WHY Does the Left CONTINUALLY Allow the right to Frame the Debate?

[MarianJack]

This morning while my family and I were getting ready to go out, I put CSPAN on and watched about 30 minutes of kristinn taylor of "a gathering of lemmings" (and free republic?) debating the war with a woman from ANSWER.

She did a pretty good job of refuting taylor's smoke and mirrors act. The problem I have, however is that the time was spent ON the smoke and mirrors. As always, the rightist was permitted to steer the debate away from the issues.

The right is so bankrupt of anything resembling an idea that they have to go back to the same tired charges they made against the anti-war movement 35 years ago. they have even started to call those who oppose this war "communists". I expect that they will soon start calling us "long haired hippies" again.

I have seen too many "debates" where the pro-war rightist wraps himself in the flag, ignores questions about the issues and attacks the opposition with charges of treason.

I have seen too many "debates" where the anti-war spokesperson spends almost the entire time defending the patriotism of those who want an end to a war based upon lies.

What people like taylor need to be confronted with is REAL QUESTIONING.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Why the continued lies about a saddam hussein/al queda link?

Why the continued lies about a saddam & 9/11 connection?

If you support the troops, why aren't you screaming bloody murder about the execution and cover-up of Pat Tillman?

Why is the return home of troops who were scheduled to come back anyway being sold to us as progress?

Exactly WHAT are the "lots of good things going on over there"?

If serving in a war is such a great thing to do, why are you supporting an AWOL president and a vice-president who had "too many other priorities" to serve in a war they supported?

Most importantly, if the deaths of the American men & women whose lives will end so this president can hand his war off to his successor are "a small price to pay", why aren't you or your children serving?

There is only one reason that the rightists continue to promulgate their lies by attacking those who oppose them. It is NOT because they do it in front of little rodent moderators like the one on CSPAN this morning. It is because those on the left allow them to do so.

When you allow your opponent to frame the debate, you lose.

Ending this war and standing up to this criminal administration and their apologists is too important to allow this to continue.

PEACE!

[catlbob]

1. The right knows how to stay on message

Who cares what the question is, stating one's own case is always the answer.

[Redstone]

2. Now, THAT is a hell of a good question. Why, indeed, are we such weenies as a group?

I see MUCH courage here at DU. I see SOME public courage, such as Cindy Sheehan's.

And there are others as well; I salute them all.

But it sure seems like the act of being elected to the Congress or Senate automatically excises people's backbones.

Redstone

[ShortnFiery]

3. IMO, woman from ANSWER was outright OUTSTANDING!

I wish I would have noted and wrote down her name. No joke, she was cool, calm and collected. She reminded me of Rachael Maddow - intelligent and well spoken.

Perhaps we watched different people? :shrug:

[MarianJack]

33. She did very well...

...in debating the points that taylor wanted to debate. At least in the 30 odd minutes I saw.

My point was that too often the anti-war spokesperson allows the pro-war person to dictate what is discussed. You can be damn sure that it won't be the issues of this war.

If you can stomach listening to groups such as the gathering of magpies, it will all be variations of the same nonsensical rightist talking points from the vietnam era with a heavy dose of "stay the course" and the same bushista justifications we've been hearing since "mission Accomplished" turned to dust .

[liberaldemocrat7]

35. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard

[derby378]

4. Two factors...

(1) Lack of intestinal fortitude, and (2) unfamiliarity with the basic concepts espoused by George Lakoff.

Very unfortunate.

[Vincardog]

5. When the radical REICH controls the forum the truth speakers do not have much chance

The RW nutz get to spew so much shit that no one can counter it all. When our side objects they are shouted down by demands that we "Let them finish". In the end our side allows them to finish their interruption which is usually followed by another lie and/or misrepresentation.

When our representative demands to complete their thought the Reich wing director cuts their mike or edits the tape.

The answer is to refuse to appear on FAUX at all. When you do appear make it be a live feed.
And NEVER ever back down from the lies.

[n2doc]

6. Because a significant number of media "democrats" are really repubs

Carville, to name one. Many, if not most, of the pundits invited on media shows are really repubs who claim to be ''democrats'. They may occasionally disagree with the reich wing but only enough to estabish their ''cred''.

[DURHAM D]

7. My favorite "framing" of late is -

"The Dems were elected in 2006 to end the war."

Exit polling showed that it ran fourth. More important to voters and why they cast ballots as they did - the economy, immigration and the general war on terror.

The righties pushed the "end the war" theme because they knew it could not be done by Congress and would make Reid and Pelosi look inept. MSM picked it up and pushed it and then the Democratic base bought into it.

[sandnsea]

11. Oh no, get out the ice skates

I agree with that completely.

In addition, some on the left confuse a mudslinging match with political debate. If the dirt isn't flying, they get bored and turn on football.

[2rth2pwr]

15. Kucinich and Edwards are definitely not "righties"

"The Democrats were elected to end the war," Kucinich said http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3035007

"When people elected Democrats in 2006 and gave them control of the house and senate it was under the assumption that the war was going to end,” Kucinich http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=12591

John Edwards has already shown Presidential-caliber leadership and issued a strong and articulate statement: "In 2006, the American people elected a Democratic Congress to change course and end this war. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/congressional-dem-leaders_b_63375.html

He said voters elected a Democratic Congress to end the war and it’s about time they do it.
Edwards also repeated his calls for universal health care, affordable education and fewer political donations by lobbyists. http://www.piercecountyherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=84185§ion=Wisconsin%20News&property_id=19

[DURHAM D]

18. What is your point?

DK has made this false assertion repeatedly, as has Edwards. Many of their supporters don't recognize the difference between this false construct and actual voter sentiment.

The proof of the spoof is in the current polling.

Many Edwards and DK supporters (believing in the false talking point for 2006 house change) are deeply puzzled as to why these two candidates are not running first and second in the presidential campaign. Look back at the 2006 exit polling and you can understand why. Both candidates over state the position of this country's voters and thus it explains why we do not see as much support for DK ad JE as one would expect if it was actually a fact that the "Dems took over the congress to stop the war". It just didn't happen.

[2rth2pwr]

19. You said the righties were pushing this so called false meme

Edwards and Kucinich should not be smeared with being in cahoots with the right.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 — A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they win control of Congress next Tuesday, and say Republicans would maintain or increase troop levels to try to win the war if they hold on to power on Capitol Hill, according to the final New York Times/CBS News poll before the midterm election. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/politics/01cnd-poll.html?ex=1320037200&en=24a4ee8e0d70fb14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

___________________________________
AntiWar.com October 16, 2006
By Justin Raimondo

The November election is shaping up as a national referendum on the war in Iraq - and the GOP, AKA the War Party, is in deep trouble.

A recent CNN poll asked voters to rank the importance of the war issue: 48 percent said it is "extremely important," while 38 percent averred it's "very important." The same poll shows overwhelming opposition to the war (62 percent, and climbing), and - the shocker - 56 percent believe the war was a mistake, while a mere 40 percent disagree - with the latter figure the lowest on record. The bad news for Republicans: when it comes to Iraq, voters would rather have Democrats in charge (51 percent). http://www.votersforpeace.us/news/election2006_referendum.html

[DURHAM D]

20. I don't know how to help you.

Righties - meaning Karl Rove and his minions started this false story right after the 2006 elections. This is a thread about "framing" and the effects of framing. Go back and read it again.

I never said DK and JE were in cahoots with the right - this is how rumors get started. :think:

[2rth2pwr]

21. The so called false meme was started before the election

you said- The righties pushed the "end the war" theme because they knew it could not be done by Congress and would make Reid and Pelosi look inept. MSM picked it up and pushed it and then the Democratic base bought into it.

and it was the banner run on by many in the party, the so called false story has been the promise by the leaders in Congress. That is why there is so much disappointment.

[DURHAM D]

22. Go look up the 2006 exit polls. eom

:hi:

[2rth2pwr]

27. Thanks for playing-

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

IMPORTANCE OF IRAQ
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (35%) 60% 39%
Very Important (32%) 46% 52%
Somewhat Important (21%) 47% 50%
Not At All Important (10%) 62% 36%


IMPORTANCE OF TERRORISM
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (39%) 46% 53%
Very Important (33%) 51% 47%
Somewhat Important (20%) 65% 32%
Not At All Important (6%) 66% 31%


IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMY
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (39%) 59% 39%
Very Important (43%) 48% 50%
Somewhat Important (14%) 49% 48%
Not At All Important (2%) 55% 42%


IMPORTANCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (30%) 46% 52%
Very Important (32%) 49% 50%
Somewhat Important (29%) 61% 37%
Not At All Important (8%) 66% 31%

[DURHAM D]

30. I assume you noticed in that poll that the question

about Iraq had nothing to do with "ending the war".

[2rth2pwr]

31. I assume you have a link to back up your assertions. nt

[Odin2005]

24. Damn, I wish I could recommend individual posts, because this is a good one.

It's sad that all of here criticize the BS framing dome by the MSM and then DUers parrot those frames when it suits there agenda, screw that shit. That people here have fell for framing dome intentionally by the MSM to make congressional Dems look bad is beyond pathetic.

[DURHAM D]

29. Agreed.

And thanks. :pals:

[Perry Logan]

49. Speaking of framing the debate--"they were elected to end the war" is a HUGE favorite at DU.

It's appalling how frequently DUers latch onto these very Republican talking points. And they invariably use these memes to bash our own people.

[TygrBright]

8. ummmmm.... Because the right owns the media? Because the right occupies the biggest bully pulpits?

Because the left has no unifying leadership focus?

speculatively,
Bright

[KansDem]

9. Neo-cons own the media...

...hence, they frame the debate.

There's no such thing as a "liberal media."

Case in point: Last week, the day after Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker appeared before Congress, NPR went to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) for commentary during one of its "Morning Editions" (???)

:wtf:

I wondered why are we hearing from a Republican about this? The Republicans are no longer the majority party. We should be hearing from the Democrats, without whom we wouldn't be having these hearings!

[ShortnFiery]

12. Exactly, plus CSPAN choose to air a re-run of General Peaches instead of The Anti-War march Live.

Us disgusting little people must wait and see The Anti-War March on D.C. at 10 AM tomorrow.

Now tell me that there's NOT censorship going on in an effort to serve their masters within The Military Industrial Complex? :(

[FormerDittoHead]

10. Because we just don't think like a bunch of fucking liars?

Seriously, we use our brains to SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS.

They use their brains to find creative ways to lie. There's not an ounce of honesty in their ideology.

I agree, however, that we are smart enough to do the actual work that needs to be done AS WELL AS counter the "frames", but it's swimming upstream because we lack the 24/7, one-sided, blitz of the ultra right wing talk radio MEDIUM, Fox News, full time think tank (Heritage, Cato, et. al.) employees who are paid for by the tax deducted dollars of billionaires to think up these frames in the first place, a press corp that no longer gives a shit, not to mentioned a dumbed down, stimulation seeking, under educated electorate who aren't smart enough to laugh these clowns out of town in the first place...

[ShortnFiery]

14. True, but here's a suggestion :

Remember your Junior High School days when *all* teens are sensitive and many mean spirited kids knew which verbal buttons to push in order to cut to the bone?

That's the way to do it. It's not dignified but we are liberals and creative. Use that creativity with "catchy phrases" and use them often.

I know that it's immature but our democratic republic is at stake.

It's time to get in the trenches and get mean.

"General Peaches Betraus" and "A Smattering of Beagles" are my latest FAV titles. :rofl: :yoiks:

[liberaldemocrat7]

36. If you want to see catchy phrases and pictures skewering Republicans go here

http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7/find/cn-238083065491105452/st-num_views/sp-1/ps-60/pg-1?sz=1&rf=238083065491105452

[Scribe]

13. Those are supposed to be hard?

Any experienced politician can handle those easily. Your questions contain unproven opinions that would immediately be challenged. Pat Tillman executed? AWOL President? You are not going to get an answer because your premise is too assailable. You'd be forced to the defensive instantly with that kind of question. The others are even easier:

"I never said anything about a link to 9/11. I never said 'a small price to pay. I didn't lie about Saddam, but others may have. So what, it wasn't me"

You also would ask an open invitation to a prepared political talking point compendium by asking:
"Exactly WHAT are the "lots of good things going on over there"? That will get answered. In great detail and in a monologue you'll have trouble interrupting because you asked for it.

It appears you haven't done any interviews or you'd understand that the questions you think are so hard are, in fact, softballs

[MarianJack]

32. You Are Assuming...

...that I'd speak in an interview the same way I'd speak here in a liberal forum.

I have personally debated many righties. Usually when i ask them some of these same questions (albeit not phrased the same as they are here), I get the same dumbfounded look from each one followed by a Ralph Kramdenish "hummana hummana". My response to that is usually along the line of "You're not rush and I'm not a ditto-head. When you say something ludicrous, I'm going to call you on it"

The following silence is usually deafening.

[Scribe]

34. So you admit to having no interviewing experience at all?

I had hoped that before you'd denounce someone as a 'little rodent moderator' you would have tried it at least once. This isn't about your claimed ability to leave simpletons in stunned submission. You were bitching about an interview airing on national television.

You offered ridiculous softball questions as examples. I demonstrated how any experienced interviewee would handle your offerings with ease. In reply, you argue that your questions wouldn't really be your questions. They'd only be your questions if asked here but not there, apparently.

I am sorry. I just laughed out loud.

[MarianJack]

37. I Disn't Say My Questions were Not My Questions.

I said that in a different forum I'd phrase the questions differently.

If having been in a profession is the only criteria for criticizing another, I guess the vast majority of the public should just be quiet about the administration, the media and the pundits.

I cited one example of an interview where an anti-war spokeswoman allowed the debate to be framed by the pro-war speaker. She did a good job of defending. She did a better job than many, but she still debsted on his terms. My point is that we allow too many debates to be framed by the other side. This is never a good situation.

Since you claim to be a scribe, by all means do suggest some alternative questions.

Maybe I'll laugh out loud, too!

[Scribe]

39. That is the whole point! Simple Questions, like simple answers, do not exist!

You didn't criticize. You demanded something that doesn't exist from someone who's role is not to provide it. The CSPAN moderator is not there to debate anyone.

The moderator is not a "rodent" and certainly doesn't deserve to be denounced as one.

[MarianJack]

43. Actually, the Whole Point,...

...which you've been avoiding, is that the anti-war movement has a tendency to allow the pro-war
speakers to frame the debate.

If, as your responses in this thread (as well as several posts posts in your Journal) indicate, your
goal is to defend those in the MSM, have at it. We haven't lost the First Amendment.

So far, you've accomplished 2 things in your responses. You've said that I admit to not having done something I'd never claimed to have done and you've criticized questions without offering alternatives. If you have other questions to offer, I'd be delighted to hear them.

I used a strong term to express my disapproval of a group of people I believe have let the public down in their frenzy to keep us abreast of britney, lindsey and american idol while they allow this administration and their minions to get away with just about everything. I know that the media is capable of being harsh on a president. I remember how they rode Bill Clinton from practically the day he took office. By many of their own admissions, they've been too easy on this president.

You don't believe that this body of people don't deserve to be described in that manner. I personally rarely use terms like that and am rather embarrassed in the aftermath of doing so. I did,
however, use that term in a liberal forum where I am mild mannered compared to others. In 4+ years as a member of this forum, I've been in exactly 1 flame war (I don't consider our exchange to be a flame war).

Do you hold the righties who routinely use terms MUCH more inflammatory th am any I have used to the same standard? I've seen moderators "reign in" those on the left while giving the right as much freedom as they can. Do you hold them to the same standard?

You seem very willing to give the media a free pass. Why?

Some of those you so passionately defend have earned every bit of the disdain in which they are held by the left and the anti-war movement. You may disagree. It is your right to do so.

PEACE!

[Scribe]

44. Of course the media gets a 'FREE PASS'. Bingo --- You got it!

You want to blame the people who work in the media for giving attention to Britney. The people who work in the media are charged with giving the public what it wants. I am trying to have you comprehend the actual working of the press rather than insult people who are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Give the media a free pass? Of course. The Constitutional grants the pass in the 1st Amendment. That places No, zero, nil, nun, obligations on the Press. It is not a quid pro quo. The press is obligated to be nothing but unfettered. It doesn't have to be fair. It is under no obligation to be balanced. It is totally and completely free to respond to the free market of competition without hindrance. Got it?

Yeah, I know its uncomfortable sounding. Fox News can slant however it wants to gather an audience. And, MS NBC is free to counter with whatever bias it thinks an audience of some size will support. If you don't like it, then don't watch Fox News. But please avoid the common conceptual trap (and it is an intellectual trap) of assuming the media is obligated to be anything at all, morally, ethically, legally.

[MarianJack]

45. WOW!

I have a hard time even responding to such nonsense.

The public perceptions of the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement were changed by a media that put the stories right in the people's living rooms. And people responded.

Do they have an obligation to report the real news? Apparently you seem to think not. Another generation of journalists would have disagreed with you. For whatever reasons you may have, you have also again failed to respond to any questions I've asked you, so I can only draw my own conclusions about your motives.

If you are as happy with the media as you've been stating here and in many other posts in your journal, bless your heart. However, the same First Amendment you're citing gives those of us with our intellectual concepts the right to expect and demand better. If the media has absolutely no obligation to serve a role of speaking the truth, we have absolutely no obligation to trust, support or even to acknowledge them. Is this how most professionals want to be judged? I hope not.

BTW, I didn't watch fox before you gave me permission to not do so.

[Scribe]

46. Do you understand that media is a plural word? You answer as if

you do not. I am very unhappy with most of the media but understand that crap exists not as a fault of people who produce it but as a result of people believing that it is not crap. I've never said I'm happy at all. I've said you are complaining about the wrong thing based on a faulty premise involving media responsibilities.

You are complaining about the millions who prefer FOX News without understanding what you are complaining about. Those people exist and FOX has an absolute right to give them what they want. But to assert that the Constitution requires any media meet some standard is dangerous nonsense.

BLAME THE GODDAMN VIEWERS !!! Understand? It is not the people providing the news on Fox who are at fault. You must also see that when you put yourself in a specialized grouping (those with intellectual concepts), you are being elitist. You are also probably correct. More stupid people really are conservative than liberal. But the Constitution places no requirement of intelligence on the media either. Stupid people have an absolute right to stupid news.

You wrote: "we have absolutely no obligation to trust, support or even to acknowledge them. Is this how most professionals want to be judged? I hope not." Why in hell would you be obligated to trust anyone? And, most professionals don't care how you judge them. The fact that they are working is proof that a large number of people judge them favorably. I doubt they think all their fans are stupid.

I'm still trying to find questions you've asked that I haven't answered.

[MarianJack]

47. If You Haven't Found Questions That You Haven't Answered,...

...its because you're not looking for them.

Of course media is a plural word. The near monolithic glorification og george w bush and all things republican I've been seeing for several years that has only been somewhat changing recently would make one blieve it is not.

Once upon a time, there were journalists who saw it as their duty to INFORM the public. People did not want to see naked 9 year olds running in roads with napalm burning their skin off. They did not want to see civil rights marchers being fire hosed. Theu did not want to see the evidence that the president who'd just won 49 states and 60+% of the vote was among the most corrupt in history.

The media showed it anyway. Even though the Constitution doesn't require it. I remember few newscasts, with the exception of the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, Jayne mansfield and the Manson murders, where celebrity "news" was a lead story. I certainly don't recall such an obsession with the asses of minimally talented entertainers.

[Scribe]

48. What are you watching? How did you form contrary opinions?

In all likelihood, if you honestly examine your sources for the opinions you hold, most of your news comes from American media. Mine sure does. I've never been to Iraq. I haven't been in the Rose Garden since GHW Bush was President. Still, I've managed to figure out what a complete ass the President is.

It is not monolithic glorification of GW Bush that I've been watching. You think Olbermann has been part of a corporate media conspiracy to bring glory to Bush? I am constantly amused by people insisting the public never gets truth. If that were true, there would be no one here to complain.

The usual attitude I find here is that the AMERICAN MEDIA is totally worthless yet the people doing the complaining have largely had only the American media to inform them. What, you are so smart that you see thru the propaganda where others do not? Do you see the problem? You weren't bamboozled by Fox and neither was I.

The information you want and need is presented. So is a lot of crap and propaganda. You are smart enough to find what you want. And as for your idealistic notions about journalists in the past, you need some history lessons fast. Objectivity in journalism is a relatively new and American idea. The founding fathers never knew it. Their press was far worse than you know.

Yellow Journalism has always existed. Sensationalism has always sold. Your 'Once Upon a time ..." sentimentality is waaay out of place when applied to the history of the press.

[MarianJack]

51. I Cited Specific Examples That Happened,...

...not a complete "once upon a time" scenario. Along with the yellow journalism, there were critical coverages and attempts to inform, like Cronkite's challenges on Vietnam and Murrow's exposures of mccarthy.

Obviously Olberman is a light in the darkness. Part of the problem is that the best news comes from a former sports guy and 2 comedians! The vast majority of what has been going on since the late 90s has been glorification of george w bush. This started around 1998 when we were starting to hear about the "conventional wisdom" about his inevitability and how Al Gore would be lucky to carry 5 states.

This was on American Media.

For the record, "Today" brought ann coulter on yesterday for her "perspective". This morning, CBS' morning comedy show is trumpeting their interview with "remarkable young lady" jenna bush.

This is the kind of crap that makes me thankful for the BBC.

As far as American History goes, I am rather an expert on the subject.

One thing that is obvious is that the primary thing you tend to bring to the table is defense of and complete forgiveness/justification for the crap out there. Frankly, its past the point of getting boring.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Because the Dem Party is full of "girly men" these days....

where are all the Democratic politicians of yesteryear? The ones with balls? The ones who spoke like the ordinary person, and at least TRIED to keep the message straightforward, the language simple, the message bold?

Until some of those start coming back into the fold, or until the Dem. Party starts letting some of those kinds of Dems take center stage, the Dems are relegated to the back of the bus, while the Republicans party up front and sit in the driver's seat.

(More like Jim Webb need to run. If they do, they will win. And THEY will not be afraid to tell any Prez where he can get off.)

[old guy]

17. I believe part of the problem lies in the fact that generally

the right is playing by a completely different set of rules. They have thrown out the old codes of decency and respect for their opposites on the left. The left however, continues to try to follow the "respectable" path. It will not work unless the MSM exposes the right for the hypocrites they are. I am not holding my breath. Should the left start playing more by the rights own rules? Maybe. Just saying.

[xxqqqzme]

23. I don't get it either

George Lakoff should have been embraced and hired by every democrat in office to teach them how to frame. It is a mystery.

[agincourt]

25. Actually the problem is conservatives,

or the right, whatever are given way too much respect. Sometimes our people are given access if they behave. Which often ends up looking like Hannity and Colmes. Traitors should be treated like traitors. Criminals should be treated like criminals. Unfortunately they get looked as someone with just a "different point of view".

[AZBlue]

26. The Dem Party has no knowledge of marketing principles.

They have no clue as to handle public relations crises either. While politics isn't business, many of the same rules apply. There's a way to get your message out and make it stick - and the Dems have never even heard of it.

It's the MOST FRUSTRATING thing that I rant about often. You'd think by now they'd get it, but they just don't. I can't figure it out.

[avrdream]

28. I have wondered this over and over and over again.

"When you allow your opponent to frame the debate, you lose."

Someone make a bumper sticker.

[Doctor_J]

38. Because the MSM is 99.9% GOP?

Just a thought

[OHdem10]

40. FRAMING The DEBATE by Jeffrey Feldman

"FRAMING THE DEBATE" (Presidential Speeches and How Progressives
can use them to change the conversation(and win elections)

Jeffrey Feldman presented his book on C-SPan this past Sunday
(early am).

He reccommends that we study speeches of our Dem. Presidents.
especially, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and Thomas Jefferson. Eisenhour
on the GOP side.

He sees our past presidents as great framers in selling their
ideas. Illustrates in an easy to understand manner what is
involved and how to frame.
Very IMPortant that we learn to observe GOP as they develop
a frame so we are prepared to stop the effectiveness of their
frame.

Studying one's past(Dem party) prepares you better for future
movements, framing etc.

He also posts at dKos.

[Skittles]

41. she was called "anti-American left" so many times

by both asshat Kristin and callers - yet never once directly addressed that :thumbsdown:

[OHdem10]

42. Some points on Framing and why GOP succeeds at it

It is easier for Gop because they are better organized top
down.

Let us say the WH or the Party Apparatus(RNC) want to 'sell"
and idea a point whatever and I am trying to anticpate what
they are doing or where they are going.

First of all, I have chosen to monitor TV. This is where
the majoity of voters get their information. Voters are
not like activists. Activists read newspaper after
newspaer, check internet comparing. American people
do not do this. If they watch the news on TV , we are lucky.

If you want to sell an idea, where are you going ??? American
Television. GEts you the most potential buyers.

Based on this I started monitoring all TV so I could see
what the American people know on a topic and what they have
been sold.

Here goes. 1. Watch and Listen for patterns--repitition of
certain words or phrases. When I begin to pick up a word
or phrase being repeated REPEATED, my antennae go up. When
I move from channel to channel and pick up a Theme THEME
then I know I am onto something.

If you have been paying attention over the last month, esp.
last 3 weeks. The War is unpopular and majority wish to
bring the troops home. Yet the Gop stay right on the War
and never flinch. They know if they have any chance at all
of winning the nexr election, War, Strength, Terrorism are
their winning issues. They must keep their base with them.

The GOP WH and Party Leaders, RNC give the Media their
"new" items and "stories" . Very clevely they have selectd
the "KEY WORDS" These are the words they want the Media
to Emphasis and Repeat over and over. Key word get permanently
fixed in Americans Minds very easily. Pretty soon it is
"truth". Patterns, Key Words, Repitition and Theme--you
have a frme. Iran, supports Terrorism, Iran, threat to Israeld
Iran , problem in Iraq, Iran, killing our soldiers, Iran, Terrorism , Should we bomb? War With Iran . Iran, Problem
in Iraq. Iran, seeks power in Iraq . War with Iran???
Bomb Iran? Listen to this 24 7 on all TV Channels.

They have just about convinced the American People(TV Viewers)
that War with Iran is OK and we will end up boming Iran.

Where are Democrats. DO they Agree or disagree?

How are they going to reframe the argument??

This is how the GOP can possibly win the next election.

You can do the same. Compare stories in Newspaper, look
for "Key Word", Repittio, the THEME.


The GOP Campaign

[Perry Logan]

50. DUers let Republicans frame the debate all the time--especially when they're bashing Democrats.

DUers who want to diss Congress or other Presidential candidates are always trotting over here with Rasmussen polls and other winger talking points. I've heard more uncritical repetition of Republican memes at DU than anyplace I go. The Hillary-haters and the Congress-bashers are the worst.