George Lakoff: Rove Rides Again -- With the Help of the Democrats

[Larkspur]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/george-lakoff/rove-rides-again-with-_3414.html

For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush’s approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high. They correctly recognized in the numbers that the public had begun to separate Iraq from 911, and they recognized the relevance of the Downing Street memo in showing that Bush had betrayed the trust of the American people in sending troops into Iraq on false pretenses. They had begun to form an anti-Iraq-War caucus and to hammer home the consequences of these development. And even staunch Republicans were listening to their arguments and coming to Bush to suggest withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

In short, the Democrats had begun to use the basics of framing issues in terms of their own values and principles, the lessons arising from research at the Rockridge Institute. Had they continued to argue with unity on the difference between 911 and Iraq, and on the fact that George Bush betrayed our troops and is weakening our country, they might have made it impossible for Bush to once again link Iraq with 911.

Then they lost it. Karl Rove outsmarted the Democrats again. And he used the most basic trick in the book to do it.

The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy’s frame. Negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers, as Richard Nixon found out when he said “I am not a crook” and everybody thought of him as a crook.
<SNIP>

Rove managed to link Iraq with 911 again, and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process. And he did it with the Democrats’ help.

Rove achieved this brilliantly – in one sentence!


"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

When the Democrats took the bait, Rove reeled them in.
<SNIP>

What should liberals have learned from reading the Rockridge Institute website and Don’t Think of an Elephant?

1.Start with resisting Rove’s juicy bait.
2.Spell out the progressive philosophy of Total Security – keeping a strong military while also supporting job security, pension security, and security in the form of health and education. Attack Bush for giving up on homeland security, failing to protect cargo shipments, nuclear and chemical plants, and so on.
3.Point out Rove’s attempt to cover up Bush’s disaster in Iraq, and dwell on the public’s repudiation of the Bush policy for good reasons.
4.Keep pounding on the Downing Street memo, pointing out how Bush doctored intelligence and sent troops to war on false pretenses. Goad him about there being no WMD’s in Iraq, but plenty in North Korea.
5.Attack Bush for weakening our military and our economy, while strengthening al Qaeda, Point out that Bush is al Qaeda’s best friend, since he is their best recruiter.
6.Raise the stakes. Point out how the administration has been using 911 for their own political ends; of using the war in Iraq as a pretext to carry out a radical political agenda at home, and to get re-elected. Point out the immorality of using American and Iraqi lives for political ends.
7.Use the opportunity to brand the right wing as political fundamentalists, showing the intimate connections between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
8.Raise the question of whether the brutality arising from the US occupation of Iraq led to an anti-US reaction in Iran and the squelching of democratic forces there – exactly the opposite of Bush’s predicted result.
In short, be pro-active, not reactive.
<SNIP>

the Democrats helped Rove get Iraq identified with the war on terror again, characterizing the Democrats as unpatriotic naïve weaklings, and setting the stage for Bush’s address on June 28, 2005, in which he followed Rove’s lead and again framed the Iraq War in terms of 911 and the war on terror. This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.

The Democrats can learn from Bush and Rove: Stick to your guns and stay the course.

Yep, Kerry made the same mistake that he made during the 2004 General Election.

And on a side note, Durbin fell into the Rove trap too when he apologized for his truthful remarks. This is why I'm disappointed in Durbin, who did vote against IWR.

[lojasmo]

1. Dean did exactly this on Hardball yesterday.

He absolutely rocked.

[Cocoa]

12. I was thinking about Dean too

he absolutely did NOT take the bait.

[doodadem]

13. I second that!

I was so impressed with the Dean last night. He stayed on message, did not get flustered at all, and did not rise to the bait on personal attacks. That's the way to go.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

18. Agreed. Dean was terrific. (nt)

[mzmolly]

34. Yes he did. To my understanding he has consulted with Lakoff.

And, he also plans to hone the message among Democrats nationwide.

Get your democracy bonds today! ;)

https://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/democracy_bonds.php

[Griffy]

85. I know they consult.. I saw them talking after Dean speech at ..

the Take Back America conference! Dean said.. "hows tomorrow", and I believe they met... you can see the slow change in the way we talk about whats happening...

[paineinthearse]

2. It's so simple, why don't the Dems get it?

:shrug:

"The Democrats can learn from Bush and Rove: Stick to your guns and stay the course."


On edit. This post is fundamental to winning the battle in the trenches. NOMINATED.

[quiet.american]

6. More importantly, why doesn't Kerry still get it!!!! n/t

[Dr.Phool]

10. Kerry had me talking to myself last year.

Especially when asked if he knew now, what he knows about Iraq, would he vote the same way?

[quiet.american]

15. You, too, huh? :) -- I'm still scratching my head over that one. n/t

[second edition]

43. I had not problem following it, can't figure out why you would. n/t

[second edition]

42. Kerry does get it , your the one who is lost. n/t

[quiet.american]

49. Oh, dear -- is that you, John? n/t

[second edition]

53. Your post makes no sense!

[quiet.american]

54. Oh, dear! n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

84. They are stuck in their old ways

They have to unlearn so much, and many are resistant to the notion.

[TayTay]

3. This sounds like gobbledygook

What are you talking about? Can anyone put this into English? How did Kerry fall into Rove's trap?

This sounds like so much psycho-babble junk. What does it mean?

[Al-CIAda]

7. It means the Dems are chicken shit jellyfish, afraid or complicit in

the treason being committed by this criminal administration.

[TayTay]

11. You got all that out of that pile of junk

I got nothing. I was talking to the mechanic who changed the tires on my car in Hudson, NH. He supported * and the war. Now he thinks that everytime they go to 9/11 he thinks it's a lie and a coverup.

The American people are not stupid, no matter how much some people want to think they are. They wanted to believe that * was doing things in their best interests. The results have not panned out and they are turning against * and his policies. (All by themselves and without a seminar to teach them how to do this.) People want * to succeed because it's in their interest to have him succeed. When he started screwing up and having nothing to show for himself, support dropped. It's not that complicated.

[Al-CIAda]

14. Thanks for the testimonial and simple words of encouragement.

I do hope you are correct, but it has been my experience to never underestimate the ignorance and stupidity of the American people.

[TayTay]

16. That's just wrong

Why bother to try to change things when the recipients are the 'ignorant and the stupid?' This is why the Dems lose. They think they are above the people they are supposed to be working for. This is the real formula for losing and it has to stop.

Americans are not stupid. They are over-worked, under-paid, have decreasing access to good health care and to good jobs. They are scared that their kids won't do as well as they do and they want some straight talk from their elected reps as to how to make it better. That's isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

[lojasmo]

23. How else can you explain this?

70% of people polled in 2002 believed that Sadam was behind 9-11.

Americans are easily misled....despite readily available facts and evidence.

[TayTay]

25. Justitification for war

This is standards stuff. Every society that goes to war manufacturers myths to support that war fever. People tend to rally around their leaders in a time of national stress. They believed what the Shrub told them because they had no other prominent voices telling them differently. Now, the war fever is abating and the people are more open to examining what actually happened. (We are not the only nation on earth to ever go to war. There is a common progression of how war fever develops, erupts, sothers free speech and restricts the civil rights of dissenters and then loses steam.)

Again, why are you committed to changing things for people you dislike so much. What do you hope to do for the ones you consider stupid and ignorant. Why do you bother?

[BrklynLiberal]

37. Why didn't they have any prominant voices telling them differently?

For the exact reasons that Lakoff enumerated...The Dems fell in step right behind Bush and did not have the courage to stand up and say right out loud that he was LYING! The Emperor was naked and no one stood up and said it!

THAT is what Lakoff was saying! When anyone appeared who did start telling the truth, Rove and his cronies started undermining his credibility, and not one damn Democrat stood up and defended him, or stood up with him...so he went down in flames. The Dems were all cowards and THAT is why they lost! Of course the complicity of the media and attorneys-general and electronic voting machines helped too.

"They believed what the Shrub told them because they had no other prominent voices telling them differently."

[TayTay]

39. And because it was war

And people rally round the flag at war time. This is basic human nature 101.

The Prez did a good job of stating that the US was in danger. People tend to believe their leaders in a time of war. What part of that is hard to understand?

This happened during Vietnam. People didn't believe it was a 'bad war' until years after it started. (This happens everywhere there is a war. It's not just human nature in the US. It's friggin human nature globally.)

Then the tide turns, and the war fever abates. I do not believe there are any voices that could have been heard at the time. There is always a number of people who oppose the violence and aggression of war. And their numbers are always small. That is the simple truth.

[NYCGirl]

41. What about going to war WITH THE WRONG COUNTRY?

There were massive demonstrations against the "war with Iraq" before it started, because millions of people realized that it was a trumped-up, unnecessary war.

[BrklynLiberal]

44. And by November 2004, the war should NOT have been the primary

campaign issue. Bush knew he would lose on domestic issues, so Rove would not allow any domestic issues to be debated.
A Prime Example:
If Kerry had followed Lakoff's principles, the whole Swiftboat Liars fiasco would have turned out to Kerry's advantage. It was disgusting that a VietNam chickenhawk was made to look better than a decorated hero.

[AndyTiedye]

86. Kerry Couldn't Have Done SQUAT About the Swift Boat Liars

Because every lie they told was echoed a thousand times by the media,
while Kerry had only his $75M in Federal funds to last until Election Day.

Even if he had been willing to spend IT ALL in August (and that's what
it would have taken to blunt the impact), it wouldn't have made any
difference, and he would have been out of money going into the Fall.

It sucks when your opposition has every media outlet in the country
stumping for them.

[dogday]

59. I thought that too about Durbin, He was totally alone

I saw not a single Democrat stand with him. I am tired of these guys having to step on eggshells for this party. Break a few eggs guys...

[lojasmo]

60. And yet strangely enough.....

By simply reading the newspaper, I was able to discern that the Bush cabal was lying about WMD. And I was able to discern who was responsible for 9/11

As to your second question, our nation is being screwed by the political system. I am determined to change it to better the world for my son. Though I don't think my motivations are any of your business.

And here's my question to you....Why would you want to help people who are smart enough to figure out the lies of the administration, but chose to play along?

[Amonester]

97. Maybe the PNAC's planned (or even just hoped for...?)

'New Pearl Harbor' + feared color codes + CSM's propaganda catapult were still 'working' in 2002... and up to 2005/01... Then: SS scares, no more color codes, Gannon, **'s kisses, Shiavo, DSM revelations, Amnesty/Newsweak, and rising gas tank bills now woke-up many good people... yeah, a little too late but, it's still always better late than never...

One wonders what would have NOT happened if the sick PNAC plan was well known by everybody before the turn of the century...

And President Gore + his staff would have prevented 911 LIHOP (or MIHOP...), and all its conspirators would be counting days behind bars... A recurring surplus would gradually reduce the national debt. Public Health Care would be possible. Kyoto would be on the march...

:hangover:

[karynnj]

77. And that arrogance will get you where?

Tay Tay described a specific blue collar person who supported Bush who now knows that he was lied to. He learned. Others are learning.

Kerry's statement is not the same as Bush's. I would say that Lakoff, if he wrote it, fell into the RW frame of saying that any Democratic suggestion of how to deal with Iraq is essentially Bush's plan.

Kerry recommends:
- train Iraqis as fast as possible (using other countries) Bush SAYS he's training, but everytime military people are asked in the Senate they give low numbers of trained people. ***Are they the same - No, Kerry REALLY wants to train Iraqis, give them authority, and leave. Bush wants to APPEAR to be doing this. ***

- Kerry says no longterm US bases, Bush is building 14 ***Are they the same*** No, this may be a good test question for all pols.

-Kerry says the borders are too porus and suggests getting countries in the region or the UN to firm up the border. ***Has Bush tried this - no.

Is there a pattern - I think so, all the things Kerry talked about increased the responsibilities of the Iraqis, the surrounding countries, and the international community while speeding up improving security and fixing the infastructure. ALL CONSISTENT with really GETTING OUT. Bush's actions are NOT really consistent with this (I mean really, training 20,000 Iraqis in 2 yrs! and building 14 bases)

I don't understand what Lakoff's problem is - There is a war (even though we didn't want it). Another RW frame is that the Democrats don't have a plan going forward.

[lancdem]

19. I agree 100 percent

Lakoff overestimates Rove's "genius." Once people turn on a president, no amount of rhetoric or framing will bring them back. You hit the nail on the head. People gave Bush a chance, and now more and more are seeing he hasn't delivered.

[msongs]

9. some thoughts on "what does this mean?"...

perhaps it means that the dems responded to the content of what Rove said in a defensive way, frequently REPEATING Rove's comments and giving them extra life. The Dems should have advocated their views and values in a positive way instead of acting defensive.

Dems seem to have apologize-itis when apologies are not really due in a moral sense. The repubs just say things and move on. I can see Rove and Bush planning: first karl will give his anti liberals remark, then bush will give his speech, and bait the dems into.....apologizing once again.

perhaps it means that Kerry being Bush-lite in many ways (but not all ways) was not an effective strategy in the election (Kerry seemed to agree with Bush on so many things, with just minor modifications, that the joke from Bush was if you want to vote for somebody who is like me, why not just vote for me?)

maybe Kerry and other Dems should quit saying "the president is right and we support him" and start saying WHAT THEY WOULD DO without referencing Bush.

The republican criticism on Dems re social security is that the dems have not offered a plan. Of course, bush has not offered one either, there is NO bush legislation on the table. In this case the Dems are right not to offer a plan out of the blue, which is an attempt by repubs to shift the spotlight from their own failure to the dems.

However, the Dems must offer their own affirimative plans (to use Kerry's favorite word...plan)on some issues. Like if a withdrawal from Iraq is a Dems value, let's hear a suggested timetable.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Cha]

29. Well, I'm surprised..I thought

rove jumped the shark on his latest vile slanderous spewings.

It sure got a lot of New Yorkers saying what they thought of rove calling Democrats traitors.

A lot of Soldiers were pissed, too.

Dean had a statement on rove's insanity, too..wonder if they were how Lakoff thinks they should be framed? I don't exactly remember and I can't find the link, yet.

I know the mother of Sherwood Baker, Celeste Zappala, had some choice words for the rovespinster..

snip~
"If I had reached him I would have asked him as he blathered about how anxious and proud the conservatives were who jumped at the chance to have a war -- where are they now on the streets of Baghdad? My son was a very liberal Democrat, when he signed up for the National Guard no one asked, when he was deployed no one asked his opinion or his politics, and after he lost his life protecting the people looking for those weapons of mass destruction no conservative hawk came forth to take his place. Nor have they lined up at recruiters offices to answer the needs of our exhausted Army."


More..
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3122

[sendero]

33. It is gobbledegook...

... but I pretty much agree with it.

To restate what he said about Kerry's position, Kerry fell right into their frame because instead of hammering on Bush**'s leadership failures he goes into nuanced policy-tweak mode explaining the tiny differences in the way he would do it as opposed to Bush**.

When you do that, you put yourself in the position of basically agreeing with the president. When you are agreeing with the president, you're helping nothing.

[second edition]

46. Exactly, We should remain the "party of no" and not speak out

against the piss poor planning and the lies that got us into this war and then offer a plan to help get us out, but then we shouldn't apologize for speaking out and stating the truth-huh? This guy just has Kerry bias wrtten all over his piece. And notice the takers, right there going along with the Kerry bashing. Dean stayed on message? What does that have to do with this?

[Patchuli]

62. I don't think anyone fell into Rove's "trap"

because he was so obnoxious for one thing. I think people, conservatives and liberals alike, are pretty sick of the negativity pushed by the neo-cons, the constant attacks and the endless justifications for their major f'ups, for which we are all having to pay the price. I think Rove's mouthing off was a mistake for their side. I think the speech the other night by * was a major f'up and just made it even more obvious to people that this administration is floundering in a mess of their own making and for which we are all suffering. I think Rove is not as smart as Rove thinks he is.

I also think Howard Dean is handling all this very very well. I haven't totally figured out John Kerry for some things he says, but I still admire for what he is trying to do.

[rhett o rick]

74. I disagree. No matter how bad Rove looked, he drew attention from *

the Dems should not have given him any credibility by responding. They should all have said "We don't listen to Rove, he is an idiot". And then attacked Bush. Ignore Rove, he is a distraction.

[Patchuli]

76. Maybe he drew a little attention for a minute or two

but * bombed all on his own. I just finished reading what the freepers have to say about why * got little applause from the Fort Bragg troops and I have to say, they sound worried to me.

Rove is not as smart as everyone gives him credit for. I don't think he helped * a bit. He's probably already planning how to extricate himself from the Idiot Son! Unless * suddenly turns the economy around (which he won't) or gets the insurgents to surrender (which he won't), he's history and not very good history at that.

[rhett o rick]

79. It does no good to point out weaknesses in the enemy lines if we

aren't ready to attack. As far as i can tell the Demo's are in chaos. What is the strategy? Who is our leader? Are we united???
Didn't the election of 2004 teach us anything? I don't think so.

[Patchuli]

89. At this point, I'm looking to Dean,

Conyers, Boxer and Kennedy for leadership since they've bravely faced off against this evil empire. Old Teddy thrilled my soul on CSPAN the
other day when he asked old nasty Rummy if it wasn't time for him to resign?!

Slowly, ever so damn slowly! I keep thinking in the back of my mind that Kerry's got something up his sleeve...I see more of our elected officials standing up. I see the media beginning to pull it's collective head out it's a$$ and question the DSM, *'s unpopularity, the grumbling of the majority of Americans about the whole mess wrought on us by the Republican party and it's making me very hopeful. Let's just say the more we thump on our officials heads with email, phone calls, petitions, etc. the more we are going to see them stand up. We must force them to.

Most of all, I'm seeing a lot of repubs defecting! Let's keep working for it, rick!

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Excellent article, excellent post, and I agree with you on Durbin.

He should neve have apologised for speaking 100% truth. Rove and the Repukes never apologize for the 100% lies they tell.

[On Par]

20. I Just Shook My Head As Durbin Spoke....

...thinking how Rove was laughing his ass off as to how a Democratic Senator placed his head in Rove's mouse trap.

Then, to trigger that trap, Rove turned around a bitchslapped the Dem's by refusing to apologize for his remarks.

The Repubnuts never apologize. NEVER! Why not? To do so would admit they're wrong. And, as we all know, they are never wrong!

When are the DEMS going to LEARN ??????

[BrklynLiberal]

31. Yep. It was sad to see Durbin backpedal on his words when he was

absolutely right!!!

[NYCGirl]

5. Very good stuff from Lakoff. The GOP has been using these techniques for

decades, which is how the word "liberal" was turned into a negative.

[lancdem]

8. He makes some good points

but I don't agree with everything. I don't think Rove's statement was all that brilliant, and Bush received a lot of criticism for linking Iraq and 9/11 in his speech. That dog won't hunt like it used to.

[BillZBubb]

17. Again you make the classic liberal mistake.

Lakoff is 100% correct. You assume that Bush receiving criticism for linking Iraq and 9/11 hurt him. You are wrong. That criticism comes primarily from the media--which amounts to nothing.

To the average, not politically active, person the linkage reinforces the gut feeling that we had to retaliate for 9/11.

Liberals always try to avoid being criticised by the media. That makes them seem (and act) wimpy. They think media criticism hurts them. In actuality it can help a lot, depending on the issue.

Rove's statement was brilliant in that it changed the debate and put the Democrats on the defensive. It wouldn't have been brilliant if the Democrats didn't take the bait, but they always do.

[ClassWarrior]

21. Yup. The Radical RW has us afraid to look like lunatics...

...yet looking like lunatics is a daily exercise for them. And they're winning the PR game. WTF??? It's because of the exact reasons you cite.

NGU.

[lancdem]

24. Lakoff thinks framing means everything

It doesn't. It's about what's happening in the country, and in Iraq, right now, what people see and feel. Rove can't turn the tide by changing the subject. Bush isn't losing support because the Dems are winning the rhetorical battle, it's because Bush is not doing his job, period. His policies are doing him in, finally.

[Larkspur]

27. That is what Dems said in 2003-04 but Bush still won re-election

Kerry lost to the worse president in US history because he followed the Repuke-lite DLC model of campaigning.

[Vincardog]

51. I wish Kerry was not his own campaign manager but that does not change

the fact that Liebold stole the election in 2004. aWoL was never elected pResident of the USA. He was first illegally appointed by the SCOTUS and then STOLE the election of 2004. The country was not Happy having his pissyness appointed that is why he caused 9/11.
What are they going to do this time?

[Patchuli]

63. Amen to that!

Dem leaders are too conditioned to worry about "rhetoric" to the point where they are afraid to do anything. That MUST change!

[AndyTiedye]

87. Framing Is Important, But Also Completely Out of Our Control

Framing is done by the media, so whoever controls the media gets to
do all the framing. That's not us.

We have to get our message out, somehow, in spite of all that.

[Patchuli]

66. I disagree with

"That criticism comes primarily from the media--which amounts to nothing."

I think it means everything to have the media finally doing their job and reporting and reflecting what is really going on. The average American is waking up and the media doesn't want to be left behind. Bottom line? The media cares more about what WE think (WE ARE THE BOTTOM LINE) and their desire to be credible to us than they care about loyalty to the Bush regime.

[Polemicist]

90. I think you and Lakoff are correct...

But only in the short term.

The "9/11" frame is losing it's power. All that really happened from the Rove dustup is a bit of media attention, but it's not moving public opinion. And neither did Bush's speech.

Americans want to see progress. We are a nation of doers and we are getting frustrated with the lack of success in Iraq. We see no progress. So linkage with 9/11 and all that rot will have less and less effectiveness as a frame for the neocons.

All Rove and Bush were effective at doing, was to buck up their own supporters, by pointing out the alternative was the "dreaded liberals". The Dems and independents don't fear that option.

Where Lakoff is correct, is we have to immediately turn that GOP frame into our frame. Perhaps with a response like, "We know Iraq and 9/11 aren't connected in any way. That's really not the question. The question is, when will this administration be held accountable for our lack of progress in Iraq? We need a timetable, a road map for Iraq, goals that will lead to a stable Iraq and a withdrawal of American Forces. America can't endlessly waste our blood and treasure on this mislead conflict in Iraq".

You have denied the 9/11 frame and switched it to the frustration with Iraq frame. That's what Lakoff is talking about. Our frames must dominate our talk.

It drives me nuts to hear our Congressional leaders repeating GOP frames, like "tax relief". Relief from taxes means taxes are an undue burden, rather than the necessary price of patriotic citizenship. They should respond by talking about "tax fairness" and relief for the poor and downtrodden.

It's not hard, but you have to learn the framing techniques that Lakoff teaches us. Dr. Dean knows them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Why isn't the DNC hiring that man as a full-time consultant to

run assertiveness and framing seminars for Dem elected officials?

[Larkspur]

26. Dean wrote the forward to Lakoff's book "How not to think of an Elephant?"

and he is a disciple of Lakoff's "re-framing" theory. Dean is putting into action for the DNC what Lakoff wrote.

Lakoff has addressed Dem leaders in Congress and at the DNC, but he's a professor of linguistics and his Rockridge Institute is like a think tank for Dems on framing.

[Tux]

52. Posible new frame

Cons love family values yet it's not really defined exactly other than being Christian. How about family principles: good paying jobs for parents so they can afford healthcare for themselves and the kids, kids need good educational services, stable and secure retirement plans, secure jobs that won't be outsourced, affordable homes for families and single people so they can have a family, and repealing SC decision that allows businesses to take away a family's home.

[mzmolly]

35. Lakoff is working with Dean, but the Dems need a national message ..

and Dean said that is one of his goals. He wants to have Democrats have a single tailored message daily like R's do now.

[Logansquare]

48. The proverbial herding cats

It troubles me that the Minority Whip has been so poor with his communication. Dick Durbin has always been a sterling legislator, but he needs to go to framing bootcamp and learn to both fight effectively and to not say things to begin with that are easily open to misrepresentation.

[kentuck]

28. He is correct about Rove's remarks...

He outsmarted the "liberals"...

[second edition]

30. This is junk! How do I contact this idiot?

Rove was just playing the only card they actually have left-9/11. We will have to wait and see if the public buys this again. Personally, I think the public has wised up. The comments by many criticizing the references to 9/11 again seem to back me up.
Why attack Kerry? He has come out with a detailed plan. I've been following the war planning very closely and I'll be damned, I haven't seen any plans coming from the Bush team. How can he claim Kerry's and Bush's plans are very similar, where are the comparisons? IMO, it won't work, trying to go total anti-war. Saddam has been clearly painted as a threat and the insurgency is raging.We need to exit gradually and save face and at least leave with a win of some sorts.The war is still a big issue. We can't keep on having the Repubs portray us as "the party of no" we need a clear detailed set of plans to counter Bush. This is exactly what Kerry did.
As for the Rove attack on Dems over 9/11, it was this type of stuff being spewed by the repubs that allowed us to be defined by their rhetoric. We have no choice but to refute it. The republicans come back at us when we attack them.
It seems to me that this guy wants us to remain complacent and he may also have a personal problem with Kerry taking some initatives and leading a fight against Bush and his handling of the war. When he states this is why Kerry lost the election, you just got to figure he has it all wrong.

[Cha]

Here..

[e-mail]

[emanymton]

92. Rove's Last Card. You Are Right.

[formernaderite]

32. Hmm Lakoff is most correct...

I never understood why the dems reacted to his statement...they in effect created a republican ad for what republicans think by repeating Roves statements. Rove was very calculating when he never mentioned the word democrat, only "liberal"....therefore any politician who became offended was automatically labeled not only a democrat but a liberal. I don't mind self identifying myself as a liberal, but I'm not a politician.

[renaissanceguy]

38. no, i think they did the right thing

but I think they needed to respond to it...had they not, the pugs would get away with saying false rhetoric (and you know what they do--keep repeating it until it seems truthful). it's like the swift boat ads--we say kerry didn't defend himself hard enough. well, if the pugs get away with bashing us over 9/11, then we look like wimps.

[formernaderite]

70. No one would have heard him say it.....

don't you get that? Rove wasn't speaking to a national audience, heck the media wouldn't have driven the story longer than one line unless the dems jumped out and screamed....which is what they did.

Okay, so we just have a wider learning curve....

[tsuki]

36. The Democrats cannot do that because they have a circular

firing range. Any Democrat that tries to take the fight to the Republicans gets bad mouthed by the Democrats. Republicans just stand by and laugh.

[ananda]

40. I don't know..

The poll numbers haven't improved for Bush..

.. people saw through Rove's ploy..

.. and just about everyone ignored Bush's Tuesday night speech, and those who saw it or read it realized its utter mendacity and inconsistency.

Yeah, Dems are still trying to shoot themselves in the foot..

.. but p e o p l e are making the difference now!

Sue

[Larkspur]

45. But Dems fail to capitalize on Bush's faults by re-using Rove's frames

While Bush's poll numbers are falling, Dem numbers are not improving much either. And it's because of Dem Leadership in Congress who fall for Rove's traps. Rove's theory is if Bush goes down, he'll drag everyone else with him.

[BrklynLiberal]

47. Don't get too self-confident. This was just the first step of the '06 Rove

plan.... and then on to '08. Polls don't really mean anything right now. What they look like as we get closer to the midterm elections will matter more.

[smoogatz]

50. Rove just sounds desperate and shrill to me.

He's basically repeating the Bushco rhetoric from '02/'03, leading up to the Iraq invasion. It's predictable: the 9/11 tie-in worked in '02/'03, but Bushco drifted away from it when their case for the Saddam/Osama connection fell apart (perhaps even they were having a hard time repeating it with a straight face). The WMD thing didn't pan out--not even a few old, forgotten canisters of anthrax have turned up, much to Bushco's amazement. The mission from God to export Democracy is no longer playing well in Peoria (sorry, God). So it's either go back to the 9/11 shuffle or plant a few drums of Reagan-era mustard gas in a bunker somewhere outside Tikrit. Rove, predictably, plays "bad cop"--in what is really a pretty silly attempt to charicature liberals as wimps--blowing out a cloud of ink to disguise Bush's retreat, and hoping Democrats will rise to the bait, as Lakoff says. Whether they do or not is immaterial, though. Bushco are both patently dishonest and arrogantly stupid, and I think the majority of Americans are beginning to catch on.

[second edition]

55. ROVE HAS LOST HIS TOUCH!

It is beyond me why everyone is pushing Karl Rove and suggesting we should emulate him. His genius began with 9/11 and will fade as 9/11 fades into memory.

[kodi]

56. dean did a good "Homey don't play dat game!" imitation last night

[BrklynLiberal]

57. See what Rove and Bush are doing? STILL trying to win support for the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3987448&mesg_id=3987471

[CWebster]

58. &^&&%$***$$$$$$$(*&^#@#!

This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.
This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.
This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.
This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.
This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.

!

[flpoljunkie]

61. F*ck Lakoff! Rove jumped the shark and Dubya's speech was a bomb!

Dems were right to call Rove out. If they had not done so, Lakoff would be the first calling them "wimps." Hasn't Lakoff notice that the American people no longer support "Bush's War."

[NYCGirl]

64. Except that Lakoff is not saying we shouldn't have responded, but that

there are better WAYS to respond.

[flpoljunkie]

67. Dems have responded and in ways Lakoff suggested. No need to trash JK!

Senator Kerry was pointing out to those who are willing to listen, that things will not get better in Iraq, if Dubya does not change course--which he showed in his speech, that he will not.

Dubya has now been called out. I would not be surprised if John Kerry does say, and not too long from now, that he can longer support staying in Iraq, without a successful plan to stabilizes the country so that we may give Iraq back its sovereignty.

[CWebster]

69. Did you even listen to his spiel on the Senate floor?

It was a disgrace after all the anticipation around here. I would've wondered why there was no breathless blow by blow or follow up, but I know why because I watched his shameless performance. Obviously Lakoff did as well.

[flpoljunkie]

72. Listened to entire speech, particularly liked his closing, quoted below.

"Our troops have fought long and hard in Iraq, and their service is something every American can be proud of. We owe it to our troops to provide real leadership that offers a plan for success. Our troops deserve better, they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice." John Kerry - June 28, 2005

[CWebster]

73. all that macho militaristic bravado

is EXACTLY what Lakoff refers to. Kerry is using Bush's frame.

but still the eyes glaxe over and wonder what the hell he is talking about...sometimes I wonder if what some base their views on is limited to that (D). Can you see how dangerous that is when that is all that defines the difference?

[flpoljunkie]

75. Our troops do deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice and a strategy

that provides a chance for Iraqis to take over the running and defense of their own country, so that our troops can come home.

I am counting on John Kerry to step up to the plate when the time comes, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, and demand that the troops to come home, if the administration refuses to change course in Iraq, so that they have a chance to succeed in stabilizing Iraq.

[CWebster]

78. sacriifice for what?

a mistake?

But no, Kerry just keeps going on about "our mission" and "our goals". The US is the occupier, the Iraqis are targeting the US and its proxy forces. We are the presence causing chaos. What do the Iraqis need a police state for? The Iraqis recognize the "defense forces" are little more than proxy forces to prevent Iraqis from striking out against the Occupier.

Bush is still lying about why we went to Iraq and why we should stay. The whole thing is one big fat criminal lie but Kerry plays along. He makes me sick.

[NYCGirl]

80. The question is, do we have a mission? NT

[CWebster]

82. Kerry seems to think so

That is the point. What is it? He talks about this freedom and democracy crap with a puffed up chest too. I always thought he was stupid; that he had the priviliges of class but that he was slow, dim. It was no surprise to me that he was a mediocre student.

[flpoljunkie]

83. With Bush, they do have a mission that cannot succeed, and a war that

could have been avoided, if Dubya had meant what he said when he kept repeating that "war was his last resort." It is now telling that (42%) of those Zogby polled since Dubya's Fort Bragg speech Tuesday, say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.

That number will only get bigger in the coming months.

Bush's rationale for going to war only became bringing democracy to the Middle East when the United Nation weapons inspectors came up with no WMD.

The mission now is to get Iraq stabilized, make sure they get their Constitution written, and get the hell out--if this, indeed, still possible. I hope so, as the Iraqi people and our troops have been through hell because of Dubya and the neocons. Of course, they suffered mightily because of the United Nations' sanctions during the Clinton administration.

[CWebster]

94. What the hell is "stablized"?

You really don't have a clue, do you? You never question, you accept all the arguments, all the terminology without thinking about it. It is ALL presented within the framework of a nobel US mission when the reality is we are the cause of the instability not the solution.

Kerry can't accept that because it is politically risky, so he scrapes together some illusion to lend some scrap of credibility to his poor decisions and unwise judgement--and he does so at the expense of party and country and soldiers lives.

[flpoljunkie]

95. You, on the other hand, have only bitterness and nothing good to say about

anything that John Kerry says or does. Kerry's plan offers the only hope that we will be able to get out of Iraq any time soon.

Stabilization means getting the Constitution written and training enough Iraqis as quickly as possible (something Bush has not done), by accepting help from NATO and the European Union to defend their own country, including their porous borders--a little help from their neighbors would facilitate this--and then get the hell out.

I also wanted to say that we owe the Iraqis stabilization of their country, after causing the deaths of ten and hundreds of thousands of them through sanctions we instigated and through this war.

This will be my last exchange with you on this topic, CWebster, as you prefer personal attacks to rational discussion.

[CWebster]

96. Bitterness,,,anger...nothing positive to say...

Is it any wonder that the talking points of the Right continue?


More of you great white savior for the poor dark and ignorant backwaters frame of reference. The cradle of civilization...has been around long enough to tend to itself without the Invaders (and slaughters of their own indigenous people), thirsty for the black gold, to heed PNAC signatories spin.

[CWebster]

65. Hasn't Lakoff noticed

that the American people no longer support "Bush's War.


Hasn't Kerry?

[ClarkUSA]

68. Wes Clark did this when he defended both Dean & Durbin in the same week

When Wes Clark defended Dean and refused to apologize for Durbin in response to Sean Hannity's pointed demand and then pivoted to focus on the real issue of what Durbin was saying, he was doing exactly what Lakoff is asking Democrats to do.

Of course, a four-star General who won the only war NATO ever waged the importance understands the importance of "stick to your guns and stay the course."

Too bad alot of DC/DLC Democrats don't have a clue.

[wiggs]

71. Rove isn't the story unless we make it so

Over and above the time it takes to dismiss Rove's comments as obviously inaccurate and disgusting spin that exemplifies how the administration will say anything and everything, any time and energy spent on rebuttal, demanding apologies, and circulating petitions BY OUR TOP DEM LEADERS is a waste of time.

I don't understand at all the effort to circulate petitions asking for Rove's resignation or apology. He's a political operative for goodness sakes! Forget about him! Responding to his baiting makes our leaders look smaller. Congressmen should not be seen in a dither about what a lower rung civilian operative is saying.

Also....Is Rove's comment more deserving of attention than any one of dozens of real issues like WMD, DSM, napalm, Abu Ghraib, deficits, environmental rape, DARFUR, Halliburton pillage, Medicare crisis, Plame, Sibel, incompetence in running the invasion, corporate giveways, etc etc? That's what I want our leaders to be upset about, organizing protests for, circulating petitions, proposing resolutions for, starting investigations for...etc.

[Dr Fate]

81. Thing is, no one but Freepers & DUers are paying attention...

Political Junkies followed the Rove melodrama, but not swingvoters or moderates.

So I dont think Rove's comments or the responses had much of an impact on anyone who's mind can be changed.

[Jane Austin]

88. I KNEW it!

I had a grinding feeling during the Dems responses to Rove that we were falling for some bait.

I wonder when we're going to get smart and just laugh at that kind of bait.

You know: "There he goes again."

Or, "Repubulicans will say anything to keep us from noticing (fill in the blank with your favorite crisis).

[emanymton]

91. Do NOT Agree With Your Assumptions

Liberals may be seen as reacting to Rove's comments (they aren't).

This posting assumes the issue started with Rove's statements. Perhaps one is making the error in thinking that Rove initiated this whole thing. Is it possible Rove was reacting to the liberals' successfully staying on messages about shrub's junta's failing ways which forced Rove to make a hugh mistake?

shrub's junta may be trying their best to get Iraq associated with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Again they failed and liberals ARE staying on message. Telling the truth is not falling into Rove's trap.



Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

[bklyncowgirl]

93. Rove's statement was a "Hail Mary Pass"--it's still in play

Opinion on this thread seems to be divided between those who agree with Lakoff's idea that Democrats fell for a Rove trap and those who think that Lakoff is wrong, Rove went over the top and screwed up.

IMHO both are right and both are wrong.

Rove personally insulting Liberals was both an act of desperation and a strategy. Democrats responding to it primarily by saying "We are not unpatriotic" was not the best possible response.

It reminds me of that famous incident where LBJ started a rumor that one of his opponents was having sex with farm animals. When asked whether it was true Johnson answered that it wasn't but he just wanted to hear the SOB deny it.

I thought that Howard Dean's response to a question about Rove's statement was brilliant. He jokinngly passed up an attempt to throw a personal insult at Rove and then went on to pound the administration for their assorted sins. One problem though--the only people who heard him do this were members of Hardball's rather small audience.

Had Dean chosen to call Rove a "son of a motherless dog" or something like that it would have hit the mainstream big time--hopefully along with Dean's searing indictment of the administration.

Maybe what Liberals need to do is throw in the personal insult along with the message they want to get out to the mainstream e.g. "Well, I could say the Karl Rove is a son of a motherless dog, but that would be getting personal and frankly that's what he'd rather have us focus on than on the record of an administration that lied to get us into a war ......."

Got to toss out the insults to get the press to listen.

[Coexist]

98. great insight.

thanks for the link