The failure of framing

[adwon]

"Framing the debate" has become an interesting topic of discussion over the last several years. Some appear to think that if you package it just right, use just the right words, then everything will be rosy. I find this to be as useful as trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Rather than worry about packaging, just lay the case out plainly. Don't mince words. Don't worry about word choice. Just lay it out. Here's a few examples.

1. Guantanamo and the enemy combatants bits. George has had a majority, a hell of a majority, in Congress for 4 years now. If he needed authorization to torture people, WHY NOT USE THE FUCKING MAJORITY? Point out the fact that the son of a bitch is evading the law BECAUSE HE CAN'T FUCKING SELL TORTURE.

2. The NSA bit. Again, George is breaking the law. Again, GOP majority in Congress. Why not change the law? He can't sell spying on Americans. Point this out.

3. Point out that the son of a bitch could sell his fucking tax cuts but he never tried to sell torture or domestic spying. Why is that? Let me guess!

4. When the GOP lies, never call it misleading or misrepresenting. Call it lying; that's what it is. When Kerry used the word 'misrepresented' in one of the debates, I wanted to fucking slap him silly. Don't be afraid to call bullshit what it is.

5. Remind people that George promised to "restore integrity back to the Oval Office" in 2000. Then ask them how evading the democratic process, the Congress, in order to use blatantly illegal measures squares up with any definition of integrity.

6. Ask why the GOP, the champions of letting legislatures decide everything, have failed to broach these subjects in Congress. If the mark says that there wasn't time to debate it, remind them how George has yet to cast a veto. Apparently he and Congress agree on everything. If the Patriot could be passed in a couple of weeks, if the Schiavo law could be passed literally overnight, why hasn't George called up Tom, Dennis, and Bill to rubber stamp this vital legislation? Is it maybe because the American public would be outraged at such a debate? If legislatures can decide gay rights and abortion, what's the problem with torture and spying? Is it too secret? But, as the GOP says, doesn't the government work for us? Don't they have an obligation to tell us, their employers, what they're up to?

You don't have to be hostile. Don't use words like fascism or corporatism. Most people aren't real clear on what these mean...of course, most experts aren't either. Use plain words and lay it out as it is. The prose doesn't have to be perfect, people just need to know what you're saying.

Edit: this is really advice for political candidates. DUers tend to lay it out, as a general rule.

[Atman]

1. "9/11 changed everything."

Why do you hate America?

[adwon]

5. I'm not real sure

Silly me, I forgot the constitution is only for Schoolhouse Rock!

[bluethruandthru]

2. I agree with you to a certain extent..

However, there are some things that we've allowed to become an ingrained part of the national discussion that are hurting us. One is The War on Terror. We need to stop saying this. The repubs never will..but we can. It's a silly slogan that means nothing! Terror and terrorists have been around since the dawn of time and there is very little we or anyone can do to completely stop it. It's like the War on Drugs. We need this pretend president to own up to his real "Wars"...the one in Afghanistan that's been totally neglected..and the occupation (not war) in Iraq. That's it...other than that..there is no "war".

[adwon]

4. The War on Terror

Fun subject. Hrm, what would I say...

Question one: Is it right to kill civilians for political purposes? Expected answer: no.

Question two: Should those who fund and encourage the killing of civilians for politcal purposes face punishment? Expected answer: yes.

Question three: Why hasn't the administration gone after the radicals of the anti-abortion crowd, as they've been the dominant cause of domestic terrorism over the last 30 years? Expected answer: Well, that's different... or Well, that's a crime.

Final comment: You're either against murder or you aren't. Just which side are you on?

Note: I hope you know this isn't directed at you personally. :P

[bluethruandthru]

13. Of course!

We're on the same page. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

3. no argument here

[cantstandbush]

6. Hey, how many ways can I say "I agree with you?" nt

[cantstandbush]

7. What you really mean is "Frame the issue with TRUTH" nt

[adwon]

8. To borrow from a hero of mine

"I never gave them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry Truman

[omega minimo]

9. "Poli advice" full of 'fucking" & "SOB" & ya say "corporatism" is hostile?

I agree with the initial challenge to phony framing and even appreciate the pissed off tone, if that's what it takes-- although if "this is really advice for political candidates" then "fucking" and all that are way off base.......................................

Yet you could not be more wrong about this important aspect:

"You don't have to be hostile. Don't use words like fascism or corporatism. Most people aren't real clear on what these mean...of course, most experts aren't either. Use plain words and lay it out as it is. The prose doesn't have to be perfect, people just need to know what you're saying."

"Most people aren't real clear on what these mean...."

MOST people now know who is running the show. It is a HUGE mistake for Dems and DU to ignore this-- even feel superior to it (as if "most people" don't get it)

Want plain talk? How bout connecing the dots b/w Halliburton, the White House, enormous profits and no-bid contracts in Iraq, New Orleans, U.S. detention centers.................

"Most People" know that Big Business is running the Government, the White House, Congress. Call it what you want. That is THE issue.

[adwon]

10. Hmm

Yeah, well, the tone is a rant, obviously. I won't bother denying it. I wouldn't ever recommend people borrow my phrasing because it tends to be quite vulgar, though it is memorable (or so I'm told).

I say steer of clear those words because a.) they're overused b.) poorly defined and c.) explanations of them will cause MEGO (my eyes glaze over).

Connecting the dots is exactly what I mean. Do it one fact at a time. Keep it simple, but not simplistic. Think of the Fireside Chats, if you will. Essentially, I'm just tired of the bumper sticker slogans. "Culture of corruption" sounds great, but laying out the facts and letting people say, "My God, they're corrupt!" is better. Once they say something like that, then you can say "That's why it's called a culture of corruption!"

Thanks.

[XemaSab]

11. Have you read Lakoff?

:shrug:

[blm]

12. What REALLY would've happened after 2004 debate if JK said THEN that Bush

lied:

Bill Clinton would have been asked by Larry King if Bush lied and Bill would have said that Kerry shouldn't have said it, that a president has to make really hard decisions with the information that he has on his desk, and George Bush is a good man who is doing his darndest to keep the country safe and he makes mistakes every now and then just like any president, but would he lie deliberately, I just don't believe that's the case, blah, blah, blah......

And Carville, Begala, Biden and every other TV ready Dem pundit would have been siding with Clinton.

And at that point in 2004, so would Dems like Murtha who hasn't yet turned against the war strategy.