Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE] Fitzgerald preparing indictments under the Espionage Act? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Preemptive forgiveness <-- very good (4.00)
    That's something we can perhaps work with at http://www.Demspeak.com ...

    For me it evokes a visceral reaction contemplating that word-linkage.

    •  The memes must be flying ... (none)
      ...

      rh,

      This is weird about memes!

      I was talking about this on the http://www.demspeak.com yesterday, though I hadn't read this huge diary here at the time.  

      At DemSpeak we've been working on talking to folks who are not our natural base but who arent on the GOP team either, or not wholly. In my post I responded to the notion that talking to the middle of the country can't involve pointing fingers at Bush. My point is, it won't work, won't.  

      Anyway, I didn't call the nation's reaction to Bush's use of 9/11 preemptive forgivenss, but I talked about how it just isn't going to work to talk to the middle about how wrong or tacky or whatever it is that Bush wraps himself in 9/11 every time he wants something.

      It works, for him, it just friggin' works. Every time. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we will step back, get some perspective and realize that there is a crack in that armor:

      He can use 9/11 with words and get away with it.

      HE CANNOT GET AWAY WITH USING IMAGES OF THE ATTACK.

      He's tried, and the nation will not permit it.

      From my post:

      ...
      Remember the stink when they ran that campaign ad of the body of a fireman being brought out of the wreckage? People went nuts, and not just in Manhattan. The ad came right down. There was a montage of him "in action" on 9/11; it included him on the wreckage with the bull(shit)horn, but that didn't get him much either.

      By the time of the convention, they didn't dare show their faces at Ground Zero, though that had been the plan. The best they could make out of the tragedy was that nauseating ad of Bush hovering over the little girl promising to keep her safe.

      I'm not sure why this is, maybe it's that as a nation we internalized the images of that day so very deeply before BushCo got hold of them.

      He was, what, three days getting his ass up to Manhattan to grandstand.

      In the meantime, the rest of the nation saw those images hour after hour for a couple of days till everyone agreed: hands off.

      The images of that terrible day were not to be cheapened by commerce or politics, or shown so often they lost their power.

      (There are some we still won't allow to be used or seen again even in news stories -- the people falling or jumping from the towers. Absolutely forbidden, by unanimous cultural consent.)

      Each time Bush tried to use these images of tragedy most people on all sides seemed to understand that he'd broken an agreement we all made in the brief time before he and his minions began to drive the wedge.

      The rest is at: http://demspeak.com/?q=2005/jul/08/lets-take-up-richards-framing-challenge#comment-3371  Much of it has to do with writing strategy (we are a writing lab, after all) but in context, I think some here will find the post interesting.

      As I caution the DemSpeak writers, we cannot, and should not,  use the images either, but it seems that we as a nation do somehow own something of those 3 or 4 days, something we won't let anyone profane.

      I call it Dark Sacred, and the operative word is sacred. If that's so, we can touch the middle right there, in the heart and soul. But very gently, very respectfully.

      We need them to listen, not argue.

      Ever hopeful,

      Nance

      Nancy Virginia Varian Editorial Director http://www.demspeak.com

      by Nancy Varian on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 07:15:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site