Frank Luntz strategy report

This zipped file contains two PDF files -- scans of a 160-page briefing book by Frank Luntz on the lessons learned from 2004 as the GOP seeks to extend its winning streak in 2006.

Haven't read and processed it all yet. I thought I'd give you guys an early look at it. It's a virtual smogasboard for fans of language framing, and a great "preview of coming attractions".

Warning, it's an 8MB file, so it may take a while to download.

•  Thanks

  This is just the sort of information overload we overloaded bloggers need!

  I write that with tongue firmly planted in cheek. After the article in the Mercury News, I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way. :-(
  

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:56:45 PM PDT

  •  downloaded in

    29 seconds....but may take 29 hrs to read.

    by Raiyan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:04:37 AM PDT

    •  But worth it

      transparency is the thing these liars fear the most.

      by CaliBlogger on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:11:18 AM PDT

      •  reading it now

        there's some good stuff in here...so far it's all about words and framing...

        by Raiyan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:19:26 AM PDT

        •  I just started reading

          but it has some FASCINATING stuff in it, right from the start.  There are some key framing issues in here, from frames we SHOULD use, and Rethug frames that we need to COUNTER.

          There are some funny typos, though.  See the top of page 29 where he writes about words that work in "Eductation".  Hmmmmm....

          It's a great document to really sit down and figure out how to counter.  I would argue we don't fight it... they're going to use their strategy and try to enact their policies.  Like Howard Dean has been saying, we MUST have our OWN political ideology, and counter their visions of the rich getting richer with our visions of opportunity and support for everyone.  The fights in Congress are just the results of the "pre-match" positioning of ideology.  We MUST convince Americans that we have a more positive, progressive, hopeful vision of the future.
          

          by jedc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:35:21 AM PDT

          •  Redirect

            The idea of equal opportunity being popular isn't ground-breaking.  Luntz is just proposing that they use it to sell things that AREN'T equality of opportunity.

            In the GOP's vision, those who own more have more opportunity.  In their vision, some people are more equal than others.

            Grab this language back.  Thanks, Frank (and Kos) for doing the footwork for us, putting it all in one place.

            by Jonathan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:47:42 AM PDT

            •  it goes beyond that

              They want to remove all the other elements from the meaning of "fair".  It's extremely Orwellian -- in 1984, they redefined "free" to entirely remove any "liberty" aspect.

              by jqb on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:28:18 PM PDT

        •  deceptive!

          Luntz's tools ARE words and frames, but do not be deceived: most of the tools he talks about are crafted with a very specific purpose and will only hurt us if we try to pick them up.

          Luntz's mission is to hijack the english language. This as a way of robbing his opponents (us) of their most important weapons: ideas. Words, after all, have meaning. And Luntz wants to make sure the important words are moored to right-wing ideas.

          Look at his advice on "fairness" for example.  "Fairness" is a word with strong progressive identifications, it is an idea that consistently and reliably evokes liberal values.  If you're a neo-fascist, this is troubling; "fairness" is a weapon liberals have been able to rely upon.

          What's Luntz's solution? Redefine fairness. "Remove that [weapon]," he says, "and you will have the majority for a generation."  Disconnect "fairness" from the more progressive ideals of justice and morality.  Connect it instead with the more 'rightie' ideals of ownership, personal responsibility, etc.

          Fairness is an issue we can win on, but sunscribing to Luntz's definition will only hurt our cause. It's a feint. Beware of adopting his prescriptions. Some of the stuff is about beating the other to the punch, some of it's plain poison.

          by sundog on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:25:18 AM PDT

          •  Highjacking the Language.

            
             You're exactly right (uh, correct).

             And this is precisely what Democrats have over and over (for the past few election cycles and, also notably, in the '94 race) failed to understand:  words are everything.

             Bush's track record (he VACATIONED FOR A MONTH in the run-up to 9.11 !!!) on Nat'l Security is the horrific.  But dammit if the Dems didn't allow Bush and the GOP to say they were the Nat'l Security President, Party, Candidate, whatever and say it enough times -- uneffing challanged by the Dems -- that America (or enough Americans) actually believed it!

              That's just one example.  And, once again, here we are out here in the hinterland SCREAMING at the Dem Leaders to get their collective shit together, understand that language is, if not everything, most of everything in politics, and to not give a frigging inch of ground to GOP memes, narratives, frames or whatever you want to call 'em.  In fact, the Dems need to get in the effing "driver's seat" on this.

              With Dean at the helm strategy-wise, I'm actually cautiously optimistic that something may actually (at least start to) change on this front by '06.

             BenGoshi
            ________________

            by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:14:35 AM PDT

          •  Newspeak

            Luntz is the master of rethug "Newspeak." The rethugs are living down to Orwell's worst fears that eventually a party or group would arise in the west that would essentially re-write the entire dictionary changing the meaning of the language to suit it's political and social/cultural goals. Luntz and his wordsmiths are doing just that 1 word at a time. The left or Progressive world is losing this battle. I see it daily with the folks I work with. the Gen. X's and Gen. Z'ers already live in the Luntz world of newspeak it's their givens.

            by Blutodog on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:27:38 AM PDT

          •  Don't forget

            George Lakoff (Don''t Think of an Elephant) points out that Orwellian language is an indication of weakness. No one would support a "Dirty Skies" initiative so they call it "Clean Skies."

            Instead of getting our noses out of joint that they are lying again, we should learn to recognize Republican double-talk as a signal that here is a place they are weak, here is a place we should apply pressure.

            I haven't read the document yet, but if they are trying to co-opt the word "fairness," it's because they know people know they aren't fair. So we should start talking about fairness, what is fairness? It's an excellent chance to develop a counter-narrative, "We Dems think fairness is a matter of x, y, z," And because our definition of "fairness" is the actual, real one, people will recognize it as such.

            by SadieB on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:25:25 AM PDT

            •  Exactly! [n/t]

              by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:33:20 AM PDT

            •  fairness shouldn't be WHO you know

              it should be WHAT you know and WHAT you can do.

              And everyone deserves an opportunity to LEARN.

              If we don't give people that opportunity, WE lose out. We lose out on that smart, poor kid who might be the one to cure cancer. We lose out on that gifted artist who can't afford to go to art school. We lose out on that military genius who never finishes high school.

              We ALL lose when we don't provide opportunity to learn and advance to ALL of us.

              by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:33:39 AM PDT

    •  Mutter, grumble...

      I envy your bandwith...sheesh..will take me 30 minutes or more...

      by Wayward Wind on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:16:06 AM PDT

  •  Very well written - Works for Progressives, too

    So many solid truisms that work despite any ideology.

    Jefferson is alleged to have said, "the government that governs best, governs least."

    Kerry and company believed, wrongly, "the answer that serves the best, says the least." Or perhaps, "is couched to offend the least." But the Republicans were not worried about offending. They love it! Look at Ann Coulter, a sort of warmed-over female, right-wing, political version of Andrew Dice Clay.

    The Democrats came off equivocal. People felt they were having to diagram the sentences and, yes, Kerry used vague antecedents.

    I plan to read this work cover to cover.

    Glad this report, whoever wrote it, is in circulation.

    Matsu

    by Matsu on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:48:23 AM PDT

•  Think I'll wait for the movie...

  or your review......it's midnight on the coast and too late to tackle this big a project!   zzzz

  by oldpro on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:57:51 PM PDT

  •  Bring on EuroKos!

    
    We're just getting up when kos and the rest of the West Coasters are going to bed.  (Of course that means that most front-page kos stuff happens after we've gone to bed... oh, well.)
    

    by jedc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:37:48 AM PDT

•  Okay, so Kossaks will read it, but. . .

  Will the Democrats?  After all, Nancy Pelosi spent more time and effort trying to protect her campaign consultants from Howard Dean's grassroots movement than protect Democratic candidates from Tom DeLay's redistricting coup.

  by Dragonchild on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:01:52 AM PDT

  •  Grassroots will

    The grassroots democrats will, and with help from DFA, MoveOn, and others, we should have a healthy farm team of those coming up in '06.

    by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:04:44 AM PDT

    •  I wish I had your idealism, but

      I'll believe it when I see it.

      by Dragonchild on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:46:38 AM PDT

      •  Join us!

        Grassroots for America and Latinos for America are creating a "Root camp" training program.  

        On a parallel track, Demspeak is doing a fantastic job getting the word out about framing.

        In the mean time, DFA is working on getting the issues framed for 2006 now and recruiting candidates.  The DNC, under Dean is planning to do a great deal to empower the grassroots in each state party (or in tech speak, the "edge").

        And that's barely the tip of the iceberg.

        There's a LOT of energy out there right now, and any additions would be very welcome. Email me (in my profile), and I'll try to help you get connected to the group(s) that might best fit your interests. ;-)

        by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:05:04 AM PDT

        •  ching ching!

          Lead the horses to water ... and make them drink! :)

          by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:38:20 AM PDT

        •  ching ching!

          Lead the horses to water ... and make them drink! :)

          by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:39:21 AM PDT

  •  Pelosi is a non-entity

    She has power on paper -- and actual power. But is devoid of ideas. Clueless about innovation. Is at least 4 years behind the curve. And has no hint of authenticity when she speaks on camera.

    So sure, she has power. But strategy will never come from her and Reid.  They are, as silly as it sounds, "old school" ... like the Recording Industry was 5 years ago with music downloading. From their dinosauric lens, all they could see was:

    Users violating the rules.
    Users must obey.
    We make the rules.
    The way you buy music is via an album.
    We profit by stuffing crappy songs onto an album which only has 3 good songs on it and charge $22 for it. Sorry, that's the way it's always been. And that's justh the way it is.

    What they couldn't see was:

    Paradigm shift.
    Observe the users.
    Users prefer to download music.
    And they like to buy songs a la carte.
    Best to craft a new parallel business model that accomodates user behavior.
    Vs. trying to push back against the natural flow of a river, punishing users for even thinking "downloading".

    They wasted 5 years fighting expensive court battles

    And when they took a 12 year old to court, the public tide was turning. But tyhe dinosaurs still insisted "Our Model Prevails. That is Just The Way It Is."

    But Apple (Dean) paid attention to the filesharing behavior (grassroots), and created a business (campaign) around it. And voila, iTunes Music Store.

    Dinosaurs look on, smoking cigars, and mouths dangling open: Now why the hell didn't WE think of that?

    Pelosi = Dinosaur. Dinosaur soom to be extinct.  She may have power now -- and she does. But it won't be her strategies that drive the next elections.  They will need to behave, take their talking points from the Grassroots Strategists, get the TV coachin they need, play the role properly, or be replaced.

    rh+
    Unproud congressional constituent of Pelosi in San Francisco.

    Join the grassroots Messaging and Media deployment thinktank at http://www.DemSpeak.com

    by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:36:20 AM PDT

    •  Pelosi is like that

      But I think Reid "gets it", or at least a lot more than Daschle.

      by Geotpf on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:33:41 AM PDT

      •  that's true: he actually used Birth Tax

        Yeah, that was unfair to throw Reid in there with Pelosi. He's pleasantly  surprising lots of people. Pelosi is in a loser class by herself.

        Expectation Management: if she weren't so hyped as a great liberal from San Francisco, maybe I would view her as just the average ineffective Democrat. But prior to her arrival, she was supposed to be a real outspoken opposition leader. And we were finally going to see pushback. Not from her.

        But I bet she enjoys cocktail parties in DC. Though, dahling, they are nothing like her local parties in Pacific Heights. You just don't find quality Persian rugs in D.C.! And the crystal is atrocious!

        by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:03:08 AM PDT

        •  It's All About the Benjamins

          Pelosi's only great accomplishment was her ability to raise scads of money under a campaign finance system that's no longer with us.

          The sad thing is that the only serious opposition to her election as Minority Leader was Harold Ford, who would have been a bigger disaster.  

          by GreenSooner on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:03:53 AM PDT

          •  Her scarves cost more than most people make per mo

            Thank God Steny is there to push.

            by democraticpitbull on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:50:47 AM PDT

    •  That is an outstanding analysis

      And one we need to pay serious attention to. Because ultimately, whether business or politics, it's all about understanding what people want and then making them realize that what we're offering dovetails with what they want.

      Sure, some successful business and politics involve manufacturing demand. I mean really, who "needs" sickly-sweet syrup added to their water, with bubbles? But there's a zillion-dollar soft drink industry out there, that was created in part by creating a demand where none existed -- but also built upon understanding that a lot of people enjoy sweets. There has to be a basic need, and then you marry what you have with that need. For some products, the advertising is as shameless as feeding on people's needs to feel attractive, to "belong," whatever.

      People didn't "need" to get all hysterical about terrorism and security issues -- there was another way to deal with it. But Bushco married Americans' visceral fears about things beyond our control (we as a culture like to think we can control everything -- even the aging process -- if we just take the right actions) and peddled what they were offering to that need.

      Democrats for too long have been acting like the Digital Equipment Corp. of politics: If we just build the best computer/offer the best program, of course people will understand and choose us. But it's also about understanding what people want, and then convincing them what you have is what they need.

      by firenze on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:56:00 AM PDT

  •  Links

    Hi,

    Got any links to substantiate what you say?  I'm not saying it's false.  Just that we already know there was a disinformation campaign going during the runup to the DNC charmain selection.  This 'rumor' may have been part of it...

    by indyjones48 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:34:38 AM PDT

    •  Salon's coverage of the DNC Chairman election

      To thwart Dean, Pelosi recommended a different candidate.

      To thwart DeLay, Pelosi did. . . absolutely nothing.  Just some post-Ethics-Committee whining.

      So, she did something to stop Dean, and didn't lift a finger to stop DeLay.

      Were you expecting a conspiracy?  From what I know, the truth really is that pathetic.

      by Dragonchild on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:59:12 PM PDT

•  Thank you!

  Bwa, ha, ha! [mad scientist hand wringing]

  I'll have to dissect tomorrow, though (or technically, later today).

  by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:02:36 AM PDT

•  The Persuaders

  Frontline's the Persuaders had a segment on Luntz.

  They have a transcript of an interview

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html

  and you can watch it online.  it is the 5th segment

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/

  by ari on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:02:43 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    I saw that tonight. Mesmerizing.

    Luntz seems like your average marketing guy, maybe even a little more likeable. Then he starts to explain his death tax vs. estate tax argument and the evil starts to show. His comments from this download cinch it:

    I was in high school when Ronald Reagan was elected. Throughout his first term, he did a lot to change the course of America yet I still remember thinking of all he could have done if he had a Republican House to match a Republican Senate. That was my dream....

    I was in high school at the time as well. No such thoughts ever crossed through my brain. I was too worried about how we were all living under mutually-assured destruction. Oh, yeah, it was a real party.

    This guy must be pure evil.

    -5.88, -6.82

    by Debby on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:12:22 AM PDT

    •  Here's direct video link you can email

      Here's the direct link to the WindowsMediaPlayer video file posted above from PBS... converted to "tinyURL" so you can send it to everyone via email:

      http://tinyurl.com/6e5nj

      rh+

      by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:08:07 AM PDT

    •  A good description

      Honestly, I've always thought that Luntz is your average marketing guy.  The only twist is that he does pro-Republican politics full time.

      What he does is not extraordinary.  Up until recently, though, he's been one of the few who's been doing it.

      I've seen several of his framing issues that really didn't work all that well.  Like Rove, in many ways, I think he gets the accolades because of lack of competition.

      What I'm trying to say is that I think it's time we stopped seeing these guys as super-geniuses, and recognize that they got where they are because we didn't put up a fight...

      by Jonathan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:27:06 AM PDT

      •  They are not genius' in any way

        They are much more like the Joker and the Riddler in a town where Batman doesn't exist. I think the first frame we need to adopt here is to get all Progressives and Democrats to refer to people like Rove and Luntz as 'arch-criminals'.

        by The past is over on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:10:51 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        If we look at this as an art form, or style, then it will basically follow three stages.

        First, there's always the trailblazers.  They're the ones that get the ball rolling; but their work isn't necessarily all that sophisticated, or brilliant.  They're just the first, so are well known because of it.

        Second comes more sophistication, as more people become involved in the 'art form'. People in this stage are pushing the form to it's fullest potential.  In context of Repug newspeak, this is probably the most dangerous time for us...Or maybe we're in this stage right now given the success the Repugs have had with it.

        Finally, comes the devolution stage, where everything 'new' has been done, and/or it's no longer fresh, and/or people have become ambivilant to it.  Ihe art form becomes derivative and oftentimes a parody of itself.

        by indyjones48 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:52:45 AM PDT

        •  So the question becomes...

          I agree with your analysis and I think we are deep into stage 2 and stage 3 will probably begin, hopefully before the 2006 cycle, but I'd bet before the 2008 Pres cycle.

          In that light, I think the most interesting stage is stage 4. Stage 4 is a repeat of stage 1, but what/who will be the new trailblazers?

          A short term strategy should consider jumping into stage 2 and milk it for all it's worth. A long term strategy should begin developing a new stage 4 and ignore stage 3 once it begins, focusing energy on getting ahead of the curve.

          by Espumoso on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:49:11 AM PDT

      •  Luntz has branched

        
        He now does work for corporations in addition to politics. Just look at his website.
        

        by ari on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:13:46 AM PDT

    •  I was a sophmore in college 1980

      and I remember being amazed at how good the repug arguements were then.  I was getting full financial aid cuz my family was on welfare, and I was working in resturants in free times.  
      I wasn't surprised over the enthsiasm of my classmates who were preppy clones, just "leaders" of the followers, but the indifference or support that raygun got from the working knob really amazed me.  

      It was so obvious, to me, that this guy wanted everyone to have the freedom to work for 1 of 3 big companies, 14 2 hour shifts a week, overtime after 80 hours and benes after 81 hours.

      Where the f*** have pelosi / kerry / brazille / gore / etc been for the last 25 years?  Shouldn't they have been onto lutz and framing, or, do they just go to expensize fundraisers to get money to stage more expensive fundraisers and stage losing political campaigns.

      We need to clean out our own house - our "leaders" can come out the field and pound rocks and grow potatoes with the rest of us serfs, but, they shouldn't be allowed to sit at the head table no more.
      rmm.

      by rmdewey on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:49:26 AM PDT

    •  Honestly

      Mutually Assured Destruction was a brilliant strategy.

      Of course it's easy to say that now because it worked.  But Sting summed up the gambit with his immortal line... "I hope the Russians love their children too."  If that was not true, the strategy would have failed and killed us all, but I think it was a reasonable assumption to make.

      I always felt then that people were overly hysterical about that, I definately feel that now.

      But I don't "get" what the Bush strategy is these days.  I'm more concerned then ever that there simply is no strategy.

      by Steve4Clark on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:02:37 AM PDT

      •  Look at

        all the money and resources that went into making sure mutually-assured destruction existed. What if that could have gone into education, science, etc.? It may have been a brilliant strategy, but it's a corrupt way to live.  

        -5.88, -6.82

        by Debby on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:32:30 AM PDT

        •  reasonable point

          And I believe that goes back to Truman's philosophy that Communism was primarily an economic threat and should therefore be confronted by showing how we can do better economically.

          The thing is, that has to be articulated.

          Saying MAD was scarey doesn't convince people to agree with you.

          I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.

          by Steve4Clark on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:36:13 PM PDT

          •  MAD

            Whereas, saying MAD was not scary is quite convincing.

            by SadieB on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:35:32 PM PDT

  •  thank you so much for that video link

    Join the grassroots Messaging and Media deployment thinktank at http://www.DemSpeak.com

    by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:46:06 AM PDT

•  Excellent, thank you from DemSpeak

  Kos, this is exactly what we need, as we are in process of putting together a diverse set of professional ad, marketing, PR, linguistic specialists forming the  Strategic Messaging and Deployment Team at http://www.DemSpeak.com .

  DemSpeak itself is a sub-thinktank of the overarching ProgressiveStrategies new thinktank being built from the ground up by grassroots pros from across the U.S. Our intent is to be 100% autonomous from any Democratic Party apparatus.

  This is something we will devour.

  Gracias!

  by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:06:44 AM PDT

•  that's f-ing awesome!

  Just think, 4 years ago this kind of thing might barely have made it into the hands of a few conniving Democrats if at all.  This time around everyone knows the Rep strategy.

  by hotshotxi on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:12:07 AM PDT

  •  after reading some of the manual

    it looks like exactly what Democrats need to do.  Somebody send this off to Dean and the Congressional leadership.  We need every elected official and consultant to study this thing and learn from the Goopers.

    by hotshotxi on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:33:04 AM PDT

    •  Sent to DFA already [n/t]

      by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:42:17 AM PDT

      •  Al Franken, Randi Rhodes,

        Thom Hartmann, Keith Olbermann et al in the progressive media could do some damage with this info as well. Anyone passed it on to these folks yet?
        

        by moses on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:13:14 AM PDT

        •  I sent the link to:

          This is such great info for educational purposes.

          I've sent the link to:

          • Thom Hartmann,
            
          • VT Rapid Response team,
            
          • Latinos for America,
            
          • A group of bloggers that got together after the - - "No Go on Gonzales" effort,
            
          • DFA
            
          • I also posted the link on the DFA blog (overnight and AM threads) and Root Camp web site.
            
          • A bunch of people I know (social connectors).

          Others have posted the link in the RockRidge forums, and on DemSpeak.  Plus it's arrived in my inbox from others this AM.

          Keep spreading the word...

          by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:31:39 PM PDT

•  Scary

  "It's time for the GOP to tackle and own the principle of fairness. Define fairness as "equality of opportunity."

  Okay, I'm game. Were you born with the same opportunities as those whose parents have a half-billion dollars in the bank?

  "When you speak of American ownership, be sure to frame it with the lens of opportunity. Ownership is limited, but THE OPPORTUNITY OF OWNERSHIP is limitless and the very definition of the American Dream."

  Let's make sure that "Ownership is limited" is a recurring theme. Do you have a right to shoot anyone you want just because you own a gun?

  "It is perfectly acceptable, if not imperative, that you address this vaues debate. And yes, it is FAMILY VALUES that Americans want and expect to see in you and in your policies."

  Not true. The majority of Americans are not "families" under the definition that the Republicans are promoting. Most people don't fit into their definition of families.

  Even if they did, families never did anything as families. All progress and all value is created by individuals. Those individuals are often supported by some group, which might or might not be a family.

  We should be squarely in favor of individual rights. It is the individual that is under attack by the Republicans.

  And remember: The whole purpose of having a strong family is to raise strong individuals so that they can contribute to society and become solid citizens.

  "You need to be FOR something, rather than just AGAINST something."

  Truer words were never spoken and we need to adopt this principle.

  "Start and end with ACCOUNTABILITY. It matters most."

  Boy, these are words that will come back to haunt them!

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:12:18 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm.....

    "It's time for the GOP to tackle and own the principle of fairness. Define fairness as "equality of opportunity."

    Fuck the "Ownership Society"! The Democrats are all about "Opportunity America", a new program that allows REAL people, everday working folks, to improve their standards of living while ensuring that their children will continue the American Dream...that the next generation will have the OPPORTUNITY to get a good education, enjoy quality health care, and own their own homes."

    Add to My speech...and any suggestions that you may have.

    "OPPORTUNITY AMERICA" , because if you don't, the Republicans will hate it.

    by HappyMichBlogger on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:32:46 AM PDT

    •  Ownership Society

      Ownership Society: A bunch of Orwellian bullshit that embodies the word play the Republicans like to use. Lakoff says that you can never cede a debate. We lose to the Republicans on national security b/c we don't try to take down Bush's frame of being a strong, act-from-the-gut leader. We need to take down that frame, and we can do the same thing w/ the ownership society.

      Everyone associates the ownership society w/ independence, rugged individualism, Herbert Hoover, etc. So how much freedom and individualism do you have to "own" your own life when:

      The government can just break down the fucking door to your house, search the entire damn thing, never show you a warrant, and leave?

      If you're a woman and you don't even have control over your own reproductive rights?

      You're poor and you have to choose b/w paying the rent and paying for medical bills?

      You can't find a job and are stuck on welfare?

      The lack of energy independence forces you to fork over your money to Saudi tyrants for oil and effectively help finance terrorist acts? You know that you hate the Saudis, but what can you do when our country isn't energy independent?

      The government just sold out the place you go for hunting and fishing w/ your family to an industry that unethically poisons it every day?

      You're a small farmer that got put out of business b/c the big agribusinesses cut manufacturing costs after the government allowed them to destroy the air and water of the rural communities they are based in?

      You worry that your children won't be able to start a business because they'll have their hands tied paying off the birth tax that Bush gave them?

      We progressives have been the party of individualism and personal ownership ever since the Republicans made this radical switch to big-government conservatism. Bill Clinton put it best: Government's job is not to run people's lives, its job is to give people the tools they need to run their own life (i.e. proper healthcare, a living wage, middle-class tax breaks, helping move people from welfare to work, etc.). Clinton says that ideally, government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. The people are the solution, and it is government's obligation to provide them with what they need to solve their problems. That is what we progressives believe in.

      by FenderT206 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:50:46 AM PDT

      •  Avarice Society

        ...is what I call it.

        The idea of our government wanting the People to own more makes me sick to my stomach. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and yet we equate wealth with owning stuff.

        How much does one nation need to own before it is called greed?

        by Espumoso on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:55:30 AM PDT

    •  What the Democrats should be selling ...

      is that after four (or six or eight) years of failed "trickle-down economics," fiscal lunacy, and a needless & fucked-up war, the American people need to rise up and kick the bums out.

      How would I frame it?

      How about:  A New Deal for A New Century.

      by slip kid no more on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:33:01 AM PDT

      •  Or, better yet

        Chimped sucks and fucked up the world. We told you so.

        by Volvo Liberal on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:02:29 AM PDT

    •  Ownership?

      of what? We have been sold to China.

      by mattes on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:20:39 AM PDT

  •  so as long as we have the same opportunity to

    steal from each other, it's fair for one of us to rob the other blind.

    Defining "fairness" as "equality of opportunity" is of course to misdefine it.

    fair: Just to all parties; equitable
    just: Consistent with what is morally right

    It's hardly surprising that the "moral values" Repugs would leave morality out of the equation.  There's MY framing.
    

    by jqb on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:15:23 AM PDT

    •  or you can define it as

      fairness means I can live in a safe neighborhood. Not whether I can afford it or not.

      Because if you have to have some advantage to even get the opportunity, that's NOT 'fair' and it's NOT 'equal'.

      Equal schools mean that the worst inner city school has the same equipment and trained teachers as the best private school.

      Equal access to college means that money and connections aren't the issue -- ability and potential is.

      Equal access to healthcare means that you don't need to be working to have it, and you don't need to work for a big company and make a big salary either.

      So, yeah, I'm all for fairness and equality.

      Oh you meant some OTHER kind of fairness and equality? There is no other kind. None that meets the definition of fair and equal.

      by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:46:36 AM PDT

  •  Wow

    If the Repubs are going to start talking about equality of opportunity, I think that provides a real opportunity to co-opt the debate.  Liberal policies are much more sellable as providing equal opportunity than those of the right wing.

    by Jonathan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:30:46 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      You're absolutely right about that.  This generation of Republicans is a direct threat to equality of opportunity.  Once they're finished the bottom 60 percent won't have the opportunity to do much of anything.  The current Democrats are about making sure the ladder they came up is still firmly in place for others.  The current Republicans are all about kicking the ladder away once they're safely up.

      by decisivemoment on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:24:36 AM PDT

  •  something for suckers

    Ownership is limited, but THE OPPORTUNITY OF OWNERSHIP is limitless and the very definition of the American Dream."

    This is their game in a nutshell.  Ownership is LIMITED - only the very few get to own something (wealth) while everybody else sells their labor  (work).  Luntz must be reading Marx.

    And if we tax only work, we'll make sure that very few achieve wealth.

    Bring it on, baby.  Try to take food out of Grandma's mouth, try to saddle Junior with your debt from the day he's born.  Let's watch that oligarchy wither (slither) away, after it's grown fat and sluggish.

    Apologies to Karl.  (the original, not his namesake nemesis)

    by pundit on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:05:42 AM PDT

    •  Taxing only work

      This is important.

      I don't think most people realize this is what we do.

      I can't think of anything great off-the-cuff, but there is a lot to mine here in terms of framing, I think.

      by Joan in Seattle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:31:19 AM PDT

      •  there's an easy way to say that

        Tax income. Not just work.

        After all, it is INCOME tax, not WORK tax.

        by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:48:28 AM PDT

    •  The greater frame for 'ownership'

      I believe I heard somewhere some statements along the lines of:

      -most people believe wealth will make them happy (actually, it does not. It takes away some of the unhappiness that can come from financial stress - no way to put your kids in college, no way to take care of sick parents, etc. - but it doesn't, in itself, make you happy)
      -many people believe they can or even will achieve something like wealth, or at least much more wealth than they have, in their lifetime.
      -most people see themselves as upwardly mobile

      So, when you argue against the things that the GOP has associated with 'your chance at wealth' - i.e., ownership, no 'death tax' etc. - then you are arguing against their hope for greater happiness.

      by Kimberly Stone on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:45:01 AM PDT

      •  right

        and lots of kids think that they're going to be NBA players, or NFL players, and make millions.

        It's highly unlikely. And if you spend all your time worrying about sports and not academics, you won't have much chance of getting anywhere at all.

        We have to restress the American Dream that means so much to immigrants -- if you work hard, play fair, and go to school, you can have a nice life. Not necessarily a fabulously wealthy life, but a NICE life. A house, nice car, relative financial security.

        And maybe, you get rich. But not from playing basketball.

        by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:53:44 AM PDT

  •  Accountability

    Tort reform: Corporate Non-accountability Act; Insurance Profit Protection Act.

    Each year 100,000 Americans are killed by medical mistakes in hospitals. This number will only increase if the medical profession is not held accountable.

    Me on tort reform: Insurance companies are in the business of insuring companies and doctors against the financial effects of lawsuits. Insurance adjustors are afraid to take even a single loss in court, and settle cases they could easily win. They also drive up costs by neglecting to settle until the last minute (the courthouse steps) cases they will clearly lose because their clients were clearly negligent. They do this to "punish" lawyers for taking the cases, and to cost them as much money as possible.

    The insurance industry could much better manage their own risk by settling cases with merit quickly, and trying the rest. Trying cases without merrit would truly "punish" lawyers who take cases they know stink in an effort to get a settlement. They should also propose quicker, fairer ways to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as cases go.

    Instead, rather than figuring out a better way to manage their own risk, the insurance industry is demanding that we all give up our right to sue.  They want us to give up our rights to protect their profits.

    I do mock trials for a living, and juries 95% of the time can be trusted to make good decisions about whether or not there is liability in a case. They come into trials with a definite bias against the plaintiff, and with the belief there are too many frivilous lawsuits. To win at trial, the plaintiff must overcome these preconceptions with evidence.

    by Joan in Seattle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:27:50 AM PDT

  •  Fairness and opportunity

    I haven't read the Luntz piece because I have dial-up.  That said, the fairness and opportunity issues are key for the Dems and we must not lose them.  

    Does "equality of opportunity" mean a level playing field?  That has bothered a lot of people, so I suggest we use "a fair start in life" instead, as in "each child needs a fair start in life, meaning good health care and a good education."  Talk about REMOVING BARRIERS to opportunity, such as more funding for higher education.

    Above all, we need to talk about fairness in the context of taxes.  The Republican ideal is to tax the working and middle classes, while giving them a shot at the lottery--if you win, you will have low taxes on your wealth.  

    We need to explain everything in terms of trade-offs.  Do you want to repeal the estate tax or fully fund Social Security?  Do you want to keep the Bush tax cuts but have higher state and local taxes to pay for programs the Feds have cut?  And most of all, do you want to saddle your children with a crushing burden of debt because we aren't, as a society, willing to pay for the benefits and services we receive from the gov't?

    The excellent diary by Stirling Newberry on Rove's strategy, especially his tying the growing debt to this strategy was very, very good and should be read by everyone.  Tax and fiscal policy are the big issues here, bigger even than Social Security.

    by Mimikatz on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:31:42 AM PDT

•  credibility

  saying what you mean even if you are wrong... even if you lie about all the policy details....

  one more reason to push ideals... people are not as judgemental about your ideals as they seem, they are judgemental about unwillingness to believe your ideals are innately appealing.

  by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:15:07 AM PDT

  •  Character

    It's why making "character" more important than the issues is crucial to wrong-wing success.

    If you can couch everything in values terms, then assassinate the character of your opponent using the values you've set as the frame, you can win, even if you would be trounced based on the issues.

    The goal in reframing from a progressive perspective must be to extend the values discussion to outcomes.  The wingers can make all the pretty noises they want on the proposal side, and resort to personal attacks 'til the cows come home, but if we can shed light on the values inherent in the outcomes of their proposals, we'll beat them every time.

    by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:36:44 AM PDT

    •  great

      point about outcomes.

      Always tie your rpubliCON target to the results of his policy, not the stated intent.

      "why bother calling it "no child left behind".  That's just a name.  Your party left all children but the rich behind.  Actions should speak louder than words"
      If the cons didn't control all major american media, actions MIGHT speak louder than words.

      by onlooker on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:17:20 AM PDT

•  Fairness

  If I had to give one word to define what it means to be a Democrat then that word would be "fairness". (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/15857/0702)And here they are trying to grab that word. Bastards.

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

  •  Such a simple message

    Totally agree - Fairness is the perfect word.

    Interesting you brought that up because growing up I have always thought of myself as a fair person first and foremost.

    On the flip side of that, my biggest pet peeve is dishonesty. (republicans! ding ding ding)

    by diplomatic on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:28:17 AM PDT

  •  What Fairness Means

    "'Fairness means that every American has the chance to succeed even if the ultimate outcome may vary.'

    "This underscores the common liberal/conservative debate over equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Americans believe in equal opportunity and reject programs that seek equal outcomes. The American people are, after all, realists at heart. So when you talk about fairness, talk about it in this context."

    There's a little something wrong with this argument, a fatal flaw. It implies that what the Republicans will give you is actually equality of opportunity. If opportunity were really equal, most rich kids would go to community colleges and end up at Burger King doing counter duty. But they don't, do they?

    This is exactly the kind of either/or argument we should be on watch for. We need to point out the excluded middle. What Democrats are for is a safety net that means that you can exercise you equality of opportunity within a system that prevents you from going so far outside normal parameters that you are lost.

    Democrats have never been in favor of equal outcomes. We're just realists (like the American people) who know that the natural system (e.g., free market) is rigged to make it unfair for most and needs some quantity of reasoned intervention to eliminate some of the most egregious abuses.

    BTW, what does it means for one outcome to vary? What is it varying from? Oh, well.
    

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:32:20 AM PDT

    •  Bingo

      There's a little something wrong with this argument, a fatal flaw. It implies that what the Republicans will give you is actually equality of opportunity. If opportunity were really equal, most rich kids would go to community colleges and end up at Burger King doing counter duty. But they don't, do they?

      You nailed it.  They use language to hide their true intent.

      by mataliandy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:39:56 AM PDT

      •  Equality of Opportunity

        Luntz is right that this is a very tricky issue.  To most people, "equal opportunity" means that evryone runs the same race, but the people who are faster runners inately and/or have better training will win.

        This is fine in sports, but even there they have staggered starting places when a race run purely the same would give someone an unfair advantage.  

        As I said above, I think talking about "removing barriers to opportunity" is a better frame, leaving the whole issue of equality aside.  This includes things like more spending on poor schools, more tutoring for poor kids, more scholarships and grants, more training etc, not lowering standards as such.  Try to equalize in some measure the advantages that better off kids get, but don't lower the standards.  This way rewards and teaches the value of hard work, something everyone who is concerned about "equality" can approciate.  Plus it is what really works.    

        by Mimikatz on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:43:48 AM PDT

    •  Difference of two perspectives

      Repugs:  
      If you're a poor inter-city kid who picked the wrong parents then success is surviving the pressure of street gangs, getting through high school and landing a job at Mickey Dee's.

      If your daddy, granddaddy and great granddaddy all went to an Ivy league college and grad school then you succeed when you graduate from the same schools and join the family law firm, medical practice or assume your place on the board of directors on family's megacorp.

      Democrats:
      Regardless of whom your parents were, where you live and how much money you have, we believe that you deserve the same education and  the same opportunities, and we believe that we need to go the extra mile to ensure this happens.

      by Cordelia Lear on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:54:58 AM PDT

    •  fairness is about JUSTICE, not equality

      justice: The principle of moral rightness

      The "moral values" Repugs leave morality out of the equation.
      

      by jqb on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:19:39 AM PDT

      •  It's about both

        And today's Republicans are interested in neither.

        by Jonathan on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:32:46 AM PDT

        •  you're right, I misstated

          fair: just and equitable

          They want to redefine "fair" as "equal opportunity" -- it's notable what they leave out: justice and most of equity.  And their notion of "equal opportunity" is like Anatole France's observation that "The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

          This document proves that the Republicans are morally corrupt to the core.
          

          by jqb on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:25:13 PM PDT

      •  Liberty and Justice for All

        Right from the Pledge they so revere.

        We are the party of Liberty and Justice for All.

        Including the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, the naked and strangers. (Some good old New Testament values for you, right from Matthew 25:35.)

        I think Dems should trademark (metaphorically) "Liberty and Justice for All". Isn't that what America is about?

        Isn't that what Christianity is all about? In Matthew, Christ made it the litmus test for access to Heaven. That should wake up Christian Republicans.

        by Joan in Seattle on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:47:29 AM PDT

•  Sickening

  I suppose bored Kossacks could play a game, downing a shot everytime you hear your congresscritter using these speeches verbatim.  I skimmed the whole thing in twenty minutes, and it's nauseating and barfening and vomit-inducing and scary to see how up is down and down is up, laying it out so even Katherine Harris can understand and know what to say -- just look it up.  No wonder they're on message.

  It's interesting on page 3 of the second part how he praises Democrats' message and delivery about energy policy, including a quote from Kerry.  It's amazing to me that half of the energy section is devoted to ANWR, which doesn't seem as big compared to a lot of the other issues (don't get me wrong, I come from the state in question, and I certainly do care) -- the other half is devoted to nuclear (which has a future of some sort...but that's quite another diary).  

  Basically: blame the government (especially the IRS), 9/11 changed everything, getting rid of Social Security and legal protection is all about unleashing American workers.  

  Very interesting that there's nothing at all about the war (or any war, for that matter) - makes me suspicious, actually.

  I wish every single Democratic candidate would read this too -- to counter their suspiciously on-message opponents, and to learn how to frame issues themselves.

  by berns19 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:29:13 AM PDT

  •  We need a grand event

    to alert the public to these dastardly plots. We need someone like Biden to go on Meet the Press and start mouthing some of these Orwellian phrases word for word as if he believed them. It would be a beautiful touch if he could stare straight ahead like he were a zombie to further emphasize the point. Monday morning will be filled with news reports of Biden's bizarre behavior on MTP then the blogosphere can get to word sending out a press release to EVERY news organization in the US informing them of the true meaning of this stunt. We need theater. Americans are way too busy watching reality shows to be concerned with real reality. They need something like this to jar them out of their Zoloft induced stupors.

    by The past is over on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:20:46 AM PDT

•  I can't wait to see

  what Jeff Feldman will make of this!

  I'm thinking we've got a roadmap here. There are so many things here that the Dems are better on than the Repubs. We just have to show it. F'rinstance, he calls for limited but effective government (page 9, Setting the Context & Tone). We have to show how ineffective the Repubs have been on our economy, how ineffective their programs like NCLB and abstinence-only are, etc. And it wouldn't hurt to mention how effectively Clinton cut the abortion rates whereas Bush...again, ineffective.

  They want to talk about careers (page 2, Growth, Prosperity, etc.)? What sort of prospects do we have with corporations outsourcing all over the place? And with the cutting of education funding, who can afford to pursue a career?

  Did I say roadmap? Maybe I meant goldmine.

  -5.88, -6.82

  by Debby on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:30:27 AM PDT

•  Gracias!

  now downloaded for reading this weekend.

  by Cordelia Lear on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:32:06 AM PDT

•  I love this stuff

  but it's a bit over the top how much "it all went according to plan"... I mean, they barely won really... I'm interested in their strategy, but it reads a little crazy-confident in their own magical powers which if they are so indefeatable ought to work a little better.... yeah, I know that good enough to win is good enough, but still...

  by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:40:18 AM PDT

  •  Which is Good News!

    n/t

    by DreamOfPeace on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 04:50:44 AM PDT

•  Bipartisanship

  "Make the GOP the party of BIPARTISANSHIP. If Americans love anything, it's bipartisanship. [Note the falacy that this is built on.] Anything described as 'bipartisan' is an automatic winner with the American public, and any candidate who can effectively portray themselves as 'bipartisan' will automatically have an advantage. Call the Democrats out on their partisanship and obstructionism."

  This is where Democrats must be proactive. We need to great every Republican initiative with a "bipartisan" response (labeled as such). When the Republicans propose piratizing Social Security, we should respond with a "bipartisan response that includes the core American value of fairness as it strengthens Social Security through assuring funding into the years to come."

  We should lament the Republican reluctance to put forth a bipartisan proposal on most issues, something that would allow us to move forward on the issues Americans care about.

  Or, if only those Republicans were in touch with American's core values, such as fairness in the workplace, as represented by a living wage and made serious efforts to address inequities, such as the dismal healthcare available to bottom-tier workers, then we could go forward with bipartisan legislation to help the country.

  Like that.

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:44:03 AM PDT

  •  this reminds me of an old bias of mine

    that might be useful.

    frankly, I have always felt and known that both these parties have run the country together.  The back and forth is part of the algorythm of shared control, but our laws and wars and everything else is strobed by one and then the other party and even both at once, of course, by divided branches of government.

    Perhaps this is an attitude that helps us... if we can admit this, then we can show that it is they that have refused to compromise... they have America thinking Democrats steal Republican ideas... well, "we always try to compromise, they never do"...

    ?

    PS: collaborative reading??  I have work to do.

    by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:55:28 AM PDT

  •  Republicans are partisans

    I don't think you can get anywhere on the framing if you omit the Republican's fundamental hypocrisy -- accusing the other side of being partisan is a partisan act.  Everything the Republicans do is with partisan intent, including accusing Dems of "obstructionism" -- of what, other than the Republican's partisan policies.

    Every time a Republican speaks the word "bipartisan", we should shout Republicans are partisans, reinforcing that message and revealing their "bipartisan" framing as the hypocrisy that it is.

    by jqb on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:30:12 AM PDT

  •  Respectfully disagree

    but wasn't there a poll out just this week showing that the majority of Americans (and 25% of Republicans!) do not want the Democrats to work "in a bipartisan manner" with the Republicans, but rather to stand up to them and "don't let the Republicans go too far"?

    I think the American public needs us to stand up on our hind legs and call the thugs out in straightforward manner, every time they try to co-opt our issues and our language. They need to know that there's a difference between us and them, and that we're  not ashamed or afraid of it. I think both Dean and Reid get this, too.

    by sidnora on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:57:21 AM PDT

    •  note the wording

      "don't let the Republicans go too far"

      The poll would have vastly different results if the majority of Americans didn't already feel that they'd gone too far, and were basically off the deep end.

      They want US to be the counterbalance.

      by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:02:50 AM PDT

      •  Good point

        there's definitely a panicky sound to that phrase.

        by sidnora on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:41 PM PDT

•  Luntz files

  I'm in the process of rendering the files into searchable text. They'll need to be checked for accuracy, but they should be about 99% accurate or better. When they're ready, I'll post links for the Word and/or text files as well as for the MS Office files or TIFFs. Oh, and if you've already done what I'm busy doing, please write me at [e-mail] and tell me to stop.

  by realitique on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:44:44 AM PDT

  •  excellent! thank you (n/t)

    by rhfactor on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:49:43 AM PDT

•  Here's a Howler

  "Americans are looking for ACCOUNTABILITY from their government before they even consider government programs or ideology."

  No, we're looking for ACCOUNTABILITY from large corporations. Those were the guys who tanked the economy by robbing the till from the top and brought on their own karma with Sarbanes-0xley. The which, by the way, should have some renewed oversight. When was the last time that we put any serious money into auditing the auditors or looking to see if this is being implemented fully?

  Think, liberally.

  by Liberal Thinking on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:47:30 AM PDT

  •  Accountability?

    
      Talk about "divorced from reality."  The GOP and Fox Noise Machines have made accountability into nothing but quaint anachronisms, so 20th century!

      Bush:  no accountability for 9.11 serial bung-ups and lies re:  Iraq.

      Rice:  no accountability for 9.11 serial bung-ups and lies re those bung-ups.

      Rumsfeld:  no accountability for ignoring good, solid, common sense advice from generals and advisory groups re Iraq.

      Bush Admin:  no accountability for outing CIA operative.

      Bush Admin:  no accountability for fiddle-farting around for 4 years as N. Korea builds nukes.

      Bush Admin:  no accountability for sacking scientists for failing to make science fit GOP party line, or coercing scientists to line up with said party line.

      Bush Admin:  no accoutability for blowing hole in U.S. budget and fiscal soundness, for turning surplus into deficit, for mortgaging future to China . . .

      Bush and his Minions:  No accountability, no accountability, no accountability.

      etc., etc., etc. . .

      The irony and hypocrisy of it all.

    BenGoshi
    __________________

    by BenGoshi on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:26:05 AM PDT

•  I'm only 10 pages in and see so many opportunities

  Perhaps I'm being a bit naive, but there are just too many points where a savvy Democrat can co-opt the veneer of the Republican message and turn it toward a solid Democratic message.  Examples:

  10 Contextual Keys:

  1. Use "American synbols" like the bald eagle, the Lincoln Memorial and the Statue of Liberty.  "Use stmbols to help convey your message more forcefully."  OK, we can wrap our candidates in the flag and symbolism.  Next?

  2. "Talk about the principles of democracy and justice and how they fit into your policies."  Again, not a stretch.  

  3. "It's time for the GOP to tackle and own the issue of fairness.  Define fairness as the EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY."  Oh, this is rich.  Equality of opportunity?  Can you say public education?  Access to health care?  We all need the opportunity to suceed, and it's only fair that  we start from a level playing field!

  4. "When you speak of American Ownership, be sure to frame it in the lens of opportunity."  Can do, Frank.  Without true and fair opportunity for everyone, there will be a permanent imbalance in the potential for American Ownership.

  5. "People want politicians who humanize, personalize and individualize their policies, as well as politicians who talk about 'the next generation.'"  Good God, Luntz is summoning The Big Dog from the electoral grave.  If this is not Bill Clinton, what is?  Can we get back to building that Bridge to the 21st Century?

  6. "It is perfectly acceptable, if not imperative, that you address this values debate.  And yes, it is FAMILY VALUES that Americans want to see in you and your policies."  Game on.  You can take in in either of two approaches.  If FAMILY VALUES is code for the religious, right-wing agenda, let them quote from Revelation while we preach The Beatitudes.  If we're actually talking about policies that VALUE FAMILIES, you're talking the core Democratic policies of health, education and the safety net in this upside-down world economy.  FAMILY VALUES is not "Every man for themselves."

  7. "Express the day to day concerns of your constituents on a neighborhood/local level."  Luntz is channelling Wellstone.  Pure and simple.

  8. "You need to be FOR something, not just AGAINST something."  Perhaps this will be the most challenging issue for Democratic candidates to deal with, considering the built-up bile toward the current GOP regime.  But we DO have policies that we should be FOR, including clean and fair elections, access to health insurance, a return to fiscal sanity and a reintegration into the world community as a means of national economic security.

  9. "Talk about 'a more effective government' rather than no government, as well as a renewed focus on 'goals and results, not partisanship or politics.'"  Not only can we belabor that the government is LESS effective as a result of past policies, we can point to the positive results of the past Democratic administrations (strong economy, budget surpluses, etc.) and simply tell the folks that if they want a return to the Salad Days, the fastest way is to elect people who have a track record of delivering that "more effective government" that gave you "goals and results."

  10. "Start and end with ACCOUNTABILITY.  It matters most."  CALL THE GOP ON THIS.  It's their government, they blew the budget up on their watch.  They exposed the military weakness of America by committing to the wrong conflict (North Korea?).  And so on.  And we, as Democratic candidates, will offer ACCOUNTABILITY in not just words but deeds.  

  Dang, that was easy.  Luntz isn't talking up GOP talking points - he's bringing up themes that can be as easily used by Democratic candidates as Republicans.  Each and every one of the 10 Contextual Keys can be claimed by us with simple justification.  The challenge is to say it first, say it forcefully and frame the debate.  If we can do that, especially in the tight races, we have a shot at winning more than a few races.  

  Thanks, Frank.  When we've taken back Congress, I'll buy you a beer for your troubles!

  by IrishAlum on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:54:12 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    he's bringing up themes that can be as easily used by Democratic candidates as Republicans

    Repugs talk as if they owned America. They don't. It's everyone's flag, eveyone's constitution and everyone's America.

    BTW, what year did you graduate?

    by Cordelia Lear on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:02:18 AM PDT

  •  some danger

    I have the same sense as you, but I think we have to be careful... e.g.

    "1. Use "American synbols" like the bald eagle, the Lincoln Memorial and the Statue of Liberty.  "Use stmbols to help convey your message more forcefully."  OK, we can wrap our candidates in the flag and symbolism.  Next?"

    We can use this, but not all their symbols... of course we can use the flag, that's standard... we can use all those, but what we really need is to use liberal symbols...

    pristine wilderness shots

    happy smiling old people

    sweet disabled children

    Martin Luther King giving the I Have A Dream speech.

    by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:16:31 AM PDT

    •  Boston Tea Party

      It wasn't the  Conservatives who knew it was time to throw the tea in the harbor. They never wrote any Declaration of Independence, either. The conservatives of the eighteenth century were too busy spit-shining the Redcoats' boots.

      I vote we bring back the iconography of the Revolutionary War. It was one of our shining moments and it is one they think they own.

      by SadieB on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:41:00 AM PDT

      •  Don't tread on me

        The gadsden flag has always been a favorite of mine.

        www.gadsden.info

        by gattogrosso on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:32:28 AM PDT

        •  I love it.

          We can use SOOOOOO much of the Revolutionary War.

          John Adams defending the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre trials. (Equal treatment, law applies to all, even those you are at war with, etc.)

          Declaration of Independence

          Founding Fathers who put their lives AND THEIR FORTUNES on the line for their principles.

          And that flag is perfect.

          by mmacdDE on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:08:31 AM PDT

    •  Why play into stereotypes?

      That doesn't make any sense.

      We're talking about American symbols here.  Not Republican ones or Democratic ones.

      Who decided Mount Rushmore was a Republican symbol?

      That's ridiculous nonsense.

      by Steve4Clark on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:51:09 AM PDT

      •  Symbols

        I'm talking about Liberal vs Conservative, not Democrat vs Republican. As a Southerner, I'm keenly aware that the Democrats have not always been on the right side of history. But Liberals have:

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

        We have democracy in this country not because a bunch of guys wrote some magic words on a piece of magic paper many years ago, but because hundreds of people have been working for two hundred years, sometimes in the face of jail sentences, water hoses and attack dogs, to make democracy real. These people are not Conservatives.

        by SadieB on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:47:08 AM PDT

      •  I think the symbols I mention

        evoke American Ideals... but they favor liberal understandings of them... which is no coincidence.

        by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:02:43 PM PDT

  •  more symbols

    FDR, Eleanor

    And how about two republicans full of now-liberal symbology?

    Teddy Roosevelt in Yellowstone

    Lincoln signing the emacipation proclamation

    by pyrrho on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:18:55 AM PDT

    •  Great idea re Lincoln

      after all, the Repugs have no compunction about co-opting FDR, and we actually agree with Lincoln!

      by sidnora on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:00:16 AM PDT

      •  The Bushies like Lincoln

        Heck, they've effectively suspended habeus corpus, too.

        by nightsweat on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:08:26 AM PDT

  •  tertiary comments

    2. "Talk about the principles of democracy and justice and how they fit into your policies."  

    >Again, not a stretch.

    agreed, let's standardize how we do this.  What are the principle of democracy?  Equal opportunity, that's why one man one vote... and women, but not children.  And that leads to the Bill of Rights, which are protection of minorities to again help ensure equal opportunity even after the majority has cast it's "equal vote"... that is, to keep the individual equal to groups of people, basically.

    3. "It's time for the GOP to tackle and own the issue of fairness.  Define fairness as the EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY."

    >Oh, this is rich.  Equality of opportunity?  Can you say public education?  Access to health care?  We all need the opportunity to suceed, and it's only fair that  we start from a level playing field!

    right on.

    1. "When you speak of American Ownership, be sure to frame it in the lens of opportunity."  

    >Can do, Frank.  Without true and fair opportunity for everyone, there will be a permanent imbalance in the potential for American Ownership.

    "If we build everything for owners... there are limited resources.  Rights should not be linked to how much you own."  that's not what THEY mean, but it is what IT means.

    4. "People want politicians who humanize, personalize and individualize their policies, as well as politicians who talk about 'the next generation.'"  

    >Good God, Luntz is summoning The Big Dog from the electoral grave.  If this is not Bill Clinton, what is?  Can we get back to building that Bridge to the 21st Century?

    don't value this one, eh?  might still be true, but kind of rote like you say

    5. "It is perfectly acceptable, if not impe