Dean: We Were Framed

[renaissanceguy]

Dean: We were framed

Democratic chairman Howard Dean said in a Minnesota visit that while the party is right to defend a woman's right to have an abortion, it is wrong to defend the procedure as a moral issue.

Dean: “I don't know anyone in America who's pro-abortion. If I could strike the words ‘choice' and ‘abortion' out of the lexicon of our party, I would. The debate and the difference between the parties is, we believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, and they (Republicans) believe that Tom DeLay and the boys in Congress should be making up that woman's mind.”

More: “The person who frames the issues … wins the debate, and they (Republicans) have been kicking our butt for a long time because we have not framed the issues ourselves.”

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/11457123.htm

[xray s]

1. He's got that right

They are "pro-life"? What is the opposite of that, pro-death? If anyone is pro-death, its war mongering, health insurance withholding, smirking death penalty advocates like George Bush and his weird religio-fascist wingnut base.

[ooglymoogly]

92. finally someone who understands the explosive value of

WORDS

[patrice]

2. Amen to that!

The key is: whose decision is it? All women are stakeholders in the answer to that question.

And incidentally, that question/answer also relates Schiavo-types of "life" questions.

[4_Legs_Good]

3. Nice Dean!

It's great to have one fighter on our side!!! (wish it were more than one - well, a handful)

david

[AuntiBush]

30. Go Dean!

4_Legs_Good... sorry for your kid! Cute pict!

:hi:

[MindPilot]

4. Dr Dean is probably the most qualified man in politics

to speak on this issue.

[sellitman]

34. Qualified?

Heck...he should be President Dean.

:patriot:

[gratuitous]

Yeaaaarrrggghhh!

Spot on! Do you suppose that the media outlets will acknowledge what Dean has said, and will begin watching their reporting so that it doesn't parrot Republican talking points about framing issues?

Obviously, no. But if the Democrats start hitting on this point, and keep hitting on it, there's a chance for change. And the only way that's going to happen is with a coherent plan, right from the top.

I like Dean more and more as party chairman.

[Zynx]

5. Good - I really doubt people think of abortion as a "happy fun process"

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. I doubt it, too,

but neither is it universally regarded by women as some kind of tragedy.

It's a procedure. A medical procedure that's between a patient and her doctor.

That's it. All the emotional crap that's been dredged up doesn't hold when someone actually speaks with women who've had abortions. It's nothing but inflammatory.

[Adelante]

57. I would say nobody likes it

But you are right, the tragic air this medical procedure has taken on is bogus. Some women, I imagine, do suffer emotionally afterwards, for whatever reasons they have, but almost all I know did not.

[The Flaming Red Head]

81. I agree with your take on it

My tragedy would have been a back alley and I would have chosen that if a safe alternative hadn't been available.

[bklyncowgirl]

42. That's where the framing comes in IMHO.

The right wing takes statements from a few extremists and loudly applies them to anyone who is in favor of legal abortion. Whoever came up with the term "pro-life" was, frankly, brilliant.

I know this offends many but I've never liked the term pro-choice. This terminology worked great to gain support for abortion rights back in the days before the other side started using the term pro-life and hammered it home through relentless propeganda. When you frame it that way, which is the greater value "life" vs "choice". Well, for most people who do are not fully committed to either side of the issue--the word "choice" sounds rather facile compared to "life".

I think it's time for our side to start talking reality. Yes, abortion is an ugly thing and many consider it morally wrong but the consequences of making it illegal are uglier still and it's time to start hammering home those images as well as showing the leaders of the "pro-life" movement for what they really are.

[Adelante]

60. Actually back in the day

when they started being "pro-life," we were outright pro-abortion; pro-choice was a reaction to pro-life. At the time, I argued against allowing them to get away with the terminology, "pro-life," and advocated calling it what it was, anti-abortion. Pro-choice prevailed, however, and I grew to accept it. I'm not in a hurry to give it up now. I think we're giving them, once again, the power to determine our platform identity.

[saracat]

72. Amen!

[wakeme2008]

6. Just like the DEATH TAX call it the Paris Hilton Tax Cut and

people's views on it will change....

[Nevernose]

33. I've heard that more and more lately

Who came up with it?

[Pirate Smile]

71. E.J. Dionne had a column on it. Here it is:

The Paris Hilton Tax Cut

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A21

The same people who insist that critics of Social Security privatization should offer reform proposals of their own are working feverishly to eliminate alternatives that might reduce the need for benefit cuts or payroll tax increases.

-snip-
This is big news for the Social Security debate. Michael J. Graetz and Ian Shapiro, authors of a new book on the estate tax, "Death by a Thousand Cuts," have referred to its repeal as the "Paris Hilton Benefit Act." To pick up on the metaphor, why should Congress be more concerned about protecting Paris Hilton's inheritance than grandma's Social Security check? How can a member of Congress even think about raising payroll taxes while throwing away so much other revenue?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45305-2005Apr11.html

[Rose Siding]

7. "the difference between the parties"

We believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, and they (Republicans) believe that Tom DeLay and the boys in Congress should be making up that woman's mind."

:woohoo:

[musette_sf]

11. And if she hasn't had any mind for the last 15 years

her HUSBAND has the right to make up his mind about his wife's health care, without Tom DeLay and the boys in Congress making up that woman's husband's mind.

PS, when I originally typed the above, I made a typo and called the bastard "Tom DePay". How apropos!!

[Plaid Adder]

8. He wants to get rid of the word "choice"?

Kind of an important word in a democratic society, if you ask me.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. He's wrong on that

They're co-opted the language, and I've been screaming for years that we have to take it back and make it correct.

They're NOT "pro-life."

They ARE "anti-choice."

We are NOT "pro-life."

We ARE "pro-choice."

That's where it has to start, and that's also where it has to end. Once you let those maniacs inject the word "life" into any of it, you're allowing them to define the terrain, and that's where theology and democracy must especially be kept apart.

"Life" has nothing to do with it. "Choice" is what it's about, and, frankly, even that's stretching it a bit, in my opinion, but it's what will sell.

[ThumperDumper]

12. I agree and I like the word "choice"

because you're allowing people to choose for themselves how they feel about it instead of having the government choos for them.

It's about freedom, really.

If your beliefs are that abortions are immoral than don't HAVE one, but not everyone believes that way and should have the right to act on their own beliefs.

Our party slogan should be:
"Mind your own damn business!"

[Adelante]

54. I agree

I'm with him in general on this and understand where he's going with it all, but the word "choice" is ours and we should keep it. I don't see how, as words, "choice" and "abortion" carry the same weight at all.

[piece sine]

91. why do you say "choice"

when the word is "abortion?" Progressives should never have adopted that stupid, spineless description "choice," as if it was a decision between chicken or fish on a menu. From the start, we should have defended the surgical practice of terminating pregnancy clearly, forcely and without blinking. Pretending all along that it was merely a "choice" only enraged and engaged the enemies of a more progressive social contract.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

106. You think the word "choice"

means "abortion"?

No, sorry. That's so wrong, I must reply.

It's choice. That might mean choosing to have an abortion, or it might not.

In your terminology, it makes abortion mandatory, and that's as wrong as making it illegal.

[silvermachine]

127. Nice RW talking points...

...dressed up in your usual "this makes 'us' look bad" spin. I can't believe you are still on this board.

[The White Tree]

123. Pro-Life is a misnomer

At least from the Republican leadership position. A party that beleives in war as the answer to world problems and the death penalty is not pro-life.

More relevant - Many beleive that the life of the fetus is more valuable then the life of the mother that nutures that fetus. Pro-Life would not make that distinction.

One might call them - "Pro-Fetus" or "anti-woman".

[iconoclastNYC]

126. "Reproductive Freedom"

We must cast the anti-choice push as merly the first battle in theocons war against reproductive freedom.

Thier next battle is birth control pills. You can see this brewing with the pharmacists.

Next up will be the battle against condoms. They preventing life and subvert god's punishment for sinners who fornicate: death by AIDS.

[TahitiNut]

15. Why not "pro-conscience"?

:shrug:

[KittyWampus]

31. Why Not "Pro-Family Planning" or Pro-Reproductive Freedom"?

:shrug:

[Justitia]

136. I once heard Dean say he was "pro-WOMAN" (as in "individual")

and I thought that was spot-on perfect.

He said he was "pro-WOMAN", and pro-whatever she determined was best for her personal medical decisions.

I agree 100%. I will ALWAYS support WHATEVER a woman decides to do in her own personal life about her own personal reproductive decisions.

The other side might not like it - tough shit. The woman comes first in my book.

[Politicub]

48. That's a pretty big word

Truly. It's abstract. I bet many people would find it difficult to define. Dean has masterfully framed the issue correctly -- it's not about abortion, it's about a woman's freedom to control her own body.

My hope is that the GOP has become too ambitious with its pushing of all things right wing and authoritarian, which opened up a rare window of opportunity for Democratic ideas.

[Seabiscuit]

40. He didn't suggest getting rid of the word "choice". He merely spelled out

what the word "choice" in this context means: "we believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care."

Making up one's mind is an act of choosing.

[Adelante]

55. He surely did

"If I could strike the words ‘choice' and ‘abortion' out of the lexicon of our party, I would."

As I said above, I'm good with where he's going with this, just puzzled about what he thinks is wrong with the word choice as if we call it something else it's going to mean something else.

[Seabiscuit]

84. You're right. How did I miss that????

Sometimes Howard's arguments do become a bit convoluted. That's one of the things that ultimately undermined his presidential bid. That and sticking his foot too damned deep in his mouth too many times.

I didn't know back then that he was dyslexic. So I give him more leeway with his words these days.

OTOH, he's a good, principled, and well-intentioned man.

[Adelante]

85. Yes, I think so, too.

"OTOH, he's a good, principled, and well-intentioned man."

[Kipepeo]

68. Agreed - there's nothing wrong with pro-choice

I like the basis of what he saying - we can't let them frame it, but i think it's silly to do away with the term pro-choice because that IS the essence of his long version: "we believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care.." That's called pro-choice, unless we have a word ready to replace it with.

It's a shame but the reality is that people don't have the attention span to focus on the essence of an idea when it takes more than one or two words.

Part of framing is getting across the idea in as few words as possible - in a brand, so to speak. I can't think of something that describes "we believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care" better than pro-choice.

Frankly, I think where the framing comes in is when Democrats *accept* their bogus 'pro-life' terminology. Look, if they're talking about their personal beliefs then pro-life is fine, but when describing a political ideology, if they want to ban abortion - that's called anti-choice. And we need to stop being afraid of calling it what it is. Personally I would feel a lot better if I never again heard an anti-choice political position being referred to as "pro-life" by a Democrat. Every time we use that word to describe an anti-choice political position we are reinforcing THEIR language and THEIR bogus frame on the issue.

[Plaid Adder]

97. The problem isn't just with the framing

Pro-choice is a perfectly good term; maybe we could call it "pro-freedom" or "pro-liberty" and that would set off the Pavlovian bells better, but the bottom line is that this is not just about what you say, it's about how loud you can say it. They win, not because they're necessarily so much better at htis, but because they ahve a bigger microphone. Till we pry the MSM out of their cold hard grip, we can frame till the cows come home and it won't make a difference.

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[MaineDem]

13. The link requires registration

Is this the same issue we discussed earlier this week?

[UpInArms]

19. try this

www.bugmenot.com

:)

[area51]

20. registration

People don't have to give up personal info in order to read articles online -- try the Bug Me Not website for free logins/passwords.

[BootinUp]

14. Good message and strategy

Not at all unlike Hillary's comments a several months ago.

Howard will do us proud. :)

[sallyseven]

58. They went after Hillary like

she was turning anti abortion. She wasn't. I believe that abortion should be used sparingly. I also believe in contraception for everyone. Dean is great and so is Hillary. Lets get the democrats to get a little fire in the belly.

[Triana]

16. He musta read Lakoff..

...and if he didn't then he ought to!

[Strawman]

22. I think Dean wrote the foreword to Don't Think of an Elephant

If my memory serves me correct, so he definitely gets it and buys into Lakoff's ideas.

[Triana]

25. Cool...

...I don't have it yet, so didn't realize that.

[muchacho]

46. yep

he did.

[GOPBasher]

17. He's definitely right about the Repubs framing the debate. n/t

[Kashka-Kat]

18. OK I'll be a pro-choice democrat

Yes-- abortions safe legal and rare, sounds good.

I'd even go along w/ making abortions virtually illegal IN THE CONTEXT OF a more sane culture which 1) embraces human sexuality wholeheartedly, 2) has developed contraception which is safe, ethical, easy to use & available (weve sent people to the moon and STILL don't have decent contraception?? what gives??)

and 3) truly embraces and loves cares for women and children such that a women could be more supported in her choosing to give birth to the child.

It really is NOT good to have to abort or feel one has to abort. Hey, what can I say I'm someone who's cried buckets at the animal shelter over sick kittens being euthanized. I cant help but think a woman who chooses to abort her fetus aka "baby" must be in a very sad desparate situation indeed.

I'd be very excited if we could frame the debate like this--- the idea of a "pro-life" stance which unabashedly embraces sexuality and taking responsibility for ones sexuality. I actually think its the f***ed up cultural weirdness about sex/sexuality which is creating most of these abortions in the first place... people not taking responsibility for their actions bc they're so psychologically divided about sex...

Yeah,lets get visionary!!!

[hootinholler]

36. I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-privacy!

Really that's what this and so many other issues boil down to, keepin da gubmint's nose outta peoples bidniss.

The choice to have an abortion or accept responsibility for a new life, or living will, or who you have sex with or ..., well you get the idea.

The republicans are anti-privacy!

-Hoot

[Clarkie1]

101. Pro-privacy is an excellent reframing. n/t

[hootinholler]

104. Hey Thanks,

I didn't think anyone noticed. I think we need to get this frame forward as it combats a host of frames. When we are hit with why are you anit-freedom we can hit back with I'm not, why are you anti-privacy?

-Hoot

[grace0418]

37. It's an uphill battle though

Even my mom, who hates Bush and has always voted Democrat, is still really screwed up on the choice argument. She's Catholic and cannot bear the thought of someone having an abortion, but neither is she willing to accept sexuality for what it is. The other day she even said to me "Well tv and movies all treat sex like it's a natural function of the human body." I was completely dumbfounded by that statement. I couldn't even respond with "Uh, if it's not a natural function of the human body then what is it?" Generations of people, even on the liberal side of things, still see sex as something dirty, taboo, and shameful. That's a lot of teaching to undo.

[bonzotex]

56. good points, except "virtually illegal"

How about virtually unnecessary? It shouldn't be hard to get contraception or if necessary an abortion. Dr Dean has always been clear and smart on this odd debate. The progressive stance here doesn't require mental or moral gymnastics.
Essentially, The abortion debate at heart is a civil liberties and health care issue. You can't get any more personally invasive than government taking away control over your own body. That's pro-choice. Simple. Women have the right to control their body. Period.
With personal liberty also comes some personal responsibility, but we have a social responsibility too. It may be irresponsible to "accidentally" get pregnant but how responsible is it to bear and raise a child with no realistic expectation that that child will have health care, education and an environment where he or she can thrive?
The debate should be easy, "Abortion, safe legal and rare". We keep it rare by providing at least a minimum of education and resources. You can't love the fetus more than the resulting child.
Pro-choice is pro-life.
The moral issue for Progressives is to work for a country in which sexuality is not demonized, sex and sexual health education is sane and universal, good health care is provided for potential parents, parents and children. When Americans have access to reality based education, health care, contraception and reasonable resources for women who choose to bear unexpected children, then abortion rates will plummet. This is Dean's point and should be a no-brainer.
Forget trying to make anti-choice fanatics accept open discussions about sexuality. The fundies will never accept a culture that embraces sexuality as natural and good. Nor will they ever accept that women have an inherent right to make the decision whether to carry a child or not. The anti-choice position is mainly religious in nature and based on a repressive idea of sexuality. Progressives should simply ignore christo-fascist whining about sexuality and morals. Point out it's irrelevant until they are willing to support realistic education and health care for our children. Carrying a healthy child to term and raising the child to be a healthy responsible adult is pro-life. Until America provides the resources to all Americans to make birth and child rearing less of a crap-shoot, there's no point in even considering any restrictions on abortion.

[UpInArms]

21. you go, Howard!

a lot of it started here:

http://www.littlepiggy.net/advertising/newt.php

Newt Gingrich and GOPAC

One of the most famous recent examples of using vocabulary to subtly alter an audience's perceptions of something was provided by Newt Gingrich - a Republican United States Congressman who, in time, rose to become Speaker of the House of Representatives in the mid-1990's. Mr. Gingrich was, of course, well known for a number of things but one of them was for a memo that was circulated by his political action committee (GOPAC) to a number of brand-new Republican Congresspeople in 1995. The memo provided instruction on choosing words carefully in order to create positive associations toward the Republican party and negative associations toward the opposing Democratic party. The memo can be found in a number of places on the World Wide Web including, http://www.fair.org/extra/9502/language-control.html, http://vander.hashish.com/books/propaganda/newt.html, and http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/newt.htm. The copy that I show below comes from http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/GopacMemo.html. The memo's title is Language: A Key Mechanism of Control and reads as follows:

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

...more...

[Deja Q]

23. We were framed even before then.

I never understood how one small action could mean the downfall of a popular candidate, raising a far more obscure one to instant stardom.

[suziedemocrat]

24. I SO agree with him - do we want to legislate morality?

I think Republicans DO. I actually think people shouldn't have casual sex - but I DON'T think that should be a law. I'm a non-drinking, non-smoking, vegetarian - but I don't think we should outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, or meat. And second hand smoke KILLS people - so you COULD make the case that smokers are killers! And - don't flame me - but i think SOME people might have problems with homosexuality - so what - let them - but I don't think - if they are smart - that ANYONE would want homosexuality outlawed - or to deny rights of any kind to homosexuals. Let them have their moral outrage - who cares. But - legislated morality is WRONG!! Where does it end? Do we stone to death adulterers? Morality is a very, very subjective, gray area - prone to very individual, and sometimes nutty, ideas. We could go crazy if we started passing laws for moral behavior. Do we want to arrest 13 year olds for masturbating? Do we want a limit for how much time someone can spend looking in the mirror? I mean vanity is a sin - right?


On another note - abortions went DOWN when Clinton was in office. Funny how crime, abortions, etc. go down when the President focuses on the economy instead of starting wars for no reason what-so-ever!!!

[Ilsa]

26. I think Dr. Dean is "Home".

I like him heading up the DNC. He's known, he's out there talking the language intelligent people relate to, telling us how the GOP has turned a semantics issue into a moral one. Let's hope the sheeple are out there listening.

[KaliTracy]

27. Reproductive Rights, Reproductive Freedom. n/t

[Joey Liberal]

28. Dean is right!

We should have nominated him in 2004.

[wellst0nev0ter]

29. But, But, He Sealed Gumbmint Documents In Vermont

And-and, he was involved in that thing with the insurance companies

and-and he was skiing during the Vietnam war

and-and he had "too much anger"

and-and he beats his wife . . .

*searches through past Scaife-funded Howard Dean flame threads for more dirt* :eyes: :eyes:

[saracat]

74. Not talking this way. How could we support someone who wants to camoflage

support of abortion rights and doesn't even want to use the word "choice"let alone "abortion"? Who is that going to impress? The Republicans? We don't need their votes! Why don't we try for some Dem votes for a change? What a concept!

[Brianboru]

78. You are right on target

The republicans will always frame it as killing a baby. Changing names will not work or change their minds.

[iconoclastNYC]

128. We don't have the change thier mind

We have to change perceptions in the mainstream and get our frames into the mainstream media. This requires discipline and that's what Dean and Lakoff are trying to accomplish.

Read: "Don't Think Of An Elephant"

[Brianboru]

135. Reframing the issues to what?

Help me understand how this will work –
1.We no longer say we are pro-choice.
2.We don’t say we are pro-abortion
3.We say it is wrong to defend the procedure as a moral issue
4.We don't know anyone in America who's pro-abortion

The other side says the same things! They aren't that stupid. I don't see the message.

[iconoclastNYC]

137. The message: Democrats are for reproductive freedom

Republicans want the government and the clergy to make your reproductive choices for you.

That's framing. It's not hard.

[Brianboru]

141. But what's new with that?

And we can't use "choice"

This is too nuanced for me.

[ovidsen]

32. applause applause!

Dean has so much common sense. And the posters here pointing out that the GOP has commandeered the language are so spot on.

Anti-abortion becomes pro life. Yeah, who's not pro life?

Estate Tax becomes death tax. Brilliant!

And so on.

We must frame the debate by nailing the language if we are to win.

[grytpype]

35. Finally, someone talking sense.

We are so lucky to have Howard Dean.

He is smart and he wants to beat the living shit out of the Repugs.

And we are now in a position to do some real harm to those assholes.

Bush is finally hitting the wall on his approval / wrong track numbers.

The Congressional leadership is under fire.

They have been on the wrong side of 70% percent of public opinion on their biggest issues this year: SS privitization, the nuclear option, and Sciavo. A majority is also against them on Iraq (not worth it). They are tottering.

[wickerwoman]

38. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face,

abortion would have been obsolete years ago if this was about defending the fetus's life and not controlling women and punishing them for having sex. In an era of test-tube babies, cryogenic freezing, surrogate mothers and life support that can keep 5 month old premies alive how far away is technology that would allow women who don't want the kid to give it up and some other woman to carry it? And where is the funding to develop this kind of technology if abortion is such a pressing moral crisis in America today? Why don't the fundies who are spending so much time and money to stop abortion just pay to cryogenically freeze unwanted fetuses until we've developed the technology to implant them in donors?

I agree that we don't need to get dragged into the moral debate (although I don't believe we need to cede ground there either. There are women who have abortions and don't feel particularly bad about it and I don't think we need to try to shame them into feeling bad about it.) We need to point out the Republicans' entrenched hypocrisy on this issue and show that abortion really is a mountain made from a molehill.

[gtar100]

39. I don't think they'll get it

Repugs are stuck in the patriarchal idea of force and punishment to make right. Their knee-jerk reaction to both sex and abortion is "it's wrong and we must punish those who do it". It's prevalent in all their policies and practices. No concept of "getting to the source of the problem" but instead they bash away at the symptoms.

[Brianboru]

142. You are so right

about not giving any ground on the issue.

[Brianboru]

143. Hillary called it a sad tragic choice

During her January speech to abortion activists, Clinton said there is "an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate."

The former First Lady said Americans should agree that "we want every child in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved. We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic, choice to many, many women."

The RW make women feel bad enough.

[saracat]

149. Hillary's word choice was abominable! "sad and tragic" ?

No one refers to most other medical procedures as "sad and tragic" ! Tragic is horrible. Democrats support sad and tragic procedures? Whoa! What should be considered "sad and tragic" are all those women who die are have their lives ruined as a result of having to bear children they don't want! Now that is "sad and tragic".

[saracat]

41. Personally . I think this is lame.

And I don't understand the watering down of the issue. I am embarrassed that our Chair would want to strike the words "choice and abortion"out of the lexicon of our party.I am proud of both words ,but I am a liberal and Dean obviously is NOT. And I believe in the word "liberal and I don't believe in pandering verbally to those who find "abortion and choice" offensive. They aren't going to vote for us anyway. I say get the 79 million who didn't vote ,instead of catering to semi freepers. Damn. We might just as well have had Rosenberg as Chair. Who knew Dean would be classic DLC moderate? He is as bad as Hillary.I am sickened. Flame away. This is my opinion.

[JNelson6563]

44. Imagine! Trying to seize control of the discussion

from the Rethugs! Damn you Howard Dean!! Damn you to hell!!!

Ugh.

Julie

[Cha]

66. I know..it's amazing what

sickens some people! And their using hyperbole doesn't help the debate, either.

UnFortunately, Dean can't placate every damn Democrat in the Country..he can just go about his job that he was elected to do. With a lot of us rooting for his.. and therefore our success!
:applause:

[saracat]

73. This ISN"T seizing control of the discussion. t is letting

"them" dictate what words we choose. There is "nothing wrong" with "choice", or "abortion" for that matter. Unless you are hiding that issue. If we are, I don't want to be part of this. I am proud to be pro -choice, and pro-abortion! And "ugh" to anyone who expects me to be otherwise or be ashamed! .

[JNelson6563]

89. "Pro-abortion"....

It is unfortunate the nuances of languange and the manipulation of it are lost on you.

Julie

[saracat]

98. The nuance of language and its manipulation are NOT lost on me. I happen

to think 'CHOICE" is a perfectly fine word! And one can't mention the issue of "abortion" without mentioning "abortion". But that is the point isn't it? To sweep the issue under the rug? It is too bad those pesky woman's rights issue's won't go away and let us talk about "real issues" like security and the economy?
I guess no one notices that they have introduced yet more anti-choice legislation this week? But lets not mention it. It might upset those red state Republicans who aren't going to vote for us anyway!

[JNelson6563]

105. Here's a clue

Sure there is nothing wrong with the word "choice" nor is there anything wrong with the word "abortion". I don't think Dean is tellingus we should not speak those words.

The suggestion is to lose terms like "pro-abortion" and the like.

Now here is the clue when it comes to language: Perhaps you might have noticed that over the past (at least) 30 years the Rethugs have been on a mission to sieze the dialogue. To the shame of the Democrats we've only just sorta begon to notice in the past few years. I am almost 42 years old and I clearly recall watching the news as a little girls with my parents. I remember how the word "liberal" was parctically spat out like poison by Rethugs. The way they merely spoke the word I was pretty sure I never wanted to be any such thing.

This has been done to many words. Once a word or image is tainted (especially over the long term) there is little chance of ever getting it back. Ever.

We have ourselves to blame for the state of things. Now, we can work to change them or we can stupidly sit back and just demand the now demonized words are perfectly fine and then wonder why we remain at our current address, Political Wilderness.

And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't imply Dean or those who agree with him are the dumbassess so afraid to offend the Rethugs. Your displaced frustration makes you look uninformed and blinded by bias. You may want to look in the direction of the DLC on that topic. At least you'd be aiming at the right target....

Julie

[saracat]

109. In case you haven't noticed, Dean is parroting the DLC. That is why I

have a problem with this. I feel we should be challenging their(Republican) word choice and not acclimating our verbiage to them. And I am sorry if you are offended by my opinion. But Dean is pandering to the moderates and the Repugs. That is why he is "reaching out" . This is blurring our party identity yet further and , IMHO is not a good thing. I am not uninformed and "blinded by bias" . I resent that implication. I happen to do a lot of PR work and it is my business to know what resonates. This approach is NOT playing well. It isn't playing well with the Dems and it is playing well with the Republicans , who think we are backing down and are wimps! Believe what you want. We must agree to disagree!

[JNelson6563]

124. Agreed, we disagree.

I can't understand why the DLCers are still hammering on Dean (see GD forum if you need proof) and yet you claim he's parroting them. The two things are counterintuitive.

Julie

[Larkspur]

93. Dean is following George Lakoff's Reframing theory

Lakoff's theory is that you do not use the same terminology or words that your opponents are using to frame your debate. For example, when you tell people "don't think of an elephant," they naturally will think of an "elephant" because you used the word "elephant" in the sentence. When Democrats use "abortion" over and over again to frame the debate on "women's healthcare and reproductive rights" we are reinforcing the Republican arguments against abortion.

[saracat]

99. And Lakoff's theory is ridculous as well. He also believes in Mommy and

Daddy parties!And what is wrong with the word "choice" if you don't want to say abortion? We shouldn't allow the Repugs to substitiute "our " words for us! If we use this theory, we should be substitiuting their words for them! . Find a sub for "pro-life' and use it ! We don't change ourselves. We change "them" THAT is what they did to us!

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

133. Obviously your partisanship with a former candidate makes it impossible for

you to engage in a courteous debate. Your usage of personal attack is offensive, but points to the level of your argument. My post is not at all ignorant.I probably have more de facto experience with these matters than most posters. To term a person "ignorant" for disagreeing with your point is juvenile.
The "Mommy and Daddy" analogy describing Lakoff's theory is perfectly apt and is used in many reviews of his work.If you had read my post before reacting you would have noticed I agreed with re framing, just NOT on OUR side. We need to re frame the Republicans , not ourselves. They re framed US . They repetitively enforced themselves and their issues while"re framing" ours. Get it? The direction of the re framing is where I disagree with Dean and presumably you.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

138. One might say the same of this response! I did NOT

say Lakoff said "Mommy and Daddy" ! I said that it was an apt analogy of his theory! Please read what I wrote. As far as providing a link , what about your own post? What do you think is meant by "strict father" and "nuturing parent" ? I am only "framimg" his theory in a simplistic view. It is not my predjudice which is getting in the way of this battle. I differ in the manner that the battle should be fought.

[Larkspur]

140. You misinterpret "Nurturing Parent" to be "Mother." That is wrong

"Nurturing Parent" is gender neutral. It could mean the parent is male of female. It has nothing to do with the gender of the parent but with the character of the parent. "Strict Father" is in practice also gender neutral because mothers can behave in a "strict" or authoritarian manner, so the word "Father" in this paradigm description can be misleading.

Since you haven't bothered to read Lakoff, here is a link to a web site dedicated to Lakoff's theories. The Rockridge Institue's web site is dedicated to promoting Lakoff's theories http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/ and here is Alternet's Interview of Lakoff and his theory "Inside the Frame" http://www.alternet.org/story/17574.

Lakoff on what is a "Nurturing Parent" (from Alternet interview)

The "Nurturant Parent" model goes like this: It assumes that there are two parents involved and in charge of the family. And it has a set of background assumptions: that the world can be a better place, that it's our job to make it a better place, that children are born good and need to be made better, and that the job of a parent is to nurture his or her children, but also to turn those children into nurturers themselves -- nurturers of others.

Now what does it mean to be a nurturer? Well, two fundamental things. First, empathy. The parent has to know what all those cries mean when a baby cries. Does he need his diaper changed? Does she need to be fed? Second, responsibility. A parent has to be responsible to a child. And you can't be responsible to someone else if you're not responsible for yourself. You have to be able to take care of yourself to be able to care for someone else. Being responsible means being strong, being competent, being educated -- taking your role very, very seriously. If you want to turn your child into a nurturer, then you want to make that child responsible to others, strong, capable, educated, competent, and so on. Then there are other values that follow from empathy and responsibility. One of them is protection. If you're responsible for a child, and you care about the child, you want to protect her or him.

Looks like Lakoff is saying that males can be nurturing parents as well as females. He is right. Males can go against the patriachal taboos and behave in a nurturing.

You must be of the "Strict Father" mentality, who associates nurturing with weakeness and women with weakness, so that in your view nurturing = women(mothers). That is the typical patriarchal word association.

[saracat]

144. I misinterpret nothing. I am merely using an accepted and often quoted

analogy. I have also studied the "re framing issue " many years before Lakoff made the term popular in political circles. And if one wishes to talk of hyperbole, categorizing me as personally guilty of "patriarchal word association" , when you haven't the faintest clue as to who I am ,is silly. You may be missing the entire point of application of this methodology, if you are unable to understand the general reaction of the populace being considered. The general populace, not necessarily including either of us, is patriarchal in reaction. Only if you first accept and understand the rules can you break them.
But,whatever. I still maintain,that I am only questioning the application of the methodology, not the idea. I disgaree with applying it to ourselves. I think we should be applying it to the Republicans in the same manner they "reframed " us rather than themselves.

[Larkspur]

145. I've never heard your "often quoted anology" and I seriously doubt

that it's mainstream. Anyway your "often quoted anology" is still wrong and yes, you are guilty of "patriarchal word association." Patriarchy has be the bedrock of our culture for over 7000 years, and we are all "brainwashed" by it, but some of us, especially those of us who study feminst theories, are more aware of the patriarchal cultures influence on our psyches than others. Obviously, you are still unaware how patriarchy unconsciously shapes our views. I suggest you read feminst theorists Marilyn French and Riane Eisler.

[saracat]

148. Just google "Lakoff Mommy Daddy theory".

There is too much to even post a link. This is absolutely main stream terminology. Some of this is based on Lakoff's earlier works from the eighties. Chris Matthews has used this description for years. I am perfectly aware of "how patriarchy shapes our views" . In fact, that is why you must utilize the construction people relate to in order to communicate. You must get people to listen before you change the semantics. That is why you use established construct to communicate. You must use the established norm in order to be able to break that same norm.
And I have already read feminist theory.A bit less condescension with those that do not agree with you would be appreciated. One only demeans one's own argument by demeaning another's intelligence or experience in order to elevate their owm position.

[Larkspur]

154. Same can be said about you.

A bit less condescension with those that do not agree with you would be appreciated. One only demeans one's own argument by demeaning another's intelligence or experience in order to elevate their owm position. :eyes:

[saracat]

155. I have never reduced myself to the level of condescension

or discourtesy. I have merely disagreed with your point of view and attempted to explain why. Your personal intelligence or ability to comprehend have not been questioned. Your experience has never been in dispute. That cannot be said of all the replies to my posts. This has been an attempt at civil discourse which has failed. I am sorry about that. Peace and best wishes.:hi:

[Larkspur]

163. Poppycock!!

That's a good adjective for your self-image and what you call "civil discourse."

[saracat]

164. Finally ! Something we can agree on. Popycock is a great adjective no

matter how it is used.:) I also like "bullfeathers!":toast:

[LynneSin]

108. Oh give it up

This has nothing to do with the rights of women to have abortions and stop screaming DLC everytime it's an issue you disagree with. Personally the DLC is a little tiring especially when used against people who have nothing to do with the organization

The point is valid - what a woman does is NONE OF ANYONE ELSE'S FRICKING BUSINESS. End of discussion. Republicans have shaped this whole issue into an abortion when really the whole thing be about privacy.

Three Cheers for Dean!!

[saracat]

110. So you don't like the word "choice either?

I agree it is no one's business, but this approach is lame. And privacy is a good issue as well. It doesn't happen to be the point Dean is making!

[LynneSin]

111. choice hasn't been winning us any elections

But repukes love privacy and this is a great area to expose. If we take away the privacy between a woman and her doctor when it comes to abortion and birth control - what will the repukes go after next.

I've always felt that we have fallen bigtime with this whole issue. I remember the church I attend where I grew up. When I was a kid attending back in the late 70s thru mid-90s, not one person in that congregation every talked about abortions. And when that paster retired and a new guy came in he was SHOCKED that we weren't doing something about all those lil babies being killed. Needless to say I refuse to attend that chuch anymore. I had quit going there when I moved out of the area but I would always attend when I was visiting my mother. But she knows I won't go and she knows why. Even my mother has stop going to that church except once or twice a year to visit old friends (She attends her husband's church which is much closer) She said they're all going nuts over stuff that isn't any of their businss.

Choice has always been a personal issues. All we're doing is shifting the focus on that sentence. Repukes have played the word game for years and we've lost. We need a new way to go

[saracat]

114. Again, Lynn, I say we have to reframe "them" as they did us.

We are "reframing ourselves" and that is pointless. We must defend what we stand for and define ourselves clearly.We should be reframing them as the "pirates of privacy, and the suppressors of choice!" We cannot afford to muddy our waters! And I know what you mean about Church. I had to stop going myself years ago.And it was over this issue as well.

[Solly Mack]

43. I never thought abortion was immoral.

Just for the record...Not going to change my thinking on that either.


Spare me the rush to defensive mode...I know what Dean is trying to do and I understand what he is saying.

I'm just saying I don't believe abortion is immoral.

[muchacho]

45. Don't Think of an Elephant

nice to see the re-framing of issues.

[Politicub]

47. Right on!

This is a great start in reframing the debate to favor the Dems!

[TexasProgresive]

49. I would add-

"....we believe a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care, and they (Republicans) believe that Tom DeLay and the boys in Congress should be making up that woman's mind.” Even when she no longer has a mind. (Terry Shiavo)

[BlueInRed]

50. Completely agree

As usual, I agree with the good doctor.

[chomskysright]

51. RIGHT, Howie: now get the WAR THING right: GET OUT OF IRAQ:

nEWs from Occupied Iraq:

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=11235&s2=22

Howard Dean Becomes Leader of the Other Pro-War Party.
Dean on Iraq: “We're There and We Can't Get Out”
Kevin Zeese*
April 21, 2005 - It didn't take long, the former anti-war presidential candidate has now become the pro-occupation leader of the Democratic Party. Just when a majority of the public is saying the Iraq War is not worth it, Howard Dean the new leader of the Democratic Party is saying: “Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out.”

Like the good partisan he is Dean blames Bush for a war most in his party voted for and an occupation that most in his party recently voted to continue to fund. Of the President Dean said: “The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there.”

Chairman Dean does not seem to understand that the illegal occupation of Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In fact, the many fears he expresses regarding pulling out of Iraq are made more likely by the US occupation of Iraq.

According to an article in the Minnesota Star Tribune, Dean claims that an American pullout from Iraq could endanger the United States in any of three ways: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

From his comments, it is evident that Chairman Dean only believes in democracy if the voters support the kind of government the U.S. wants. U.S. officials find a puppet government led by U.S sympathizers preferable to what Iraqis want. Indeed, we find autocratic governments like Saudi Arabia and Egypt preferable to democratic governments that are likely to oppose U.S. interests.

[wookie294]

52. I'm pro-abortion

I think abortion is perfectly moral. Killing an embryo is not "murder" any more than killing sperm is murder.

[Mondon]

156. "any more than killing sperm is murder"

Thousands of adolescent boys relieved to escape prosecution.

[Arugula Latte]

53. Why is is that Dean is consistently one of the very few Dems

that seem to "get" it and says so publically?

[napi21]

62. Well, 1st, he says what he believes! 2nd he's not running for office.

I've been a Deniac since I first heard him speak...a LONG time ago! I liked it that he wasn't the typical "politically correct" politician, and he still isn't! I guess I do understand though, why some politicians try so hard to PLEASE EVERYONE. You can't of course, but they are so afraid to say what they really believe because it just might offend the majority, and then they lose.Actually, what I think they're doing is irritating enough on BOTH sides by their wishywashy stance so they lose anyway!

[madrchsod]

59. very true

it`s a personal matter and it is up to a woman to make the final decision. whether it is wrong or right is up to her not anyone else. if it were up to the anti choice people, women would be going back to coat hangers. there is a whole generation of people who have no idea the torture women went thru with the coat hanger method. those were not days i wish to return to...

[Nobody]

61. But the right wing IS pro-choice, and they get to be the ones to choose

I have met precious few who think abortion is always in every circumstance wrong. They'll try to dress it up with downright lies about how rape never causes pregnancies (got this in HS from a Morality class) and other nonsense, including ignoring the fact that the USA is the industrialized nation with the highest incidence of death in childbirth.

The bottom line is that any time someone makes an exception for life of mother or rape or incest, they have CHOSEN to allow some woman to get an abortion. OK, you and only you can abort. These strangers agree with your reasons. Now you have to prove that these reasons apply to you and that you're not just saying that to get an abortion.

Why should a woman have to justify to complete strangers her personal life? She shouldn't have to prove to anyone that a rape took place or that her chance of surviving the pregnancy and birth is too low for her comfort. Why should her medical records and police reports be for public consumption. Why should she have to limit her reasons to the ones the pro-choice-as-long-as-it-isn't-the-woman's-choice people find acceptable?

I am pro-woman's choice.

No complete stranger should be allowed to make a personal decision about me and my family and my life. It's too damn bad if these pro-choice strangers don't like the way I've decided. They don't have to live with the results.

The Pro-choice-as-long-as-it-isn't-the-woman's-choice people should live their own lives.

[Adelante]

77. That is right

That is so right.

[leQ]

63. HERE HERE! (eom)

.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. MANY PEOPLE ARE PRO ABORTION, HOWARD!!!!

I hate this line, "Dean: “I don't know anyone in America who's pro-abortion. " Bunch of sanctimonious crap!

There are A LOT of people who are pro-abortion, and I am VERY proud to be one of them.

I happen to believe that if a 16 year old girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to have a child abortion is the best option. Why should she be forced (morally or otherwise) to put her body through that stress? Why go through the mental trauma of having and giving a child up for adoption.

Why is it WRONG for someone to advocate having an abortion as not only a choice she has the right to make, but a very GOOD choice???
Why should she be made to feel guilty for wanting to live her life? What if my fiance and I (we are 35/32) have a failure in birth control. Should we feel bad because abortion is the best option? Should she have to suffer through 9 months of sickness, difficultly getting around, health risks and thousands of dollars in doctor care for something we don't want? Abortion is a quick, easy, and relatively safe procedure with far less consequences than dealing with 9 months of pregnancy!! Why is that WRONG to acknowledge???

“I don't know anyone in America who's pro-abortion." - makes it sound as if abortion is some type of moral evil that we just have to learn to live with and although it is okay for someone to CHOOSE evil if they want, it isn't really the right thing to do.

Screw that.

I am PRO ABORTION and damn proud of it.

[realFedUp]

67. He's reframed it to put the emphasis on choice

No sane person really wants
to get pregnant unintentionally and
then go through the emotional and
physical procedure of ending that birth.

What we don't want is someone else deciding
what we do with our bodies, life, financial
and health choices in this country.

Many religions and cultures have advocated abortion...
read Father Daniel Maguire's book Sacred Choices.

[Kipepeo]

69. Yeah but he said he'd like to strike the word choice

from our lexicon.

So what word is he proposing we use instead?

[renaissanceguy]

118. Maybe he's suggesting that we should strike it out as being a

moral choice... Instead, it is a private medical procedure that women undergo so as not to be pregnant.

It's sort of like the whole "being gay is a choice" argument... We fight over the word "choice," when rather the government should not take any part of that debate.

At the same time, though, I think that there's nothing wrong with using "pro-choice" to describe us. But who knows, maybe there's a better term out there.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[Lorien]

75. Saying "pro-abortion" is kind of like saying

"pro -mastectomy"; does anyone really WANT one?

I'm pro-choice but I'm not pro-abortion. I've never thought that getting pregnant so that I could have an abortion would be the least bit attractive. Far from it.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. You don't have to WANT X to be Pro-X.

And therein lies the problem when you let someone get away with saying, "no one is pro-abortion".

I don't want lots of things that I am "pro". However, I understand that whatever it is, it is either important or a good idea.

Does anyone want dental exams? Prostate exams? Mamograms? Are you looking forward to your next glacoma test? Do you want air fired into your eyeball at 200 MPH?

No, but you are most likely pro all those things.

Heck my fiance and I don't WANT her to get pregnant and would consider it a nightmare if she did, so I guess I am not pro-pregnancy or pro-children, right? No.

Now you say you have never thought about getting pregnant, well, maybe you should consider it, because unless you practice complete and total abstinence (or are male), it is a possibility in your life, so you might want to have a plan or at least an idea of what you would do.

What would you say if a 16 year old girl had an accident and came to your for advice? Would you spout off some idiocy about "well it is your choice" and walk away? What advice would you give? What if she told you she didn't want to go through the stress/stignma/cost/risks of carrying a baby for 9 months. What if she was afraid of the emotional harm involved in giving it up after all that time? What would you say?

This is my number one pet peeve with wimpy democrats, they refuse to own up to anything and try to hide their true feelings, and this is one of the biggest examples...right along with "support the troops", whatever that nonsensical phrase means.

"Oh I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice", "I am against the war, but I support the troops" what a wimpy non-commital position.

STOP QUALIFYING EVERYTHING. Just state your position and defend it, people will have more respect than trying to wiggle around the uncomfortable truth.

[Lorien]

116. What a twisted sense of logic you have

I'm pro-responsible sex and sex ed. I think of abortion as a last resort. If someone is pro-war, they WANT war! I don't WANT anyone to have an abortion (myself included-abortion is not what I would choose), but I think it's a choice that we should be offered if we end up in a bad situation.

You are playing right in to the GOP memes about liberals by saying that you WANT people to get abortions. They'll say "you're obviously are pro-death and hate children because you are pro-abortion". I know because they've said as much to me when I told them that women should have the right to make up their own minds about it. Saying you're "pro-abortion" is the same as saying you are pro-war; it places an immediate stamp on you that will drive away those you wish to convert to your position.

[Milo_Bloom]

119. Wrong again...

Someone can be PRO a particular war and not WANT war. I am anti-war, but there have been just wars that I would have been pro, if I had been alive when they were going on.

Here is the problem with what you said, "it places an immediate stamp on you that will drive away those you wish to convert to your position."

Guess what, there is 0, none, zilch chance that you are going to convert someone to your position if they are pro-life, nor would I personally care to convert them one tiny bit. They are following some dogma that until they break their minds of, they are gone.

The only people playing into the GOP memes are people who make idiotic statements like "no one is pro abortion, I am pro choice"... in that statement you make abortions seem shameful and wrong, like it is automatically a horrible and dirty thing that no one SHOULD ever do, but well, if they decide to do something like that I guess it is okay for them, but you wouldn't catch me doing it. Get off your high horse, stop the hypocricy and come down to earth with the rest of the masses.

Now, let's really get down to the brass tax of this, you said, "You are playing right in to the GOP memes about liberals by saying that you WANT people to get abortions.

First, YES, I WANT SOME PEOPLE TO HAVE ABORTIONS! If someone doesn't want a child and will end up resenting and abusing the child or giving that child a really horrible life, I WANT them to have an abortion. When I hear about a 16 year old honor student who is thinking of dropping out of school or not going to college because she got pregnant and doesn't know what to do, I WANT her to have an abortion. I think she will be of far more value to society earning her degree, getting a productive job, becomming a happy well adjusted person and THEN having her child than she would as a single mother at 18. Now, I would respect her choice if she chose to have the child, but do I think it was her smartest move? No. Again, as I said before, I am PRO ABORTION.

Now, you go on to say, "They'll say "you're obviously are pro-death and hate children because you are pro-abortion". "

Back to the problems with democrats! You are basing your position not necessarily on what you believe, but what the opposition will say. COWARDLY! Pick a position, stick with it, defend it and be right. I can defend my position on this topic and have. When someone makes some idiotic comment about how I am pro-death and hate children, I explain that I am actually pro-happy children and anti-crime. You see children raised in poverty (as many unwanted/unplanned children are) have a much higher crime rate when they get older. They are miserable and become drains on society. Happy children become productive, tax paying individuals who help support society.

Then the debate always gets to the same point. When is a life a life? Well, very simple... I say it isn't a life until it is no longer dependent upon the mother for its survival. They say it is a life at the moment of conception and the argument reaches it theological end, since those positions both lead to different logical conclusions.

[Larkspur]

94. You are in the minority and your argument reenforces the Republican

arguments against abortion.

Many people support a women's right to make up her mind about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but most people do not promote abortion as the best birth control solution. Artificial birth control, not abortion, is supported by most people to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[Milo_Bloom]

100. Oh please...

Where did I say ANYTHING about birth control?

The only thing that reinforces the republican argument is people saying the idiotic line, "No one is pro abortion, they are pro choice".

That reinforces that democrats are weak willed and want to have it both ways, which is the mistake they make over and over again.

The reality is that most democrats are probably pro abortion, but just too scared to really speak their mind. Maybe when they learn to say what they really believe, instead wimpy programmed nonsensical responses they may actually get somewhere, until then, there is little chance.

[saracat]

113. Applause!

[Lorien]

117. Idiotic line??

Lemme make it simple for ya: abortion is not for me; I would not have one. But I believe that others should make up their mind on that for themselves because it's a very personal issue.

I hope the areas of grey there aren't too subtle for your black and white mindset.

[Milo_Bloom]

121. Yes, Idiotic line

"Lemme make it simple for ya: abortion is not for me; I would not have one. But I believe that others should make up their mind on that for themselves because it's a very personal issue.

I hope the areas of grey there aren't too subtle for your black and white mindset."

Okay, let me make it simple for you. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!

It reminds me of people who say, "well, I don't approve of gay marriage but I guess civil unions are okay... just don't use the word marriage". Gee, isn't that sweet. Or people who say they personally find it disgusting, but they guess they have the right to do it. You condemn it and allow it in the same breath, just trying to save some face.

Let's break down what you are REALLY saying. You are too good for an abortion. You wouldn't consider doing something so horrible and disgusting, but you graciously give others the right to make that decision. Gee, thanks.

Come on, stop and THINK for one second. If you ask someone for advice and they tell you, "well, I wouldn't do it, but if you want to, go ahead, it is your choice", what does that mean?

"I was thinking of painting my house neon green, what do you think?" "Well, if it was MY house, I wouldn't, but if you want to go ahead."

TRANSLATION: I think Neon green is an ugly color, but I guess if you don't have taste, go ahead and do it.

"I am pro choice, but pro life for myself"

TRANSLATION: Although I think abortion is wrong, I guess if you can live with yourself, go ahead and kill your baby, but I know I couldn't do something like that.

Along with being PRO ABORTION, you know what else I am pro? I am PRO-"NOT MAKING SOMEONE FEEL LIKE CRAP FOR THEIR REASONABLE CHOICES"

Everytime you use the idiotic line, "no one is pro abortion" or any variation of the "I am pro choice, but pro life for myself", you are showing that you are not REALLY pro choice at all. You may allow people to choose, but only with the shaming finger being wagged at them while they do it and you will be sure to let them know that although you would never stoop to their level, you oh so graciously support their right to choose.

[Lorien]

125. Jeezus you're obtuse

I'll not waste my time any longer. You simply don't get it. :eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

129. Riiiiiiiiiight!

So let me get this right, you wasted your time to post a message that you will no longer waste your time?

:crazy:


Translation: Gee, I never thought of it that way and I realize I am wrong, but I still think waaaaay too much of myself to admit it.

[saracat]

139. I think the problem is ,he does "get it" . He just doesn't agree with you

[Mondon]

157. Is that the goal?

Not legalization, not removal of restrictions, but "NOT MAKING SOMEONE FEEL LIKE CRAP FOR THEIR REASONABLE CHOICES"?

If you think the party should advocate not legalization and removal of restrictions but disapproval of people who express personal distaste for the procedure, you are doomed to be disappointed.

[Milo_Bloom]

162. They are not mutually exclusive

"If you think the party should advocate not legalization and removal of restrictions but disapproval of people who express personal distaste for the procedure, you are doomed to be disappointed."

The party should advcoate legalization and removal of restrictions WHILE not expressing distate for the procedure.

[V Lee]

65. Go Dean!

He's right, "framing" isn't just for carpenters anymore. It's become an essential element of effective political strategy.

>> What's on Bill's mind? Political commentray with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com

[BrklynLiberal]

70. The Doctor is IN!!!!!!! and he has the prescription we need!!!!!!

[FizzFuzz]

76. I'm Pro-Women. Women's lives matter. Criminalization=Death for WOMEN

That's the reframing I'm thinking of. When women are forced to bear children, many will risk horrific means to take their body back.

Rape, incest, immature kids being lied to or pressured by a date....there are many instances where a pregnancy is an extreme crisis.

Take the misogyny and aim a 1000 watt searchlight on it.

The RW HATES women. The RW can't imagine women who exist outside of their bizarre, retrogressive vision taken from sit-coms of the 1950's and religious ideas of "returning" to some fictionalized happy, simple time.

Democrats/liberals believe living, breathing women have a right to life.

WOMEN MATTER.

[brainshrub]

80. I word to crazy Dean supporters:

DEAN IS DA MAN! :thumbsup:

What? You expected me to say something bad about Dean? Forgettaboutit! I'm a Dead supporter!

YYYeeeaaarrrgggggg!

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[The Flaming Red Head]

86. Being hungry and living in poverty is wrong too

and that's why a lot women make a wise choice not to bring another mouth to feed into a world that doesn't feed the ones that are already here.

[GHOSTDANCER]

102. Exactly, so many issues like this ,

create the question we should never have to ask.

Other issues that sadly shouldn't even be around... rape, poverty, unborn children with defects or a serious medical problem usually cause from the environment the mother was exposed to or her genes being mutated down the family tree. Social status - how will it affect my future nest egg? Physical change the body may go through and fear of losing beauty. etc. etc. etc.... 9 out of 10 times abortion takes place is generally a sad day for humanity.

[saracat]

87. Whaat?

"Being a nurturing mother is an important part of being and becoming a woman and overall happiness and contentment of a fulfilled life."
To whom, buster? And as a male, how would you know????? I don't see any women telling you what should be your definition of a happy and fufilled life!
Many women are happy NOT to have children. And many are sufficiently "fufilled " by their careers and lives. I really resent your blanket assumption about what you think women need.

[GHOSTDANCER]

103. To each is own. But I'll bet good money a time in your life passes

when you wonder what if, and what it would have been like and that may just leave you with a hollow feeling prior to your final days.

And being a male even I can understand that having a child must be a wonderful, miraculous part of a womans life. Matter of fact, I know many woman and men that wouldn't have a purpose in life beyond caring for their offspring.

The point I was trying to get to was social issues create abortion and it's just plain sad that we don't focus on correcting that. Instead we sit around blaming each other about who has the right. And whats god think? All that energy is just wasted on such crap when we could focus it on real issues.

Sorry if I offended you or anyone, thats just the way I see it.

[saracat]

112. You are really insulting! How dare you judge any woman's life , let alone

mine. And the right of women to choose their own medical care is not "just crap" and is a "real issue". But I suppose that it doesn't bother you that another anti-choice measure was just introduced into Congress. But, hey it isn't a "real issue", so the teenagers involved in this can just die self aborting ,because they can no longer get abortions! But not to worry, if we force them to give birth, they "won't have a hollow feeling wondering what if prior to their final days" .They can wonder what it would have been like to pursue any career they might have chosen instead! They will be so fulfilled they will never mind not having gone to Law school or medical school. They won't notice that they didn't study music at Julliard or art at the Sorbonne, and they will be so happy they will never pine for "what might have been". Right.
But the important thing is that the boy who impregnated them will be able to do all those things. How nice. Biology is destiny after all.

[GHOSTDANCER]

115. You see any woman here? Wonder why?

<>
Look, I am pro-choice. The issue shouldn't even be debated let alone right wing neocon males deciding what woman can and can not do. All I'm saying is that the world is in a sad state of affairs, when women even have to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

[Megahurtz]

168. Duh...uh...well...uh.......

:dunce: maybe you don't see any women here

because most of them are spending so much time being sick while pregnant and raising kids which sets a woman FAR BEHIND TIMEWISE and enables the men to get ahead TIMEWISE and as a result

CAREERWISE!!!

:hi:

Oh please DO wake up!!!:banghead:

Do you wonder that maybe this is possibly why these guys want to keep women pregnant?:sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

166. Well said.

NO ONE has any right to determine whether a woman, or female child for that matter, should be forced to bear a child with their own body against their will.

[demokatgurrl]

131. Happily childless here, and dropping by to say you have no clue

what someone else wants, what will fulfill someone else. Of course people might wonder how things might be different if they had made different choices at MANY opportunities. What if I had not gone to college? What if I had gone to college when I was younger and didn't have any idea what I wanted? What if I hadn't gone to law school? What if I had married some twit I dated in my 20s? 30s? 40s? What if I had taken that research fellowship abroad? What if I had said no to that relationship? What if I had said no to that job?

Many choices. Occasional wondering. No regrets.

[Adelante]

146. You know, you are half right

Child-bearing and child-rearing is a wonderful purpose in life for very many people, probably even most people.

I think the response you're getting comes from the fact that it is not for everybody and never has been. Many women, knowing it is not their primary goal in life, would rather not have children, and would rather not provide a child with a half-assed parent.

My reproductive life passed with no children and I have never regretted it. It's just not for me. My life is fulfilled by my interests and activities, and there is no "hollow feeling" -- not even a little, tiny hollow feeling. I am not mother material and I know it and I have always known it. I don't have a thing to say against women who are -- I think it's great and maybe the most important and least valued, money-wise, job on earth, to rear the future citizens of society.

I guess the only thing I'm saying is don't be so sure you can understand reproductive choice, if you are closed to the notion that women are not necessarily tied to reproduction in their life choices.

Not offended :hi:

[Megahurtz]

167. You will NEVER be able to "focus

on social issues that create abortion" because the issues are too big, too lengthly, too complicated and involve private and personal circumstance!!!

A person cannot and should not impose their own personal views on another about what they should do with their own body!!!

And as far as "having a child being a wonderful and miraculous part of a woman's life?"
Well that depends a lot on luck and personal circumstance, doesn't it?:think: Hey!

I mean get real!
Some women do not even feel that way!

Which comes back down to one thing:

No one has or should have any right to determine if a woman/female child should carry a fetus to full term and bear a child with their own body against their own will.

[Larkspur]

95. I'm a cheerfully child-free woman and I feel complete contented and

fulfilled in life without children. I'm a proud virgin, and virginity in the classical sense means to be "contented with who you are and not need to find fulfillment in another person."

In fact I hate kids. When I was a kid, I was bullied by my peers and could not wait to become an adult and get away from those creeps. I took pride when I was attending the University of Notre Dame, which was one of my major childhood dreams because I was the first female from my familty to attend that university, that many of my bullies had become unwed pregnant teenagers. I was working to make myself a better person and they were becoming a burden to their families and society. Achieving one's dream can be the best revenge against bullies.

[indigo32]

152. As an infirtile woman

I really appreciate you telling me what I should and shouldn't base my overall happiness and my womanhood on. I'm frankly stunned.

BTW it's a medical procedure between a woman and her MD plain and simple.

[The Flaming Red Head]

83. No shit

was my first thought when I saw this topic heading and I thought he referring to the way the media had portrayed him.

[kirchaleo]

88. I've been waiting for someone to reframe our message

We need to reframe it as an issue of freedom to have a legal abortion, vs an illegal one. Who are the republicans fooling with the idea that abortion can become illegal and won't happen anymore? I remember the time of illegal ones and that is nothing we want to return to again. The republican's stance is against women, and against freedom over our bodies. I hope Dean and the dems can turn this around as a pro-freedom message.

[Dawgs]

90. It's too bad that we are the only ones listening to this man...

Go Dean... You are one of many great leaders fighting for us. Not the only one, as many suggest.

[bklyncowgirl]

122. At this point I think we are the intended audience.

By we I mean progressives. I Dean wanted to talk to a wider audience he'd go on "Meet the Press" or one of the other poltical talk shows. This is about trying to get liberals on the same page--as much as possible--and preparing to take the message to the voters.

[Lithos]

96. Rather simple differentiation

Pro-Individual versus pro-Government/Corporations. Or if you want, pro-little guy versus big brother. Seems that despite what they say, the Republicans just seem to be hell bent on using government to push their views on us and beat down the individual.

Doesn't matter the issue: abortion, gay rights, consumer rights, rights of free speech, women's rights, and any civil rights you can think of. In this same meme is their love of oligarchy and the screwing of the middle and lower classes.

They could care less about the individual.

[Mondon]

158. Second amendment rights?

Just asking

[scottxyz]

107. Dean is right

He seems to be saying:

(1) Abortion is a complex issue.

(2) It's an issue the pregnant woman should decide, not some politician in DC.

[GetTheRightVote]

120. You go Dr. Dean, you have it all right from the start .......

:kick:

[bushisanidiot]

130. How about Pro-Mother?? Let mom decide what the correct decision

is for her.

[demo dutch]

147. That's exactly it! There is no change in policy. It's all about words

and the perception that the goverment tells you "what to do". Even repugs don't like that one! It's the only way to sell it to them!
Very clever he's playing at their own games

[dhinojosa]

150. All of you have it all wrong...you are framing defensively....

you need to go on the offensive....say that the republicans are for "back-alley" abortions.

[CWebster]

151. Okay, so know the plan is to CONFORM

to the way the Right has framed the debate?

Sure seems what this back-peddling amounts to.

Shame on you, Howard Dean, for caving and dissembling which equals erosion.

[saracat]

153. I agree. We need to "reframe "the enemy, not ourselves!

[MrSlayer]

159. Dead on Dr. Dean.

We do need to make it clear that nobody likes abortion and we do need to make clear what our actual position on it is. Dean is right on target with all of his remarks.

[CWebster]

161. Wrong, wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong.

The campaign by the Right has been very subtle, very calculated to deliberately elicit an emotional response of the "horror" of abortion. The fact that the Democrats are TRIANGULATING on the Right's strategy only reinforces the Right's message.

Howard Dean is selling out.

[saracat]

165. Absolutely right on. He may not see it as such but it is our job

to let him know! We should be writing him enmasse!

[0007]

160. Women's rights is what this fight is all about and not the

dictatorship of the right wing.

[calimary]

169. Kick!

Dean is SO correct - "the person who frames the issues...wins the debate." He GETS it. Totally! THANK GOD!