We should say "Dem" vs."Rep" policies not Obama vs. McC

[Waiting For Everyman]

Recast the language, de-personalize it:

1) That reminds people that Dems regulate, Repubs eviscerate.

2) It reminds people of FDR the modern-era patriarch of the party, who solved this problem already once before, and was trashed by Gramm & "friends".

It also jogs the memory of older WW2 era voters.

3) It ties the current economics to McC's party, therefore him AND Bush AND Gramm and all of the ringleaders.

4) It's not so "in your face" to people who agree with Dem policies but have a problem with Obama personally.

A poster a few days ago mentioned that he/she uses this approach successfully with Repub voters. Sorry I can't remember the poster's name. But I think it would be a big advantage now, since this Wall Street news, to recast the language we use this way whenever possible.

If all the surrogates could be coordinated to do this, I think it would begin to swing opinion - subtle but effective.

[Waiting For Everyman]

1. Hello out there :)

Anybody with me on this?

Any language freaks and/or psych people?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

2. IMO "Obama vs. BushMcCain" is a far better phrase for a "CHANGE election"

against a third term for the party in power.

It's BUSH who has the 30 percent approval rating and Bush to whom Democrats want to tie the current Republican Presidential candidate.