Rejecting the interview question so as to frame the debate - great article

[papau]

A very long article (that I commented on below) that needs to be posted in each of the 9 headqtrs.

www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html

The above is a great article called "How to frame a debate", from BuzzFlash, which suggests ideas like rejecting words like "roll back tax relief -stopping the interviewer and insist on framing the debate as "pay for infrastructure" - noting that the rich use more of the infrstructure of Courts and police than the middle-class uses. For example, nine-tenths of the use of the court system is for corporate law. Not paying your fair share means you are turning your back on your country - and we must not let the rich do that. Taxes must be fair.

GOP's positive-sounding must be met by Dem positive sounding - we are for reform - but reform that is fair. Since reactive speech that just says "stop this, attack that, overturn this," shoots our guy in the foot - Using let's "not" do what Bush wants - is not a good use of words - not good "twisting" - not good propaganda, we must go positive.

The GOP word twisting - using words like "healthy, clean and safe" for things like nuclear power plants or coal plants - or playing for the "female vote" with words like "love" and "from the heart" and "for the children" (and "Family values" as if liberal family values do not exist, or pushing "rallies" called "Support our Troops," as if liberals do not support the troops) is one of the most irritating to me of the many ways Bush and Fox News lies. - But it does seem to get votes/polls.

Seems he believes "Support our troops; bring them home," does not work that well because we have not had the media explaining the concept for 30 years - compared to GOP the media's pushing "rallies" called "Support our Troops," as a good thing that is necessary. so we must compete with the 30 year GOP media sale of the "Strict Father" family where the world is a dangerous place with competition and winners and losers - where children are born bad and have to be made good and only punishment and shows of strength work.

So how do we compete - do we sell the hope and promise of America, the joy of living in this country - or do we sell Bush as the abusive father who betray the trust placed in them by the family?I like the positive - the Clinton version selling 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 empathy - to nurture his or her children, but also to turn those children into nurturers. And to protect kids from evil - like terrorists - is job one of the liberal nuturer.His thought that "

We must talk about the promise of America, the hope of America -- what is powerful and loving about the country -- to be positive, to break through the fear, because the fear is what evokes it. We must project an image of love and warmth, and happiness and hope. That’s the first thing. We don’t feed the fear. Safety is a part of that, and we can point out that the Bush administration has betrayed its trust in not attending to making us safe. The PATRIOT Act doesn’t make us safer. They’re cutting money for firefighters and police officers. They’re not making our harbors safe. They’re not making chemical plants safe. Safety and protection are important.

Protection is part of a "Nurturant model," and you have to be a strong, protective parent if you’re a nurturer, and you have to come across as a strong protector...You say, "You know, they’ve betrayed our trust. They’re not really protecting us. Have we been protected in Iraq? There were no weapons of mass destruction there in the first place. They weren’t protecting us from that, and they lied to us. They betrayed our trust there. And here’s why."...Then you say why they really went into Iraq, which is largely on the basis of their self-interest, and why they got into this mess. Have they really made us safer? The answer is no. We’re not safer than we were before."......is an excellent response - now I hope at least one of the 9 pick up on it!

We will see which of the 9 can put forth an identity so that voters know who he is and trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire.

Seems winning on issues is losing the election without the above!

[cprise]

1. bump

.

[revcarol]

2. Sounds like exactly what Kucinich is doing.

But he's just a fringe wacko, right?:argh:

[papau]

3. And Edwards - and Dean for almost a week before going negative again

:-)