Republicans excel at "framing" issues.

[Tennessee Gal]

Conservatives use "framing" tactics to convince the public that all the policies they advocate are good for "the people" when in reality they are not. The Bush administration was quite adept at this. They applied a wholesome name to a policy and the public was somehow convinced that Bush was taking actions in their best interest.

George W. Bush, with the help of Karl Rove, mastered the art of portraying himself as a man of great principle, integrity, honesty, caring, compassion, and character. He was anything but those things. So how did he make it to the White House?

Think about this.

Machiavellianism: The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power.

"Inspired by all that has come before, and guided by clear objectives, today we set a new course for America's space program. We will give Nasa a new focus and vision for future exploration. We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own. ...We've undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways." --- George W. Bush, January 14, 2004

Notice the fantastic rhetoric of the Bush space initiative. Sounded great, didn't it? Never mind the fact that it was estimated to cost $400 to $500 billion at a time when deficit spending was skyrocketing out of control.

A very informative article regarding the use of language by conservatives provides some helpful insight. The article's premise, based upon the studies of George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, is that conservatives have mastered the art of "framing" the issues. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them through think tanks. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there, while progressives have done nothing similar. Professor Lakoff states, "It's one thing to analyze language and thought, it's another thing to create it."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

An example from the article:

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists, vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues, you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.

It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country, the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.

Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist, wrote a book entitled "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush." When it came out he appeared on Washington Journal. During his opening statements he spoke of political tactics as shaped by Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance or more specifically from his work entitled The Prince. Phillips stated that Karl Rove, George W. Bush's political strategist, and the late Lee Atwater, George H. W. Bush's political strategist, followed the teachings of Machiavelli.

For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting and keeping power or authority. Everything else, religion, morality, truth, honor, and integrity, that people associate with politics has nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics, unless being moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts in getting and maintaining power is calculation. The successful politician knows what to do or what to say for every situation, no matter what it takes. It is only about winning and keeping power.

Now, combine the skills of "framing" the issues in ways that always keep the opposing political party on the defensive with the philosophies advocated by Machiavelli and one begins to see a pattern that fits the Republican Party.

These tactics have led to American citizens growing accustomed to being lied to and/or misled about gravely serious matters. Republicans count on it.

[Tippy]

1. K&R...For Truth......

[Maccagirl]

2. A well thought-out, factual and nicely written piece

that no one but the "choir" will pay attention to. :cry:

[marsis]

3. Bottom line

is that you need a compliant media. Follow the money, the media enables and strongly supports the right. Even when the Dems have the truth, it rarely gets coverage.

[chalky]

31. +1000! Even if Democrats have a "frame" for an issue--even if we have

talking points, they don't get traction if the MEDIA refuses to use them!

[kentuck]

4. I don't think Repubs excel at it as much ...

...as Democrats suck at it.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. Also from the Lakoff artcle:

Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

[DonCoquixote]

11. Good points, but

How do we progressives imitate that model without selling our soul? i GET the part about infrastructure, and yes, we do SUCK at that. In part, it goes to our virtue of being independent, but here various factions fight at each other harder than the GOP.

[Tennessee Gal]

17. Good question.

Selling our soul is not the answer. That is what Republicans have done.

The factions fighting each other here are not doing the Democratic Party any good. Discussion is good, but fighting is not. Unity is required for success.

However, I can't help but think of the Will Rogers quotes:

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."

and

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

[AC_Mem]

24. I'm pulling this out of the book

"don't think of an elephant" by George Lakoff

"Ten Word Philosophies

The conservatives have figured out their own values, principles, and directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively of their past thirty years that they can evoke them all in a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values. We progressives have a different ten-word philosophy, but it won't be as meaningful yet because it will take us a while to get our values, principles and directions out there. My nomination for our ten-word philosophy versus theirs is the following:"

Progressives ................ Conservatives
-Stronger America .........-Strong Defense
-Broad Prosperity ......... -Free Markets
-Better Future ...............-Lower Taxes
-Effective Government ..-Smaller Government
-Mutual Responsibility .. -Family Values

Progressive Framing...

"A Stronger America - is not just about defense, but about every dimension of strength: our effectiveness in the world, our economy, our educational system, our health care system, our families, our communities, our environment, and so forth.

Broad Prosperity - is the effect that markets are supposed to bring about. But all markets are constructed for someone's benefit; no markets are completely free. Markets should be constructed for the broadest possible prosperity, and they haven't been.

Americans want and deserve a better future - economically, educationally, environmentally and in all other areas of life- for themselves and their children. Lowering taxes, primarily for the super-rich elite, has had the effect of defunding programs that would make a better future possible in all these areas. The proper goal is a better future for all Americans.

Smaller government is, in conservative propaganda, supposed to eliminate waste. It is really about eliminating social programs. Effective government is what we need our government to accomplish to create a better future.

Conservative family values are those of a strict father family - authoritarian, hierarchical, every man for himself, based around discipline and punishment. Progressives live by the best values of both families and communities; mutual responsibility, which is authoritative, equal, two-way and based around caring, responsibility (both individual and social), and strength."

[Tennessee Gal]

26. Great!

Thanks for the post.

Excellent ten-word philosophy.

Especially like this one: Smaller government is, in conservative propaganda, supposed to eliminate waste. It is really about eliminating social programs. Effective government is what we need our government to accomplish to create a better future.

[Tennessee Gal]

27. Forgot to add that Republicans don't believe that government ...

can be effective.

[Overseas]

30. I think they excel because they included purchasing mass media

to give them a platform to reinforce their lies.

I think they also excel because they have convinced lots of "independent" voters that they just can't stand the partisanship in Washington and both parties are at fault.

With all the compromising the Democrats have already done, they're feeling the need to compromise more because those "independent" voters want less partisanship even if such compromises continue to destroy our economy which is the goal of the super-partisan GOP.

I think it is quite masterful of the GOP to be super partisan and obstructionist, getting the Democrats to compromise again and again at the expense of their suffering base, and still convincing the public that both parties are at fault.

That perception finally seems to be breaking up, but we could have used the bully pulpit more to convince the public long ago that the Democratic party has already compromised enough.

[OHdem10]

6. It is called Politics and the Republicans play hardball and the

Democrats cower.

Politics is a good thing . Our Constitution was born
out of some really strong politics.

The Republicans have perfected Machiavellian Politics.

[Tennessee Gal]

8. I don't think Democrats cower.

I do think their brand of politics cannot compete with the Machiavellian tactics of the far right. I don't like that fact, but I would not choose the Machiavellian path for Democrats.

I would choose that they speak the truth more forcefully.

[Doctor_J]

14. Then prepare for things to get worse

I don't like that fact, but I would not choose the Machiavellian path for Democrats.

If you think you can talk a smash-mouth bully from taking your lunch by framing things differently, you better learn to go without food.

[Tennessee Gal]

18. I don't advocate "framing" at all.

I advocate speaking up more forcefully with the truth.

[treestar]

15. No the Democrats do not cower

This attitude promotes the Republican method as if it is right. Thus it is an cynical as the Republican view.

Republicans accuse us of the same thing anyway. It is not as bad as people here think - people here just simply refuse to look at the Republican view and thus cancel it out, as if Republicans don't exist.

[4dsc]

7. Yet most democratic leaders buy into this

They don't know how to frame otherwise so the people will understand it.

[Tennessee Gal]

9. I don't want them to "frame" because it is deceptive.

I want them to speak the truth more forcefully and vocally.

[democracy1st]

10. K & R great post

[Doctor_J]

12. Nonsense

If we owned 1200 radio stations, all of the cable networks, and 90% of the newspapers and magazines, and paid the staff millions of dollars to be hyper-partisan, lying propagandists, our "framing" would be excellent too.

Getting the country back will require taking back Big Media by whatever means necessary. Until we're ready to dedicate ourselves to that cause, we will make no progress.

Unrec'ing this fantasy

[msongs]

13. Obama is going along and he didn't learn about it from the media nt

[Tennessee Gal]

20. Lakoff explained this. I posted it.

Fantasy?

[seabeyond]

16. they excel at lying. having no integrity ... and lying. nt

[Tennessee Gal]

22. "Framing" is all about lying.

For Machiavelli, politics was about one and only one thing: getting and keeping power or authority. Everything else, religion, morality, truth, honor, and integrity, that people associate with politics has nothing to do with this fundamental aspect of politics, unless being moral helps one get and keep power. The only skill that counts in getting and maintaining power is calculation. The successful politician knows what to do or what to say for every situation, no matter what it takes. It is only about winning and keeping power.

Think about how many Republicans have campaigned on moral issues and then gotten caught themselves in immoral personal practices. They used the "moral values" issues to gain power, even though they failed to live up to those stated standards.

[Shandris]

25. I agree completely TG, but there's one very big problem involved.

Sadly, the truth takes longer to communicate than a snazzy framed sound bite does.

I don't know how much exposure you have to the internet, but the vast majority of people online (for instance) have difficulty reading a single post as long as YOURS (which, obviously, isn't very long at all!). This is reflected on a lot of forums by the TL;DR (Too Long, Didn't Read) comment. The youth of today -- the voting bloc of tomorrow -- doesn't have (in their inestimable opinion) the TIME to read 'truth', they want a snippy quick answer and to get on with life.

I don't think this is an accident, and its' been ruthlessly efficient in shutting down concrete thought and dissemination of actual information.

How to combat that...I have no idea. But it lays at the heart of our problems.

[Tennessee Gal]

28. You are obviously correct.

The truth takes longer to communicate, but there has to be a way to get points made effectively without being long winded. Check out a previous post on this thread from someone sharing from Lakoff's book.

I have been using the internet to research these things for years. In fact, I used to write columns for a progressive web site.

[Shandris]

33. Okay, I never meant to call your internet knowledge into question...

...you just never know sometimes. :)

I looked back up that post, and Lakoff seems to make a couple of them pretty well -- particularly the last ones. His first two made me cringe though, because 'but' is (shouldn't be, but effectively is) the signal word for 'Everything we just said was a lie, now pay attention here'. You can see this in a lot of conservative speeches. "My colleague is a good and honorable man, BUT he would sell your children for crack to Satan." Now obviously he didn't go to such extremes; maybe a small change in phraseology would make it more effective. However, even if he gets it down to 20 words, there's no mistaking that when you look at the conservative list...it's essentially 2 words equals 2 words. Weasel words, heavily weighted words, outright redefined words even...but only 2 of them. Even the blindest, dumbest conservative or voluntarily low-information voter can repeat that.

[Tennessee Gal]

34. Read this post .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1562470&mesg_id=1562966

[Shandris]

38. That was the one I read, although I confess I misread the...

...2-word part. Still early morning for me. :)

Alright, let's look at them again though. All responses are from the viewpoint of the average listener, not myself.

-Stronger America .........-Strong Defense
These sound identical. Isn't a stronger America one with a stronger defense? If not, why? *cue long explanation*

-Broad Prosperity ......... -Free Markets
Pretty much the same as the first one: If there is a difference, why is yours a bland label when their's is specific? *cue long explanation*

-Better Future ...............-Lower Taxes
Okay, this is three in a row. Do you guys have anything specific at all, or just a bunch of meaningless phrases?

-Effective Government ..-Smaller Government
That's just another word for 'Big', right?

-Mutual Responsibility .. -Family Values
Why should I be responsible for what someone else has done? Does this mean if Joe commits a crime I go to prison too? This is silly, TL;DR.

I think it's a good start TG, and somewhere we're going to HAVE to address it. But this isn't it. We can't use bland phrases to combat 'pithy quotes' (ugh...channeling O'Lielly makes my skin crawl).

[Tennessee Gal]

42. I suppose Lakoff delves more deeply into it in his book. nt

[AC_Mem]

43. Oh he goes very deeply into this in ALL his books

To me, they are must-reads for those of us who want to communicate our values better. I'm really enjoying the book and have purchased a couple others that I will be reading as well.

In my opinion, the GOP is a well oiled machine. They all speak as one, almost robotic, when they put out their framed message. We would do well to begin communicating better to educate the public.

I think that you can frame your message and still tell the truth and I'm unsure why anyone would think that to frame would be to lie. We witness the GOP framing their message in such a way as to convince people to believe and vote against their own best interest and speaking for myself, I just couldn't understand how people could do that. This book helps me to understand and realize that the WAY we our party communicates could really help.

The GOP does a very good job at spreading a very bad message. Imagine what change could happen if Democrats could do a very good job at spreading a very Good message!

:) hope,
Annette

[N7Shepard]

19. Fortunately, the American people figure it out. Unfortunately, they have short memories.

[AC_Mem]

21. Highly recommended book

that explains your post and so much more!

Don't think of an elephant! - Know your values and frame the debate, by George Lakoff. The essential guide for Progressives, NY Times Bestseller

This is a book that not only explains the framing that the GOP is taught and lives, but it also teaches Progressives how to understand it and apply it to our debates as well. I have been reading this book and can't tell you how many times I've had to pull my highlighter out for a paragraph or how many times my eyebrows have shot up in the air!

I think you can get the book on Amazon.com - recommended reading!

Annette

[Tennessee Gal]

23. Excellent!

Also recommend:

John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience

David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush

[AC_Mem]

44. Oh how I wish I could find these books at the local B&N

I walk in there and am assaulted by all the right-wing books that are everywhere.

I don't understand why democrats don't write books! We are outnumbered in the book store about 100 to 1!!!

I do my best when I go in there to find liberal books and move them front and center and hide the conservative books of lies but it sure would be a thrill to go in there and have a selection of books written by wise democratically-minded individuals.

Annette

[blkmusclmachine]

29. Wallflower "Democrats" aid & abet this GOP strategy. Esp. the "DEMS" beating a path to Faux Nooz.

[Remember Me]

32. Another critical influence on "conservative" thought was

far more recent: Leo Strauss

He in particular influenced the neoconservatives, and inasmuch as he taught at the University of Chicago, I wonder about his and Milton Friedmann's influence through followers and devotees still there on others, people like Arne Duncan.

Strauss taught that deceit was essential, required of leaders IF they were to fulfill their highly entitled role as leaders. There should be a ton of information about him online. I'm glad I saved this entire essay (link now dead), of which the following is a very small but eye-opening part:

Jim Macgregor
Neo-fascism in America
http://www.surfaceonline.org/essayamerica6.htm

(snip)

In her book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, <13> Shadia Drury, professor of political theory at the University of Calgary, Canada, names current politicians, political advisers, administration and Supreme Court officials, who were followers of the teachings of the fascist Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss (1899- 1973) was a philosopher at the University of Chicago (built by Rockefeller money) where he taught many of those currently involved in the US administration. Strauss left Nazi Germany in 1934 having been given a Rockefeller Foundation bursary and is considered to be the “fascist godfather” of today’s neo-cons.

(snip)

“The hallmark of Strauss’s approach to philosophy was his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by ‘philosophers’ who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish ‘populist’ mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude.”

Professor Shadia Drury <15> provides a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the neocons “Leo Strauss was a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics. Public support for the Iraq war rested on lies about Iraq posing an imminent threat to the United States - the business about weapons of mass destruction and a fictitious alliance between al-Qaeda and the Iraq regime. Now that the lies have been exposed, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the war party are denying that these were the real reasons for the war.

“The idea that Strauss was a great defender of liberal democracy is laughable. I suppose that Strauss’s disciples consider it a noble lie. Yet many in the media have been gullible enough to believe it. The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine… A second fundamental of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons - to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave… and the wise few over the vulgar many.

-------------------------

And of course, you convince people it is their DUTY to lead (by virtue of their elevated birth and certain other circumstances), and to fulfill that duty it is also their DUTY to lie to and deceive all their inferiors so far below them in station, and you've pretty much just created a monster, a strongly narcissistic if not fully sociopathic monster. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be appealed to on the basis of compassion or even reason. These people have been made virtually unreachable.

[Tennessee Gal]

35. Thank you for posting that.

Very interesting.

I totally agree with your last sentence. If the current Tea Bagger/Republican members of Congress had any sense, our country would not be facing a debt limit crisis.

[Remember Me]

37. Oh, you're quite welcome. Thanks for posting YOUR material.

Which was also very interesting. It's a good thread, all in all.

[Fly by night]

36. The Democratic obsession with Lakoff is misplaced. We don't need to learn ...

... to hold our mouths right and say things in a correct fashion to win elections. We need elections that are verifiable, trustworthy enough to bring disaffected (for good cause) voters back to the polls.

Republicans aren't winning elections in Tennessee because they frame issues better than Democrats do. It's because their fellow travelers who own the voting machine companies program the equipment we are forced to use better than we do. (Because they can, and we can't.)

All the rest is just mental masturbation, and will be until we have elections that are trustworthy.

[Tennessee Gal]

39. It is not just the machines.

It is also Republicans manipulating and passing laws to suppress voting rights and eligible voters.

But you cannot discount the energy and money put into "framing" practices used by the right.

[Fly by night]

48. In Tennessee, it is JUST the machines. Our Rethugs don't bother with framing.

Hell, they don't even make a pretense of acknowledging the will of the people. Our guns-in-cribs agenda, overturning local business ordinances to protect gay/lesbian rights, pushing bills to delete freedom of religion from the Constitution, proposing to establish our own currency. In every venue possible, the Tennessee legislature and Governor are the laughing stock of the nation. And our Rethugs don't care because they know that the people have been eliminated from the democratic equation and elections do not count in this state anymore.

For someone who has been in Tennessee as long as you have, I would think you would know this. But you've also been talking about Lakoff since (at least) 2004, so don't stop now. Just refrain from beating that dead horse in public here -- it only entertains the Rethugs and distracts the Dems who keep practicing holding their mouths just right in front of the mirror ... and keep losng elections.

[AC_Mem]

45. I agree with you

but I feel that this has to be a multi-level approach. Are the elections corrupt? Yes, I believe so (and I am in Tennessee btw), but as long as we have GOP running our states and our elections, how is anything going to change? The corruption is tightly woven throughout the process.

We must begin by communicating to Democrats, Independents and even Republicans who need to be awakened from the brainwashing of the GOP. I cannot tell you how many people I encounter when I volunteer who parrot back GOP talking points that are easily disputed with the truth and facts. This proves to me that we as democrats are not communicating the truth in a manner that is penetrating the message that has been deeply planted and nurtured for years by the GOP.

I have spoken with some hard core conservatives who have argued their points. I have calmly disputed their points (which are all based on fear) and SHOWN them proof that what they have been told is a lie. Their reaction is interesting. It is almost like their brains go through a circuit crash, their eyes dart around, and then in many cases, they get angry and leave the conversation.

Having said that, I have had a couple people come to me and tell me that after thinking about things I have said and doing some research on their own (rather than getting their information from Faux or conservative websites), they realize that everything they believed was a lie. It was really earth shattering for them and one of these people is still trying to get his footing again.

It is all about communication. And democrats better get better at it because that is where it starts and ends.

Shine on,
Annette

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. It's also the ability to catapult the framing.

Without the corpo-media infrastructure, the framing would be happening in a vacuum.

[Tennessee Gal]

41. Yes, and the right planned that years ago.

There is no such thing as the "liberal media."

[AC_Mem]

46. Wouldn't it be lovely

if Faux would fall through the corruption scandal going on now, while Current TV takes off as they speak the truth?

I guess a girl can dream... :)
Annette

p.s. GREAT DISCUSSION.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Big dream. Big result.

:)