad at least that he's capable of reading the writing on the wall.

NOW, we have to solidify behind Howard Dean, and STAY SOLID.

They will be whispering distraction and temptation in our ears like the snake did to Eve. We HAVE TO resist it all, and FIGHT BACK. Take the ascendance of Howard Dean as a metaphor. He's the fighter. That he remains the last man standing should be taken as a metaphor. A symbol. HE is the guy who prevailed. Not the capitulators and the cavers and the make nice-nice types and the Neville Chamberlains. The straight shooter is the last man standing. Let's take that and run with it.

Here's my suggestion, humbly but earnestly submitted:

Any time, and I do mean ANY time you hear some wrong-winger or wrong-winger in sheep's clothing, like a judy woodruff or paula zahn or wolf blitzer or joe scarborough or tweety or george will or ANY of those pundit types, go into thermonuclear war mode (hey, the republi-CONS would do no less if they felt they were attacked). STORM them with angry emails, faxes, letters, phone calls. SAME THING for anything you read in any newspaper, magazine, weekly, or online whatever. RESPOND. And do so QUICKLY. RAPID RESPONSE is EVERYTHING. They should know that whatever it is that they're trying to do to tear down Howard Dean will NOT be tolerated.

Like, for example, your dog keeps trying to jump on you when you want him to stay on all fours, do you keep letting him do it with no behavior correction, or do you give him a firm, loud "NO!" immediately upon the offense, so the dog will connect the two? When you're trying to potty-train your kid, is one time enough to take him or her to the potty, just assuming he/she will get it instantly, or is it something you need to do over and over and over and over until it finally sinks in?

Same thing with this.

Furthermore, reinforcement should be applied LIBERALLY (pun intended) with ALL our Democratic reps. They need to know THIS IS HOW WE'RE PLAYING THE GAME NOW, FOLKS. WE ARE UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT. TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT. They need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that they are expected to play ball or else, and get with the program. Evidently, this is the message that's come pretty loudly and clearly to various DNC activists who've been doing phone bank activism. I got one of those calls myself and I said clearly and resolutely - NOT ANOTHER DIME, and NO I WILL NOT SIGN UP AGAIN - UNLESS THE DNC ELECTS HOWARD DEAN AS ITS NEW CHAIR. After she tried arguing with me and reasoning with me, she finally gave in and admitted that I wasn't the first person she'd heard that from. GOOD. The Bob Shrums and Al Fromms have to be sent packing. They've led us to several straight losses in the elections, not just presidential BUT midterm as well. Their idea of moving to the middle and capitulating and turning their backs on what we are as Democrats instead of trying to figure out how to persuade the public that OUR way is BETTER, and to more effectively communicate and package us as a party and a philosophy has gotten us exactly NOWHERE.

All contrarians HAVE TO BE read the rules and ordered to comply. OR ELSE. The time for taking prisoners and accepting excuses and capitulations - HAS PASSED.

We're UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT, and I, for one, couldn't be more delighted!

DU thread:
Dean Opponent (Roemer) Bows Out of Chairman's Race
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1219042#1219131

[rman]

23. LOL, Bush must have been reading that PsyOps manual

"The individual personality should be projected when addressing the population."
(because "...the people, especially simple people, easily distinguish a fake.")

So that's why Bush is being goofy when he adresses the people. He's just being himself (or trying to), he must be or else the people will see he's a fake.

[CWebster]

3. Thanks but there is a wealth of stuff on "CommonDreams" daily

"Regressive" is THE word though, isn't it? As I was reading it, I felt myself getting impatient...What's the word, give me the word, yes, good word. Because, I have felt the frustration of not having the language to immediately convey complexity.

Someone should send this to Dean because the war is, and will be one of framing perceptions as opposed to triangulating. Triangulating is killing us and that is why we have so much hostility towards those who advocate centrism as moderation and the politicians who support it. Meanwhile the Regressives fund think tanks to manipulate the meanings of terms and fund the means to broadcast them.

[calimary]

11. Yeah, I know. I've found LOTS of gold nuggets there. But this one just

stood out like a gold BOULDER.

[flamin lib]

4. I have a MS in English with a second major in Journalism.

Words have power, much more than most people understand. They changed "late term abortion" to "partial birth". They changed "estate tax" to "death tax". They are masters at lapel pin sloganeering. It's your money. No new taxes. With us or against us. Axis of evil.

Regardless of how angry I get in my discourse with Republicans they say I'm whining. Whining my effing @$$!

We must begin to work at phraseology. Do not use strong masculine terms for Republicans. They aren't ANGRY, they are whiny. They aren't MEAN, they are bitchy or pesky.

The Bush SS plan isn't catastrophic, it's lamentable.

Our response to the SS plan is forthright! It's resolute!

It isn't a DEATH tax, it's a SPOILED KIDS TAX. It isn't PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, it's a LIFESAVING EXTRACTION.

Sigh, if only I were in charge of semantics at the DNC . . .

[KittyWampus]

6. Let Me Interject... As A Kabbalist, I Too Know That Words Have Power

:)

And so do symbols and rituals... in fact, symbols are even MORE powerful than words. They bypass the intellect and speak directly to the subconcious.

[calimary]

22. Check post 10 here. Your point about the symbols being powerful

AND gestures. AND tone of voice. AND ALL OF IT. Your point is valid-valid-valid!

http://www.tscm.com/CIA_PsyOps_Handbook.html
(Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare
Army Manual 33-1 1979)

Techniques of Persuasion in Talks or Speeches:

Be Simple and Concise. You should avoid the use of difficult words or
expressions and prefer popular words and expressions, i.e. the language of the
people. In dealing with a person you should make use of concise language,
avoiding complicated words. It is important to remember that we use oratory
to make our people understand the reason for our struggle, and not to show off
our knowledge.

Use Lively and Realistic Examples. Avoid abstract concepts, such as are used in
universities in the advanced years, and in place of them, give concrete
examples such as children playing, horses galloping, birds in flight, etc.

Use Gestures to Communicate. Communication, in addition to being verbal, can be
through gestures, such as using our hands expressively, back movements, facial
expressions, focusing of our look and other aspects of "body language,"
projecting the individual personality in the message.

Use the Appropriate Tone of Voice. If, on addressing the people, you talk about
happiness, a happy tone should be used. If you talk of something sad, the tone
of the voice should be one of sadness; on talking of a heroic or brave act, the
voice should be animated, etc.

Above All, Be Natural, Imitation of others should be avoided, since the people,
especially simple people, easily distinguish a fake. The individual personality
should be projected when addressing the population.



FURTHERMORE: ANYTHING you can say, word-wise, that PAINTS A PICTURE (I happen to like "Piddle-On" as a corrolary to "trickle-down" especially since "peed-on" is sometimes not possible in politc company) is PERFECTION. Paint a picture, you own their minds. It sinks in and stays.

ALSO:
Clever word play, maybe "Malice in Blunderland" for what the White House is up to. "The Silenced Majority."
PUNS, see above. Or "Hatriotism" and "hatriotic" Rhymes with patriotism and patriotic. republi-CONS (CONS are all they are, and CON-JOBS are all they offer).
ACRONYMS, "IGMFU" ("I Got Mine - F-U" or "I Got Mine - Forget U"). GOP stands for "Greedy Old Party" or "Get Old People" or "Grab Our Pensions." WWrD - with apologies to WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) What Would republi-CONS Do - a good mantra for us for self-motivation purposes. Gotta keep that mindset going about what the Enemy would do in such a case. Would they lie down and take it, or would they fight tooth and nail? Would they capitulate, or would they go for the jugular?
RHYMES like "eyes on the prize, guys!"
and ALLITERATION AND CONSONANCE. If memory serves, ALLITERATION is where you build a buzz phrase with words that start with the same VOWEL or VOWEL SOUND. Like "Axis of Avarice." "Evil Empire." CONSONANCE is where you do the same with consonants (non-vowels). Like "Build a Buzzphrase" or "Retirement Roulette" (Harry Reid came up with this). "Party of Pirates" "Haven of Hypocrites" (the republi-CON party).

All of this is EXTREMELY valuable because it helps
1) paint a word picture.
2) VERY easy to remember.
3) fun to say - makes you seem excruciatingly clever - laughter is power and an extra weapon in disarming/defanging the enemy.
4) eminently quotable.*

And THAT'S how you plant seeds. THAT'S how you start making inroads. THAT'S how you spread ideas and concepts and be subversive and undercut the establishment media. If enough of us did that, often enough, and en masse, we'd have them by the balls, the way the f-in' "buckheads" and other freeper aggitators who piled on Dan Rather did. The establishment media has already sat up and taken noticed of the blogosphere. It's a potent weapon. It's how we initiate, fine-tune, and then spread ideas. And eventually take over.

*BTW, I wrote a response to a print reporter in Canada after reading an article of hers that I appreciated (wherein the truth was told as opposed to the same White House-enabler pablum puking from our media) and I used the term "The Silenced Majority" to refer to US GOOD GUYS. She wrote me back to thank me and complimented me on "The Silenced Majority" - which, incidentally, is NOT mine. I think I found it here a long time ago from some other poster whose I stupidly do not remember. She said she might use that. BINGO. Job done. Idea planted. Hopefully, although I have not followed up - I write so many letters and emails about this stuff - she then used it and it spread further.

You can do likewise RAWTHER easily, anyway, by checking at the bottom, or maybe at the byline, of a print or online story that interests you. Invariably, it'll have the reporter/writer's email address by his/her name, inviting comment. TAKE ADVANTAGE! It's usually as quick and easy as one additional click.

And also (BTW-Part Two), THANK YOU for suffering through me and my loudmouthery!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. George Lakoff is a Prof of Linguistics and Cognitive Science

[calimary]

12. It isn't "pro-lifers," it's "body-snatchers."

YES we need to talk like this! Your ideas are TERRIFIC!

[demwing]

20. Spoiled Kids Tax and Lifesaving Extraction?

those are horrible.

No offense, because I agree with your point in general, but those examples are just aweful.

"Spoiled Kids Tax" is nasty, and pushes people's buttons. Why not something like "Unearned Wealth Tax?"

This might make even those about to pass their wealth on to their children think about the value of earning what you get in life.

And instead of "Lifesaving Extraction" why not "Maternal Triage?"

Extraction is SO impersonal. Speak about a fetus with such an impersonal tone and a huge measure of citizens will instantly stop listening. Don't be unsympathetic or insensitive, and above all else, don't focus on the life lost--focus on the life saved.

[calimary]

21. How about "Paris Hilton Tax." Well.. maybe not.

"Unearned Wealth Tax" or "Easy Money Tax" might be good, too.

HEY, GUYS: this is ALL GOOD.

The important thing is that PEOPLE ARE THINKING. And this stuff is getting some much-needed attention. And more of us are agreeing that it's a priority. MAYBE something like PRIORITY ONE.

And it is WUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNderful that you post these thoughts. Even the critical ones. It gets us thinking. That's how this stuff gets vetted, and, if you will, fire-polished so it's strong like vulcanized rubber, or galvanized steel. If one idea isn't exactly perfect, maybe it'll get somebody here to think about an alternative. That is NOT a bad thing.

Because you have a perspective some of us don't, and you bring insights that are important when crafting a message that works best for the most of us.

"Maternal Triage" is good. But perhaps that could be fine-tuned for those who don't know much about the term "triage." How about "Maternal Preservation?" "Maternity ER"? "Maternity 911?" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH that's a mean one! Wouldn't it be too much fun to snatch the whole concept of 9/11 out from under them? Or reframe it to suit OUR agenda?

This is ALL GOOD, guys. I feel like I've taken my brain to a cardio-kickboxing class!

[flamin lib]

24. No offense taken, demwing,

Spoiled kids tax is more aggressive and that's part of what we need to be. Aggressive verbiage is perceived as strong, firm and desirable. That's why the Repubs characterize is a "whining" even though we are livid and screaming (figuratively speaking), it takes away our strength. Lifesaving is shifting the emphasis from fetus to woman and it moves the debate from "dead babies" to live women just as you suggest. Extraction is too harsh, procedure is too neutral and triage is too technical. Still like "legal, safe & rare" or some variation.

Unearned wealth tax could work, but it's too passive for my taste. Quote Rove, better to be wrong and strong than weak and right.

Anyway, we're in the same hymnal even if on a different song.

[Wilber_Stool]

5. This artical should be pinned

to the top of the GD:P page. It's the best description of the way to win the fight.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. reframing the debate Talking Points....

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research?Subject=The+Progressive+Vision

[calimary]

13. Also, there's the Frame the Debate Forum here on DU.

Lots of stuff like this is discussed.

[Beetwasher]

9. Of Course, The Article is Correct, However, There Is A MAJOR Problem

I think most Dem strategists realize the importance of framing and DO try to frame and reframe issues their way, HOWEVER the BIGGEST problem is the hurdles they have to overcome in order to get those frames repeated over and over ad nauseum.

The playing field is NOT level. The media outlets ARE biased and give more credence and more weight to the framing of only ONE SIDE OF THE DEBATE. Time and time again, on issue after issue, the Dems WILL have a frame, HOWEVER, most of the MSM will STILL cover it using the WH framing of it and present the WH version as the "objective" version and report on the Dems version as THE DEMS version, IOW, the PARTISAN version.

Or another thing they do is present the version equally when they are NOT equal. The Dem version will be based on and backed up by fact and data while the WH version will be lies based on their assertions but the Media will STILL portray them as equally valid.

[flamin lib]

10. 'Tis true. The WH has the bully pulpit which is why

the Dems have to take the gloves off. The only way to get that sound bite repeated is to make some outrageous remark or comment.

Try this: "This BS about a Death Tax is exactly that, BS. It's really a Spoiled Kid Tax and Bush knows it."

Or this: "Social Security isn't in crisis. The Bush White House is in crisis with a war that is FUBAR, deficits as far as the eye can see and no hope for recovery in sight." Use the acronym!

THAT would get quoted in the MSM.

[sundancekid]

14. one more: NOT tax reform, it's trickle UP economics for the rich, stupid!

[calimary]

16. Or - how 'bout, instead of "trickle down," piddled on."

More precise, much more accurate, simple, paints a good mental picture, and it's clean enough for mixed company.

Guys - the Bad Guys have their buckheads. We have ALL OF EACH OTHER. Let's get busy. Howard Dean and Barbara Boxer are going to need us at their considerably strong backs. They have spine. But they need calcium supplements. And if the media won't comply, let's give THEM hell, too.

[calimary]

25. So we build our OWN "bully pulpit." From the ground UP.

You want to start a writing campaign to oust Britt Hume?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1580284#1580768
My post:
And HOW. Remember the scene in, I think, "Jurassic Park 2" in which one of the big blustery guys was in the woods, and one of those little bitty "yapping dog"-type dinosaurs came up to him. He sneered at it and kicked it out of the way. But it came back. He sneered and scared it off again. But then, it came back with a buddy. He still sneered, but you could tell he didn't care for this terribly much. He scared them off - but not very far off. Then they came back. With more buddies. Now he's not sneering anymore. He's backing away. They advance. More of their buddies suddenly appear, and they advance, too. He REALLY doesn't like this now, and backs away until he trips and falls. All of a sudden, they're on him like sharks on a piece of raw meat. And suddenly, he's a goner.

Think about it. That's what the "buckhead" types did to Dan Rather. Who the hell is Brit Hume that he's entitled to be immune?
Remember the scene in, I think, "Jurassic Park 2" in which one of the big blustery guys was in the woods, and one of those little bitty "yapping dog"-type dinosaurs came up to him. He sneered at it and kicked it out of the way. But it came back. He sneered and scared it off again. But then, it came back with a buddy. He still sneered, but you could tell he didn't care for this terribly much. He scared them off - but not very far off. Then they came back. With more buddies. Now he's not sneering anymore. He's backing away. They advance. More of their buddies suddenly appear, and they advance, too. He REALLY doesn't like this now, and backs away until he trips and falls. All of a sudden, they're on him like sharks on a piece of raw meat. And suddenly, he's a goner.

Think about it. That's what the "buckhead" types did to Dan Rather. Who the hell is Brit Hume that he's entitled to be immune?

Using LOTS AND LOTS of us "little guys."

I posted this on another thread, called -You want to start a writing campaign to oust Britt Hume?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1580284#1580768

Remember the scene in, I think, "Jurassic Park 2" in which one of the big blustery guys was in the woods, and one of those little bitty "yapping dog"-type dinosaurs came up to him. He sneered at it and kicked it out of the way. But it came back. He sneered and scared it off again. But then, it came back with a buddy. He still sneered, but you could tell he didn't care for this terribly much. He scared them off - but not very far off. Then they came back. With more buddies. Now he's not sneering anymore. He's backing away. They advance. More of their buddies suddenly appear, and they advance, too. He REALLY doesn't like this now, and backs away until he trips and falls. All of a sudden, they're on him like sharks on a piece of raw meat. And suddenly, he's a goner.

Think about it. That's what the "buckhead" types did to Dan Rather. Who the hell is Brit Hume that he's entitled to be immune?

And if we target Brit Hume, do we stop there?

[calimary]

15. You make a GREAT point. If I may, I'd like to offer the following vaccine:

I posted this in the Jeff Gannon QUITS thread - in the context of - well, we outed this one guy, but in the grand tradition of you-see-one-cockroach-on-the-wall-it-means-there-are-thousands-more-behind-the-woodwork, we DO have to be aware that there are others. Just as it's REEEEEALLLLY easy for bush to boast about all the al Qaeda leaders depicted on those playing cards who have been arrested or killed - uh - excuse me, but you don't think for one instant that there aren't hundreds of others who've streamed in to take their places? Funny, they never mention THAT. Anyway, the best thing to do, I think, is to UNDERSCORE, as ruthlessly and relentlessly as possible, that you are ONTO THEM and you won't let go until they start doing their jobs and start telling the truth. So I sugggest the following strategy (in response to a poster who called his satellite company to complain about the fraud being perpetrated, in this Jeff Gannon contest):

Follow up to the company with a paper letter. If, by any chance, you got the name of the fellow you talked to, send it to him ALSO.

I say ALSO because at the bottom of your letter, make sure you CC: it to a number of other people:

This company's competitors. An Eliot Spitzer (NY attorney general) type if you have one even remotely near you or your state level, your local newspaper(s), perhaps a larger regional newspaper, your local news radio station(s), your local TV station(s), your congressman/woman, your two senators.

Yes, I know it's a lot of work. Mostly Xeroxing. And, yes, postage. But isn't it worth the price of one visit to the snack bar or the latte counter? Emailing this won't do that much. People don't always pay a lot of attention to emails and they're easily deleted so nobody else has to know. This way, a LOT of other people know and see this. Furthermore, a paper letter can get copied and posted on the bulliten board in the lunch room or passed around among those of like mind, who might - just might - be motivated to show some guts on their own. You MUST figure that if you feel this way, there HAVE TO BE many others who do also, but just haven't had the time or the inclination to do something about it the way you have.

I read an article (posted here, once upon a time) about a lady who participated in an anti-war rally in New York City during the run-up to the Iraq war (so this was, obviously, awhile ago). She later read, and got ticked off by, the coverage of said rally in the New York Times. As expected, they low-balled the crowd-size estimate. She knew the truth because she'd been there and seen its far-larger size for herself. So she complained. Here's how: She wrote a letter to the Times. But she didn't stop there. She CC:ed it to several departments at the Times, I believe LTTEs, news desk, president of the company, and the reporters responsible for the actual story. And she didn't even stop THERE. She further CC:ed that same letter to the main competition of the Times (the Washington Post) AND, I believe, to Editor & Publisher or some such publication/website that's seen by A LOT of news people from all over - so, in effect, a WHOLE LOT of people, including its competitition, could see and enjoy that the Times was being outed for lousy reporting. There was a correction printed almost immediately.

If this woman had merely sent one little little-guy complaint, it would have been seen for the weight and influence it had - one little piece of paper from one litte-guy type who didn't have much clout. She made it a WHOLE LOT beefier and more effective.


Here's the thread this was in, originally:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1579003

[Flint-oid]

17. Framing advice everyday www.frameshopisopen.com

Frame Shop

[calimary]

19. EXCELLENT! Thank you for adding this in, too!

We need EVERY SHRED and electron and mitochondria of help we can get.