Over the past few years, I've been intensely studying what makes Republican frames successful, and trying to find the common threads in their rhetoric. I've watched Newt Gingrich, Luntz, and others, turn liberals into parihas, with certain wording, rhetoric, and endless repetition. Soundbites get repeated and they do sink in.
Millions of voters aren't hardcore political junkies, and Republicans understand that painting a picture, is easier to grasp for those type of potential voters. Sadly, many people only acheive their perceptions and mindset, through repeated soundbites. These are the potential voters we are trying to reach.
I'm not trying to be "preachy" here, like I know it all. I'm just trying to get across my mentality, and where I'm coming from. I just can't stress enough though, how crucial and important it is, to use specific wording. I've had over twenty years of experience debating, with a decent success rate, of trying to persuade family, friends, and strangers, into supporting my positions.
Effective and persuasive statements, soundbites, and narratives, must meet certain requirements. Also, they must be factual, so they wont backfire on you later.
1. Our factual frames, must take their dishonest frames, and terminate them with extreme prejudice.
2. They should put you on the offensive, and your opponent on the defensive.
3. They have to paint your opponent as lacking character, and unfit for office, without being offensive.
I don't believe in "character assasination", but what I do believe is using their failed, immoral, and/or unethical policies, in a way that rightly, and fairly questions their character.
4. I want the most people possible, to agree with the statement, and I try to make the soundbite hard to rebut. Make your opponent basically concede through silence, or make them look foolish trying to defend the absurd.
5. Try to give a legitimate alternative, or a reason that would make the voters actually want to vote for you.
Let me offer up some examples below, and give brief explanations of why I created a peticular soundbite, and the reasoning behind them.
The hardest Republicans frames to crush, involve terrorism. Republicans have been disgracefully exploiting 9/11 since 9/12, and many voters are starting to realise it, and despise it. Throw it back in their face. We need to attack them on their strongest issue, and destroy their most potent frames.
"Exploiting the horrific tragedy of 911 for political advantage, is simply a slap in the face to the victims, their families, and frankly, all Americans".
This statement meets all five requirements, which is rare. Wouldn't you seriously like to hear all Democrats saying this? I certainly wouldn't vote for someone when it's framed that way, which is the point.
"This is the worst kind of politics there is, and it must stop". "We shouldn't be playing politics with such an important, non-partisan issue, like Homeland security". "Some issues should be above partisanship".
"How can you, with a straight face, say your tough on terror, when you vote against port security, and vote against inspecting airline cargo"? "How can you, with a straight face, say you support the troops, when you slash their medical benefits"? "How can you say that, when you refuse to provide the proper body armor"?
A more direct and stronger way is to use this frame
"Don't tell me you support the troops, when you voted against providing the proper armour for our troops".
Last frame on terror.
"We're supposed to be eliminating terrorists, not creating them. Invading Iraq was the worst way to fight the war on terror."
Here are some general frame enders.
"My opponent just doesn't get it/ is so out of touch".
This frame, attached to any appropriate issue, can help end whatever bad policy frame your opponent is pushing.
"By giving us historic debt, deficits, and stagnant wages, my opponent is part of the problem, and I'm the solution".
"We don't need bridges to nowhere, or roadblocks to prosperity, we need policies that move us forward."
Voting against the minimum wage, and that odious bankruptcy bill, are just two examples of "roadblocks to prosperity". There are so many others one could use.
"My opponent has a pre-global warming mentality. We need to get off oil, by harnessing wind, solar, hydro, and other clean, unlimited energy sources".
This ends the "Democrats have no ideas" frame, and meets four of the five requirements
"My opponent doesn't trust you to make your own personal medical decisions. I do".
Michael Schiavo liked that frame, when I mentioned it to him, in one of his diaries.
"Is this the type of representation you want in Congress"?
That one works for a plethora of issues.
Last frame
"We need to remove the financial burden from corporations, and pass a pro-business National Health Care program".
This kills the communism/socialism frame, with a pro capitalist frame.
In a debate type venue, my philosophy is, that you can never allow misleading, or false statements, left out there un-rebutted. In this case, I would use these frames
"Either my opponent is trying to intentionally mislead you, or he's/she's extremely confused. I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt, and go with he's/she's extremely confused". "I'd consider hiring new staff to do your research". "My opponent just broke the eigth commandment, Thou shall not bear false witness".
Many people believe using soundbites, or this type of approach is "sinking to their level", or that we shouldn't sound like robots, or ditto-heads. If you have any concerns or reservations about my approach, the last point I need to make, may help calm them.
Remember, this exact type of language, and speechifying, is how the Republicans gained a majority. Not only did this not hurt them politically, but in reality, it was the only possible way for Republicans to get elected. The difference is, our side will use honest frames, compared to their deceptive, Orwellian frames and narratives.
Finally, I'm willing to volunteer my time to any candidate, or their staff, if they would like to take this approach to campaigning.
PS. On a side note, I would have a "Fed Up?/Had Enough? then vote Democratic" campaign sign, in every district and voting place, or as many as humanly possible.