**** Guarding the Gates - MUST READ ****

[Poiuyt]

Frameshop: The Message Is Not the Frame

To Reframe National Security, Democrats Must First See How 'Message' And 'Frame' Are Different

Excellent article by Jeffrey Feldman about reframing the national security issue. He claims using the term "War on Terror" is the frame that Republicans want. He says to use the term "Guarding the Gates" is a much better frame for Democrats. He gives several steps that we can take:

Situation 1: Grassroots Activism
Situation 2: Democratic Staffing
Situation 3: Candidates Running For Office
Situation 4: Individual Citizens, Dinner Table Debates

Some key points:

1. 'War on Terror' is a Republican phrase. It traps us in a losing position. Don't use it.
2. 'Guard the Gates' is a Democratic phrase. It gives us the advantage. Use it.

**Weak on defense? Democrats would never invade a foreign country without making sure our gates were securely guarded at home. Weak on defense? We cannot be strong on defense until we see every port, every airplane gate, every border crossing as an opportunity to strengthen our national security, rather than a potential business deal.

**Americans who live hard and play by the rules deserve a government that guards America's gates to keep us secure from attacks and safe from natural disaster.

**Try saying this at the table:

"Look, I hear what you are saying, but I believe that safety and security begin with guarding America's gates. Democrats want to take every point of access to this country, every port--and every border--and we want to make sure we are prepared for whatever comes our way, whether that is a group of terrorists or the largest hurricane in history.

I believe that safety and security begins with guarding the gates."

You get the point. This is a must read for everyone.

http://www.buzzflash.com/feldman/06/03/fel06001.html

[MadMaddie]

1. This is great stuff..Thanks for the information...

[Common Sense Party]

2. So does this mean the Democratic Party will enforce our borders?

I think the party that gets serious on keeping people from crossing our borders illegally and dramatically increases inspection of containers entering our ports will win millions of in-the-middle voters.

[redqueen]

3. Thanks!

:hi:

[timbnyc44]

4. Better approach

...then those Dems who try to keep up with or out war- and fear-monger the Repubs. I think it's great that we try to re-frame the debate in a common sense manner, and one that has a more local impact on people than what's going on in Afghan and Iraq.

[Arugula Latte]

6. Welcome to DU, timbnyc44!

:hi: :toast:

[gristy]

5. I see two things when I hear "Guard the Gates"

1. Hints of isolationism
2. Raging mobs outside "the gates" - a result of the "War on Terror" and the general mayhem which bushco's policies have caused

Neither of these perceptions would benefit the Democrats.

[msongs]

7. the point is not "guard the gates" the pt is quit using repub phrases?

i agree guard the gates is kinda vague where as war on terror has a much more concrete impact.

the pt is to find something else to use that will have = impact as war on terror

suggestions for a more effective phrase?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/democratsmugs.htm

[BootinUp]

8. "Terrorist Hunt"

or "Hunting for Terrorists"

[calimary]

9. I'd do all five recommendations on this one single-handedly if I could.

I can only do one.

THIS IS GREAT!!!

DESERVES TO GO TO GREATEST!!!

Kicking this like Krazy!

"Guarding the Gates" - a WORLD CLASS framing/talking point. Much more positive and uplifting than the dark, dour, threatening, never-ending "war on terror." In a "war on terror," all we've done is flail about, unfocused, and get ourselves precisely nowhere. In "guarding the gates," it's a much more positive, pro-active, focused concept.

GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD-GOOD! :toast:

[Minnesota Libra]

10. GREAT JOB!!!! Sounds like perfect material for us......

.....thanks for posting this. :toast:

[NoFederales]

11. Guard the Gates; Lock the Doors; Neighborhood Watch;

Take a Bite Outta __________ (you name it)

Ah'd say shot da basstids, but it ain't polite...........

NoFederales

[EVDebs]

12. Stress the Ptech/GoAgile link to the White House...and 9-11 questions

still unanswered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2503075&mesg_id=2503075

Their heads will burst.

[yurbud]

15. ideas like "guard the gates" are for those who don't look at details like

9/11.

If someone had a mind for details like that, they don't need catch phrases to persuade them, they would have already thought of those 9/11 questions and investigated them for themselves.

The frustrating thing is even most fairly liberal people have a limited attention span or ability to grasp the byzantine crap going on.

But I like this "guard the gates" approach nonetheless. It sounds like actually doing more as opposed to less.

[WFF]

13. Please send this to everyone you know, especially the candidates

I'm so tired of hearing the phrase "War on Terror." A war on radical Islamics is a more accurate phrase, though the author's point about it being a war to get a foothold in the MidEast and to increase the power of the executive branch is REALLY what this is all about. It sure as hell isn't about national security.

[yurbud]

14. FRAMING DEFENSE: security or profit?

I heard Ed Schultz say "security or profit" to evaluate the port deal, and I think we should export it in a way that he probably didn't intend.

Every time someone proposes a military action, there should be a debate in Congress over whether it is truly motivated by security concerns or its just using our military to secure private profits--the ultimate expression of "socializing risk and privatizing profits."

If Democrats and the press had forced that debate before Iraq, we might not be there now (post-9/11 hysteria might still have carried the day though).

Why did we want to invade Iraq and plan to bomb Iran?

If either country had a handful of nukes (the worst case scenario) they would know that using them on us or giving them to terrorists who did would mean their country would be a cinder and footnote in history before the mushroom cloud cleared here. We have 10,000 nukes. We could wipe anyone off the map and not even miss the warheads we used. So the security argument is straight up bullshit.

By contrast, Iraq is number two in oil reserves and Iran is three. Before the war, Iraq's reserves were worth trillions. Bush cancelled the contracts with the French, Russians, and Chinese companies that had oil concessions in Iraq and replaced them with "American" oil companies.

As we have seen from their pricing after that, this has nothing to do with securing access to that oil for America. If that were the issue, we would have done what China did with Iran and the tar sands in Canada--BUY it with long term contracts.

China has a bazillionth the military we do, and no one would dare invade them because they would be impossible to occupy. And if we can't occupy a medium-small country like Iraq, why would anyone ever try to occupy a large gun nut-filled country like the US?

Defense means "guarding the gates" here at home, not sending our troops overseas to do hostile take overs for transnational corporations.


Realistically, I know most democrats don't have the balls to do this. They would either like the oil company checks and jobs swinging their way or they don't want to become the victim of a car accident, plane crash, or double shotgun blast suicide.

But we must force the debate on profit vs. security or we will see endless wars to kill people into democracy or retaliate for incredibly convenient terrorist attacks, or prevent countries from getting a handful of nukes they wouldn't dare use on us.

[EVDebs]

16. Framing defense ? We're back to 'duck and cover' IMHO eom

[alfredo]

17. K&R

I've passed this on. Thanks.