I am appalled at the sight of so many people here

[fshrink]

seeing what happened to this country as resulting from deficient "re-framing". So this is just a way of putting things? We chose the wrong ad agency? That didn't come out right? We need to lie a little better? Better pictures maybe?

What will it take for liberals to realize that we are engaged in a full-blown constitutional crisis and that there is no turning back?

[sui generis]

1. examples?

[fshrink]

14. See below...

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

2. I know what you are saying

and I agree.

[Steelangel]

3. um, I believe Liberals are ALREADY aware of that

while repukes and non-voters are not.

[katmondoo]

4. Let the Revolution begin

I want my country BACK

[zippy890]

107. I second that eom

[fshrink]

16. I said "realize"

Meaning considering it as a reality and therefore publicly acknowledging it and acting on it rather than "re-framing" the reaction's puke.

[freetobegay]

5. The 1st thing it isgoing to take is for people

Who profess to be liberal realize they are not! & let the liberals have their agenda.

[LisaLynne]

6. Framing the message is no trivial matter.

That is how the RW has gotten people to vote against their self-interests and against all logic, actually. That's not a minor matter. People don't know what progressive values are, so even if they are for environmental protections and health care for all, they don't vote with us because of the "way things are put" in the media.

[fshrink]

9. Yes it is trivial. Completely.

And worse. It plays directly into the reaction's hand.

[LisaLynne]

19. How so?

How is trying to communicate a message effectively trivial? And "the reaction's"? I don't understand what you're talking about.

[H2O Man]

20. hopefully you are joking

If not, you need to take a closer look.

[RafterMan]

22. Framing the message

is the essence of non-coercive leadership.

[blondeatlast]

96. You are completely missing the point. Read the book.

It's not at all trivial, it's critical.

Tax relief?
Flip flop?
The entire 9/11--WMD--Saddam Hussein pseudo-connectedness?

You may not like it, but this is a consumer culture, and we need to SELL our ideas.

[rodeodance]

10. you betcha--"framing" is a strategic practice that the Dems need

to improve upon.

[shance]

7. Am glad to see some others outraged!

Yep this is a pivitol time.

There are plenty of outraged citizens actually, and I think there are alot more who need us to affirm their anger, because we all SHOULD be angry.

It's the ones that aren't that Im concerned about.

[MsTryska]

8. Many of us figured that out a couple of years back....

we tried telling the truth, and umm...guess what? 4 more years.


so if the dimwitted masses need shiny objects, 2 word sentences and as much mud as you can sling, well dammit let em have it.

[fshrink]

11. Hic rhodus hic salta!

That's where the rose is, that's where to dance.

[sui generis]

17. quote from Aesop

Here is where Rhodes is, here's where to jump.

Meaning: you don't have to bring me witnesses to attest to how far you can jump. Just jump and show me!

[fshrink]

21. More than that my non-marxist friend...

Hegel does not explain what the proverb meant in its original context (without which it can hardly be understood); indeed a comment he makes about jumping over Rhodes suggests that he may not have fully understood it himself. At any rate, he then offers an adapted German version with a different meaning, ‘Hier ist die Rose, hier tanze’ (‘Here is the rose, dance here’, an allusion to the rose in the cross of rosicrucianism, implying that fulfilment should not be postponed to some Utopian future), punning first on the Greek (Rhodos = Rhodes, rhodon = rose), then on the Latin (saltus = jump , salta = dance ). Marx adopts the saying in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte , where he first gives the Latin, in the form ‘Hic Rhodus, hic salta!’, a garbled mixture of Hegel’s two versions, and then immediately adds ‘Hier ist die Rose, hier tanze!’, as if it were a translation, which it cannot be, since Greek Rhodos (despite what all the standard commentators say to the contrary), let alone Latin Rhodus, does not mean ‘rose’.
The confusion, both deliberate and inadvertent, does no credit to either Hegel or Marx as classical scholars, and the epigram loses much of its original power – as well as its original meaning – in their hands. They were evidently intent on turning it to other purposes, but it seems doubtful whether their attempts to improve on Aesop have been of much use to their readers.

[MsTryska]

23. Yeah i was thinking that was a strange

translation.


i've always known it as the aesop translation. (you're in rhodes, so jump)


does the marxist version mean the same as the aesop version?


ironically i think this was part of a fatal error with this year's campaign.


"what does he mean exactly...he voted for it before he voted against it??"

[fshrink]

24. Marxists. like me, are into "recuperation"

take existing objects and "re-framing" them (lol), investing them with a different, radical, meaning. Which also involves using sayings, formulas and the like. An "anti-copyright" type thing.

[MsTryska]

27. gotcha.

so then....why would it bother you that the DNC is thinking of doing the same thing.

[sangh0]

79. Because it's OK when they do it

but not when anyone else does.

[Sarbannes Oxley]

12. The problem is DLC/DNC is sending the wrong message.

IMHO.

They refuse to put forth a truly liberal, progressive agenda. They try to seem "moderate" and it gets them nowhere. It pisses off the true base of the party and doesn't attract any new blood.

Dean or Kucinich should have been the nominee for this party. My greatest fear is that they will still not learn this lesson and run some middle-of-the-road-hey-I'm-just-like-the-rethug-candidate person again in '08.

[The Minus World]

55. Absolutely

We need to push the Democratic party back to the point from which it originated. It has strayed so far off course that we're considering packaged candidates who champion "moderate" interests - thusly, the debate has been slowly shifted to the right over the past decades, as moderate interests have been expanded to include support for the inhumanities of the WTO, and assent to illegitimate war.

The Democratic party needs to engage itself in truthtelling as the ultimate act of rightness; it needs to become so rooted in reality that FOX news will look like the propaganda machine it truly is in comparison to the pervasive Democratic sentiment.

If the party does not make some fundamental changes, it can expect to see a mass exodus within its ranks over the next four years. Keep in mind that most people who know very little about the vote-fraud issue are thinking, "Man, the Democrats really must suck. They couldn't even beat Bush!"

[OrwellwasRight]

60. Couldn't agree more. nt

[sangh0]

77. So health care, family planning, equal pay

gay rights, living wages, and multilateralism are NOT progressive ideas?

Who knew?

:shrug:

[OrwellwasRight]

83. The problem is that that is NOT the DNC/DLC's message

they talk health care, but they don't advocate universal healthcare...
they talk multilateralism, but they support the war in Iraq
the DLC/DNC talks minimum wage, not living wage
and there is no such thing as "gay rights" and more than there is such a thing as "black rights" what we need are equal rights for all--including gays and lesbians--and what we get from the DLC is don't ask/don't tell

YES -- the DLC and the DNC are too centrist, they are not progressive and therefore do offer a clear alternative to the Repub agenda

[sangh0]

84. No, the problem is you're wrong

they talk health care, but they don't advocate universal healthcare...

They do support universal health care, and it's in their platform. You are confused. Very confused. It's "single-payer" they don't support.

they talk multilateralism, but they support the war in Iraq

No they don't. And multi-lateralism doesn't exclude war with Iraq. See the 1991 Gulf War - a multilateral war in Iraq.

the DLC/DNC talks minimum wage, not living wage

Wrong again. Kerry and the DNC platform spoke about living wages.

and there is no such thing as "gay rights" and more than there is such a thing as "black rights" what we need are equal rights for all--including gays and lesbians--and what we get from the DLC is don't ask/don't tell

Um, we're talking about the DNC. Try to stay on topic.

[OrwellwasRight]

85. There are less confrontational ways to have a discussion,

if that is really what you are interested in.

I'm not wrong. I have a different opinion. I think the DNC and DLC are not progressive enough, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

If you look at the opost I was responding to, we are talking about both the DNC and the DLC, not just one or the other. They are both currently led by Clintonites, who are avowed moderates, proud to be so, and ought to be proud to be so. They have every right to be moderates, and I have every right to say we need different leadership.

In my opinion, it does not matter what may have been printed in a multiple-page platform that voters do not read. What matters is what is brought up in debates and political ads. It takes at lot to get through to voters, so we must look at what is pushed, repeated, highlighted in ads and etc. We cannot find a stray sentence and say that is what the DNC or DLC spent time selling.

If the centrists who control the DNC/DLC are acutally for universal healthcare and living wages, nobody knew about it. What Kerry discussed in the debates and on his campaign website was a better health care plan than Shrub's but it was not a universal health care plan. He never once said his plan would cover all Americans; it would definfitely increase coverage, but would not extend to all of us.

What Kerry brought up, over and over, and what the Senate Dems tried to hold up votes for, were votes on raising the minimum wage, not to require employers to pay a living wage. There is a difference. Living wage ordinances have been brought up in places like Berkeley and Santa Monica, CA. The pushes there were big and debated heavily in the news. I saw no such debates about a national living wage.

As to equal rights for homosexuals, there were several Dems in the House, mostly DLC-types because they are from Red states, who voted for the FMA, so no, I do not think that the centrist-controlled Democratic structures came out strongly for equal rights.

Bottom line: I am a progressive, and I think the better strategy is to lean left, not center. That is an intellectual proposition, not a fact, and I think most DUers recognize this.

[Sarbannes Oxley]

87. Thanks, OrwellWasRight...

I only have Internet access at work, but I see in my absence you pretty much made most of the points I would have made.

don't forget that the margin of victory for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in nearly all of the BLUE states was significantly smaller than with the Gore ticket. so not only is a nice, moderate Democratic party not selling out in the hinterlands, but it is losing customers at home too. IMHO, if the party selects another moderate candidate who tries to look hawkish-like-a-republican-and-I-shoot-geese-too, then we may lose two or three more states in '08 (likely Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota).

This party needs to stand up and show its complete difference from the rethugs-- not try to seem like decaffeinated rethugs.

[sangh0]

88. If you want avoid confrontation, don't avoid and mistate the facts

You made a number of assertions that just are not true You said the DNC and the DLC do NOT support universal health care, when the FACT is that they DO support UHC. And in defending yourself, you repeat your habit of making up stuff to support your argument. To wit:

In my opinion, it does not matter what may have been printed in a multiple-page platform that voters do not read. What matters is what is brought up in debates and political ads. It takes at lot to get through to voters, so we must look at what is pushed, repeated, highlighted in ads and etc. We cannot find a stray sentence and say that is what the DNC or DLC spent time selling.

Umm, Kerry brought it up in the debates and in his political ads. This is another instance of your accusing others of not doing something when they actually DID do those things.

If you don't want confrontation, get your facts straight.

If the centrists who control the DNC/DLC are acutally for universal healthcare and living wages, nobody knew about it.

SO me and millions of other Dems are now "nobody" because we knew something you didn't?

What Kerry discussed in the debates and on his campaign website was a better health care plan than Shrub's but it was not a universal health care plan. He never once said his plan would cover all Americans; it would definfitely increase coverage, but would not extend to all of us.

Kerry clearly described it as a step towards covering ALL Americans. It's nobody fault but your own that you did not notice this.

What Kerry brought up, over and over, and what the Senate Dems tried to hold up votes for, were votes on raising the minimum wage, not to require employers to pay a living wage. There is a difference. Living wage ordinances have been brought up in places like Berkeley and Santa Monica, CA. The pushes there were big and debated heavily in the news. I saw no such debates about a national living wage.

And again you use your lack of knowledge to justify an accusation that something didn't happen. Minimum wage laws have been used as a step towards a living wage, and the arguments in favor of increasing the minimum wage are identical to those for a living wage.

Another inaccuracy you keep repeating is that the DLC controls the party. An assertion you have yet to provide any evidence to support, which I can't blame as the DLC's preferred candidates (Gephardt and Lieberman) both did so poorly as to suggest that the DLC is something less powerful than "in control of the DNC"

As to equal rights for homosexuals, there were several Dems in the House, mostly DLC-types because they are from Red states, who voted for the FMA, so no, I do not think that the centrist-controlled Democratic structures came out strongly for equal rights.

Not pure enough?

Meanwhile, if it weren't for the Dems, there would be no civil unions and no gay rights. No party has done more than the Democrats on this issue, which is why you don't identify any party that has done more on this issue (or the other issues you raise) than the DNC.

Bottom line: I am a progressive, and I think the better strategy is to lean left, not center. That is an intellectual proposition, not a fact, and I think most DUers recognize this.

Bottom line: Our positions on a large variety of isses are supported by a large majority of Americans, and we do not need to change them at all in any direction. We need to do a better job of promoting them and persuading voters that our positions are better than the oppositions.

IMO "Move to the left" and "move to the center" are excuses for those that don't want to admit to the errors *WE* (all of us dems, left, center, and right) have made. To continue insisting that our losses were the result of supporting the wrong positions flies in the face of the facts which show that while the majority supports our positions, the majority is NOT voting for our candidates.

[OrwellwasRight]

93. "A step towards covering ALL Americans"

is not the same as having a plan to institute universal healthcare.

"It's nobody fault but your own that you did not notice this."

Um, I did notice it; it is not the same as universal healthcare. And again, I reiterate, what the mass of the public sees is what is put out obviously in front of them: debates and commercials. If the party (or candidate) wants to bury something in a hefty document that the general public won't get a copy of and wouldn't read anyway, then, for all intents and purposes, it is not being pushed or sold as a plank of the campaign.

"Minimum wage laws have been used as a step towards a living wage, and the arguments in favor of increasing the minimum wage are identical to those for a living wage."

No, the arguments are NOT identical. The minimum wage could be increased by a considerable amount and still not reach the level of a "living wage." The proposition of a "living wage" is distinct from a minimum wage. You may not believe so, but living wage activits do. I do not have a "lack of knowledge" about Kerry's position or the Democratic party's position on minumum wage. It is unfortunate that you must resort to ad hominem to get your point across. No one is insulting you here. It is too bad that my take on the campaign (that it should have gotten out a more progressive message) is so offensive to you that you seem to enjoy insulting me.

"Another inaccuracy you keep repeating is that the DLC controls the party."

In none of these posts do I say the DLC controls the party. The DLC is a moderate caucus within the Democratic party, they have a lot of clout, and they are similar in philosophy McAuliffe & Co. who currently run the DNC.

"SO me and millions of other Dems are now "nobody" because we knew something you didn't?"

You didn't "know something didn't." I avidly watched and participated in the campaign. I know what Kerry advocated for, and it was not either universal health care or a living wage. Also, you are clearly smart enough to understand that the phrase "If stood for , nobody knew it," means they didn't get their message out to the voters. It clearly does not mean that LITERALLY NOT A SINGLE PERSON KNEW. It is a rhetorical device, something you are obviously familiar with.

You have a right to your opinion that the party's platform is just fine the way it is. I have a right to my opinion that we should advocate more progressive positions.

I never avoided or misstated facts.

You might want to check:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_061... (advocating a $7 minimum wage)
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care / (advocating health coverage for 95% of Americans, not all Americans)
http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html (citing two analyses that say that Kerry's plan would cover either 25 or 27 million of the current 45 million Americans without health care)

Your post does not leave me hopeful that you ever wanted to engange in a meaningful discussion. Feel free to continue to use demeaning and flame-bating language toward me if you like. I think I have made my position clear to anyone who might choose to read my posts, and I feel no further responsibility to respond to you.

[sangh0]

94. So now you change your story

""A step towards covering ALL Americans"" is not the same as having a plan to institute universal healthcare.

You complained that the Dems did not support and did not speak about UHC. Now you complain that they don't have a plan to institute it.

The honest thing to do would be to admit that you were wrong and the Dems have been supporting and speaking about UHC.

Um, I did notice it; it is not the same as universal healthcare. And again, I reiterate, what the mass of the public sees is what is put out obviously in front of them: debates and commercials.

So can you identify the ad or debate where bush* said that Saddam was involved in 9/11, because a majority of his voters believe that?

The idea that "the mass of the public sees is...debates and commercials" is just another of your assertions that contradict reality. I think you left out campaign rallies, where Kerry and various Dems spoke repeatedly about UHC and a living wage. A living wage was a significant part of Edwards stump speech. Maybe that's why you left out campaign rallies - because they contradict your assertions.

No, the arguments are NOT identical.

Another of your assertions that contradict reality, supported by no evidence

I do not have a "lack of knowledge" about Kerry's position or the Democratic party's position on minumum wage. It is unfortunate that you must resort to ad hominem to get your point across. No one is insulting you here. It is too bad that my take on the campaign (that it should have gotten out a more progressive message) is so offensive to you that you seem to enjoy insulting me.

No insults here, just stating the facts, and you've been wrong about several points, and on at least one occassion, you've changed you argument from "Dems didn't talk about UHC" to "Dems don't have a plan to implement UHC". I admit this doesn't make you look good, but I can't be blamed for that.

In none of these posts do I say the DLC controls the party.

Again, not true. You said so in one of your earlier posts.

I know what Kerry advocated for, and it was not either universal health care or a living wage.

I doubt that. You just got done saying the public gets most of it's info from debates and ads, and you left out campaign appearances, rallies and interviews for newspapers, magazines, amd TV and cable shows. You left out ALL the places the Dems spoke about UHC.

Also, you are clearly smart enough to understand that the phrase "If stood for , nobody knew it," means they didn't get their message out to the voters. It clearly does not mean that LITERALLY NOT A SINGLE PERSON KNEW. It is a rhetorical device, something you are obviously familiar with.

I hope you do realize that "a rhetorical device" is something that is devoid of any meaning aside from it's emotional content. It's an exagerration, one you wouldn't need to resort to if you had a strong argument.

You have a right to your opinion that the party's platform is just fine the way it is. I have a right to my opinion that we should advocate more progressive positions.

Whether or not Kerry spoke about UHC and other issues is not an opinion; It's a fact, and you got it wrong.

Your post does not leave me hopeful that you ever wanted to engange in a meaningful discussion. Feel free to continue to use demeaning and flame-bating language toward me if you like. I think I have made my position clear to anyone who might choose to read my posts, and I feel no further responsibility to respond to you.

I'd be more likely to believe that if you showed a willingness to admit to the mistakes in your assertions. My posts contain no personal attacks. I only attack the assertions and opinions you've posted and I havent called you any names, nor have I said anything about your character. If you would like to avoid personalizing the debate, then I suggest you put some actual effort into refraining from making comments concerning my character, and instead stick to the issues.

For beginners, you could admit that debates and ads are NOT the only sources of info on the candidates, or the main bulk of info.

[itzamirakul]

108. I am several days late in reading this...

thread, but I just want to say that up to this point in the discussion, I am one who certainly agrees with your position. Please keep posting more of you thoughts on this line. It is quite informative and interesting and most important - it is so clearly stated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The Democrats could resort to just telling the truth. Naaaah..too risky.

They will resort to the usual doubletalk, "We're not liberals.", "We believe in bipartisanship", "Universal Health care is not socialized medicine", "We really like guns", "We're against welfare cheaters", "We only want to go after crooked corporations", "We realize that Affirmative Action has it's faults and we are willing to compromise", "We realize that the war in Iraq has to be won, but we just want to be more efficient", etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Throw in some "earth tones", a southern drawl, a bible, an "alpha male", a hunting trip, and voila, we have "electability"!!

Just like we did this time.

[indigobusiness]

15. Yes! This isn't a struggle to be king of the MANIPULATORS

It's not about trickery, or "just win baby".

This is a struggle AGAINST the manipulators, and overcoming the brainwashed mind-set.

Genuine ideals, ideas, and truly humane values are the way.

Frame that message, skillfully, and you can not lose.

[Kipepeo]

25. Re-framing is NOT about being manipulators

It's about doing exactly what you say here:

Genuine ideals, ideas, and truly humane values are the way.

Frame that message, skillfully, and you can not lose.

We HAVE the better ideas and values. We need to learn how to talk about them without always reacting to Republicans' terminology and framing of the debate.

[indigobusiness]

30. That was my point.

It's not about out-manipulating the manipulators.

[Kipepeo]

33. sorry! eom

:)

[H2O Man]

18. We are engaged

in a full-blown constitutional crisis. Turning back is not an option. However, it is an error to assume that the framing issue represents either "turning back," or is somehow precluded by the desperate situation we are in. One need only consider Mr. Jefferson's considerable talent in framing issues to appreciate the need to use the correct terms in order to reach the general public.

[fshrink]

26. The very second you want to "reach" the public

you are historically dead. Just do and say what you think and stand for. That's what democracy is. Not a competition of fucking communicators!

[H2O Man]

28. That's silly

It would be about the last advice that anyone could consider.

Because you mention the issue in the context of "historically dead," just for fun .... can you name a single instance that what you are advocating has been successful?

[fshrink]

29. Dean's early sucess.

It's like the snakes in the Snake Temple. Once you look for one you see them all. As to the "reaching out", I think that Kerry did an excellent job of it. No kidding.

[H2O Man]

32. You have to realize

that Dean was a very well packaged product.

[fshrink]

34. The package product was Kerry

And it's been returned.

[H2O Man]

51. Wow.

Deep.

[sangh0]

78. So Dean didn't "reach" out to the poeple?

You said when someone "reaches" out (and I have no idea why you put the word reach in quotes) they are "dead"

Dean doesn't look dead to me, so that must mean he never "reached"

[indigobusiness]

31. Perhaps framing the distinction between indoctrination and education

would be the key?

[The Minus World]

45. Right on the Mark.

I attempted to make that exact same point in another thread, and I was called a "propagandist."

The message of progressives, and the intent of most liberals, is to allow the public to make informed decisions about their leadership.

Some are maintaining that we must play the PR, marketing game that has propelled the right-wing to such heights of acheivement through deceptive practices, and my question to them was simple: would you re-frame the Democratic message at the expense of telling the truth?

Is not the true Democratic message that of pursuing the truth, and allowing an informed electorate to vote within that framework?

How far into the abyss must we follow the right-wing? Do we need a Democratic version of Karl Rove going around and starting whisper campaigns about Republican candidates? Of course not.

If we dilute our message by handing it over to soulless strategists, we will have abandoned the pursuit of truth; we will have lost our way just as the right have.

We certainly need to clean house within the Democratic party and get rid of those who assert that bi-partisanship with fascists is somehow a solution to our problems. We do not need to "re-frame" anything.

[mondo joe]

101. Who ever said "soulless strategists" should dilute our message?

There are a lot of ways to present the very same package - that is, our message. Some are more successful than others. Some are more strategic than others.

Is that hard to understand?

[m berst]

35. I too am appalled

The rough times coming will mean people suffering. The posters can argue 'til they are blue in the face about who's program is best, which candidate is the right one for 2008, blah, blah but they are so far out of touch with reality that it is frightening. The time is rapidly approaching when all of the brilliant philosophizing will be just so much irrelevant hot air. It won't feed any hungry people; it won't hide any fugitives from the fascists; it won't help any potential victims escape the country; it won't house and clothe refugees; it won't treat any sick children; and it SURE won't comfort any spirits.

Now...... if I am wrong, and there ISN'T a horrific storm on its way.... then what is the point of everyone posting endless alarmist info? We have the most documented and most analyzed totalitarian take over in history - and at the same time the least believed by the same people doing the documenting and the analyzing.

Once you have been placed in a detention camp by the authorities, you get no points for having been right in some political argument, and your survival may well depend on the very person you so gleefully destroyed because they were - gasp! - not on the DNC "team" or not tlaking abiut how we improve our image or our message.

If you think that statement is overboard and that there is no likelihood of draconian things like that happening, then why can't we all just go home, stop worrying about Bush, and go about our lives?

If none of the things we see unfolding will ever have any real impact on real people, what is the point of continuing to to talk about the coming apocalypse in agonizing detail? For amusement? I don't find it very amusing. It is frightening and disturbing.

Is it not to be in a state of mental fogginess and confusion to sit back and take pleasure at being a mere observer of the death and destruction going on, and shoving it under other people's noses, for the sole point of being able to say "I told you so" or "I was right about this all along" as though it were happening to someone else and in some other country?

"We are obliged at this time to struggle, with all the Powers with which the Constitution hath furnished us, in Defence of our Rights; to prevent the most valuable of our Liberties from being wrested from us, by the subtle Machinations, and daring Encroachments of wicked Ministers."

- Sam Adams 1771

[lthuedk]

103. We are essentially powerless at the moment.

In the hands of our party leaders are the remains of Democracy. To enliven it once again will not be a pretty process. Either the good guys have a plan or they don't.

If its the latter, then talking options here is silly.

m. berst: I don't think they get it. Yet.

[AP]

36. Welcome to Democracy. Those who get elected make the rules.

[fshrink]

39. Welcome to Banana Republic,

where financial power and shady maneuvers get you elected.

[AP]

41. Head that off by trying hard to win elections.

[KnowerOfLogic]

48. In banana republics corruption often prevents fair elections.

[AP]

50. So we shouldn't even use strategies that we know will be most effective?

I thought this was a discussion about the usefulness of George Lakoff's ideas about winning elections.

I think there is no question that Lakoff's ideas are extremely useful.

[fshrink]

57. Effective?!

What do you think that the Kerry team did? Go on a cake walk? They did just that.

[AP]

62. Actually, Lakoff himself said that the Kerry team didn't really listen to

his ideas that much. He said that he was asked to contribute a weekly memo to the campaign with his ideas. He said that a few, but not many of his ideas popped up in the campaign, but that Shrum was a difficult man to convince to use ideas that weren't his own. Lakoff also said that the Democrats act like they can take a one or two hour seminar on how to do this stuff and thats all they need. He said he had to remind the party that the Republicans have been doing the equivalent for 60 hours a week for the last 30 years.

I don't think the Kerry team was running on all cylinders as far as framing the issues effecitively goes.

And I'm really confused about your argument. In the OP are you saying that it's a waste of time to even embark on this project? But now you're saying we already did?

I'm confused.

[fshrink]

67. Kerry did reframe big time.

He basically took the democratic agenda and reframed it for the center-right masses. With a few marginal points of contention to preserve the flavor. 2004 showed precisely that reframing does not work. Or you have to reframe so much that you become a moderate republican.

[sonicx]

68. The exit polls say Kerry won on the big domestic issues

he lost on 'Terra' and 'Morals.' Kerry let Bush define everything 'Terra.'

[AP]

72. You have the father of framing saying it didn't really happen effectively,

and we have you saying a half dozen things, many of them contradictory.

I'll repeat, if you're critcizing Lakoff specifically, Lakoff has said that Kerry used few of his ideas.

[sangh0]

80. Even worse, fshrink can't identify ONE Lakoff-inspired re-framing

that Kerry used. It's another poster claiming they are right because they say so.

Kerry used none of Lakoff's ideas.

[Walt Starr]

92. Kerry did little reframing, if at all

It's already been presented. Kerry's campaign heads refused to listen to Lakoff.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

105. The US hasn't been a democracy for a while. n/t

[hiphopnation]

37. So...

an armed coup? :shrug:

[hiphopnation]

38. So...

an armed coup? :shrug:

[screembloodymurder]

40. I agree with you

it's kill or be killed.

[The Minus World]

42. Yes!

I agree with you.

Although Democratic leadership has been severely wanting, the energy building within the progressive movement over the past four years is something to be reckoned with.

It maintained a consistent message, and it's one that you hear echoed on DU as well: the mass media are lying to you through selective omission, and neither party represents the true will of the people.

Because of our acquiescence to the barbarous tactics of the right-wing; because we attempt to negotiate with a steamroller - we have been subverted. Republicans are just as interested in the "will of the people" as a rapist is interested in seeing his prospective victim's family photo album.

This "defeat" (if it was, in fact an honest defeat - which I absolutely refuse to believe) marks the end of the ruse for the Republicans: there will be no negotiating in their pursuit of their own demented worldview.

If we are going to successfully counteract this anti-Democratic, anti-American beast from extending its tentacles into everyone's lives, we must actively refuse to play by their rules.

We need to stop mourning and get angry.

[hiphopnation]

43. So

What in the way of substantive strategy, are you advocating? Many around here have been brainstorming for the past week about the best way to beat rove and the neocons at thier own game and I think there've been some outstanding suggestions and ideas floating around. *Brainstorming* mind you, not setting policy or declaring the way it should be. You don't seem to agree with the "restructuring of the debate" strategy so my question is, what do you suggest? An armed coup? Is it time to storm the Bastille?

Please offer something substantive instead of tearing down the ideas of those who are on your side.

[The Minus World]

52. A Means to an End.

Why is it that, whenever someone offers constructive criticism, they're also expected to offer an airtight solution? What's being discussed here is our approach, not our endgame. We need to work in logical order, and mourning over our failure is counterintuitive to that aim.

This becomes especially apparent when one realizes that the Democrats are all dressed for an honest game of football, while the Republican team has already drugged the referee, told the audience that our star quarterback is a child-molester, put itching powder in our jockstraps, and bribed the man who works the scoreboard.

The Republicans have effectively caged us, and whenever we attempt to regroup and try to talk "strategy," we're allowing ourselves to be duped into thinking that they'll actually play by the rules in the first place.

We need to drop our weak leadership. We need to get some people who are not afraid to tell the truth, and will tell it loudly.

[hiphopnation]

54. I said nothing of an airtight strategy

but SOMETHING would have been nice. The OP offered nothing but criticism which is just that: criticism for what? Certianly didn't have the wiff of the constructive variety.

I like your post. Very interesting points with SUBSCTANCE. That's what I was talking about. I agree we need to drop our leadership from the DNC to the Congress.

There was a post up here the other day advocating running a Southerner. I don't know if that's really a golden arrow but there's another thread right now addressing the chrstian contigent in the vote and that what christians need is a carter type and not a bush type.

But I understand the overarching aim of your post which is that repubs have succeeded in caging us in with your football analogy (pretty hilarious, at that). There needs to be a complete restructuring of the team, the makers of the uniforms, the location of the filed, and perhaps the SPORT altogether. They need to know we mean business. I'm a total pacifist. It's difficult for me to picure myself picking up a weapon but it's been less so lately.

[The Minus World]

58. I see.

I am also a pacifist. I don't believe that violence is the remedy for any circumstance that can be confronted and solved through rational means first.

When the maelstrom of upcoming scandals begins raining down upon the already-burdened shoulders of these empire-builders, I have a feeling that Americans will commence the necessary awakening to foster change.

If those matters are repressed by the corporate media, (I would not put it past them) we can still expect to see tensions rising - Bush has already detailed a much "bolder" agenda than that of his first four years, and I believe it has much to do with curbing the tide of popular dissent.

I'm holding off on buying a gun, stocking up on bicycle tires, and building a bunker in Nebraska, but a little bit of preparation might be called for.

I read a great article in The Nation which stated (and I paraphrase), "All of the movements for change in this country were not brought about simply by the will of the Democratic party, but by forces outside of the party, pushing it to pursue progressive goals."

I think that's step one.

[OrwellwasRight]

65. Can't we have both?

Can't we try to reframe smartly -- to take back ideas, concepts, and principles that have been stolen and repackaged to be Repub-only? If we don't start taking back some of the language of faith and values and morality, we are doomed to being the minority party. And, no, I am not advocating letting go of our core principles, I am talking about packaging our core values (equality, social justice, universal health care, civil rights, etc.) as the true morality and "Christian" positions that they are.

However, I also think that all this sound-biting and advertising-as-politics is destructive of our democracy. We should simultaneously work for reforms in campaign finance, election procedures, and the primary system. These will help recover our democracy to some extent.

Finally, and I believe this won't happen until our primary system is fixed, we need a true visionary for our standard-bearer. I agree with the posts that say we have to present a true alternative, a progressive leader. Think about the heroes of our party: FDR, RFK, MLK, Jr. They were not the result of focus groups and a primary system that weeds out all but the most milquetoast candidates.

We need someone loud and proud. Someone committed to a vision of a bright future, a true leader, who is not afraid to "offend." True leaders do offend. Do we think Gandhi would have gotten anywhere if he refused to take positions on controversial issues?

In sum, I say we need both: framing for the real situation we find ourselves in and visionary, bold leadership for the ideal world we want to create.

[sonicx]

44. great, since there's no going back, no sense in running a candidate in 08

[The Minus World]

47. No, there is no sense in that

when neither candidate accurately represents the change needed to restore America from the shambles of Bush's reign, the full destructive capabilities of which we have yet to endure.

No, there is no sense in that, when given the choice between two candidates, America is not even allowed to democratically select the lesser of the two.

If you believe that we are living in a Democracy right now,- after George W. Bush was selected by the moneyed class who worked so diligently to defraud enough of the population to swing the election in their favor and give their guy a mandate - and you actually believe that we will be able to affect change working within the rigged system created for us by Republicans, you are wrong.

[hiphopnation]

49. so your solution is....

get mad?
get a gun?
buyout Diebold and run it into the ground?
post infinitely on DU?

Where do we start?

[The Minus World]

53. All of the above.

n/t

[sangh0]

81. IOW, MagicalSpork has no alternatives to suggest

All he offers is criticism and defeatism. Look through his posts where he responds to people who ask for his alternative. He has no plan.

[fshrink]

61. We start by acknowledging that

our institutions, and that includes our constitution, need to be rethought from ground up. That's not the way of winning 08, but that's doing the fucking liberal job! We'll lose allright, but I'd be more than glad to lose for a cause and not for a tie of the wrong color or for a "message" that was not pallatable enough to be swallowed by the largest number. And then our children will win.

[AP]

63. What sort of consitutional changes do you think we can make without...

...winning elections?

[fshrink]

64. As long as you don't put your issues out

you are on ennemy's ground. You can't win on ennemy's ground. I'm saying that the liberal ground has to be defined first, which it isn't. Then you fight for it, you lose for it (instead of for nothing as is the case here) and eventually you win on it. You use your life to further your cause not to *win*.

[AP]

66. You said we need to make constitutional changes first. What changes?

And if you're saying the liberal ground has to be defined first, well isn't that the same thing as saying the liberals need to frame what they stand for better? Isn't that what defining liberal ground would be?

And what do you mean by fight? Do you mean you campaign and win elections? Or do mean something else? What do you mean? Do you mean die?

[fshrink]

74. I'm happy to see that you begin to get it

Yes, it is about framing and not re-framing. It's not about repackaging the democratic poptart, it's about defining what the real historical issues are. And I don't mean inspecting the containers or importing meds from Canada. I mean, for example, reconsidering the status of corporations, "who" are currently considered as persons, reconsidering the electoral system in its entirety, reconsidering the structure of the media, who are not independent, reconsidering the ambivalent nature of the separation of church and state in this country (In God We Trust but we're a secular democracy), reconsidering the protection of privacy, including whatever happens in our bedrooms, reconsidering the meaning of solidarity, etc, etc... I'd rather talk about that than scratch my head to find better fucking words to say 90% of what the reactionnary in front of me is saying.
Fight means fight and, yes, that would mean political death for some.

[AP]

75. None of that is incompatible with following Lakoff's advice and winning

elections.

[sangh0]

82. Which is why fshrink won't say how Lakoff is incompatible with the truth

fshrink can only CLAIM that it's incompatible with the truth, and that Kerry "re-framed"

But fshrink has no evidence to back it up. Just anger and negativity

[fshrink]

86. You're on the wrong thread here!

I have no clue who your Lakoff is. I don't think I care either. But I apologize if I have hurt your feelings by saying something that might have been taken as the claim you mention. You're right on something though: anger and negativity. I do claim these.

[sangh0]

89. Then why did you say Kerry did what Lakoff suggested?

.

[sonicx]

70. what happened to "there's no turning back"?

[H2O Man]

71. I hope he puts in the

statement about: "The package was Kerry. And it's been(sic) returned." Puts that old Thomas Jefferson to shame. Just hope that no political hack tries to edit it. Don't ever change.

[mother earth]

46. I agree, we have nothing to change, we speak for truth,

justice and the American way. Nothing wrong with that, no need to re-group...we need to straighten out the voting system is all, and go from there. Our message is clear, we love God and countrymen. More patriotic than ever, that's why we care so much about who our leader is & that our voices are heard. Moral values are always at the base of all we believe in. The people that are saying this isn't so don't have a clue.

[mondo joe]

100. Our message is CLEAR? If Kerry had it to do over again he'd have

Our message is CLEAR? If Kerry had it to do over again he'd have voted to approve the war AGAIN?

That's clear?

[DuaneBidoux]

56. I would call it a Cold Civil War

Let us hope it stays cold.

[Duncan Grant]

104. That's exactly what Al Gore called it last year. n/t

[reddogbluedog]

59. thats a little harsh

[noiretextatique]

69. amen

i was just having lunch with two very intelligent, very liberal women today who have decided to stick their heads in the sand and "respect" the continued fascist takeover. i won't be seeing them again anytime soon.

[jdj]

73. will you marry me??

just kidding, wish I was as eloquent as you!! "we chose the wrong ad agency"..Gorgeous.

I try to get that point across (about the fraud) and I just piss people off.

[fshrink]

76. As a matter of fact, I could marry you!

Thanks everyone for a nice exchange! It's dark and cold in WY and I'm gonna drink a little red wine. To the health of our children.

[mmonk]

90. I agree we as a country are way off course

and the Dems cannot co-opt the very things that are causing the problems, whether constitutionally or in the areas of economics and foreign policy. Unfortunately, most Americans are unaware the rise of the EU and the virtual control of world trade and monetary policy it has. It will use its "soft power" against our "hard power" (military) to check us harder if we don't now turn away from the neocon dream of world domination through military force and instead use it as defense. We are looking at some real bad scenarios if America doesn't turn away from this radicalism that is seizing control of our government institutions. Nothing needs to be reframed. The truth needs to be told to the American people in time to ward off worst case scenarios. Nothing from the extremist positions need be co-opted by the Dems.

[Walt Starr]

91. Ya know, I think a lot of people in this thread didn't do their homework!

Please, read Lakoff first, then make comments about how to frame or reframe the debate, or even whether sucha notion is even necessary! I suggest Don't think of an elephant as the primer to what framing dicsourse is all about. If you can't afford to drop ten bucks on the book right now, you obviously have internet access so give this web site a read:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

Until you've actually explored the issue, it's pretty damn difficult to have an intelligent conversation about it.

[Cornedwine]

97. I don't understand

[tommcintyre]

98. Fight now, or it all over in 2006. read in

Simple "Math":

Evote fraud stands now + 100% evote by 2006 + no more exit polls = Bye bye Democracy!

FIGHT BACK! Before its too late!

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud.htm

[mondo joe]

99. Then prepare to be further appaled, because the framing IS IMPORTANT

Do you know why companies spend billions of dollars on communications and promotions?

Because it WORKS.

Do you know why repubs who do the same have power? Because it WORKS.

[tommcintyre]

106. NONE OF THAT MATTERS IF YOU "COUNT" THE VOTES

Control the count, control the outcome. (Stalin paraphrased)

[bobbyboucher]

102. I'm with you.

100%.

[tommcintyre]

109. kick