Skip to main content

Many people hate the term "framing." I understand at least one of their fears: framing can turn into an excuse to substitute marketing for principles. In other words, instead of a technique to get a right-on message across, framing can dilute the message, contaminate and weaken the principle. In order to be more persuasive, what we're trying to be more persuasive about gets partially junked. It's a reasonable worry.

Other people, of course, argue that framing is merely a euphemism for marketing, which is a euphemism for manipulation, and no way in hell should progressive politics be marketed because to do so means selling out to the perniciously unprogressive idea that people should be manipulated into accepting any point of view.

Who can argue that we shouldn't manipulate people? Manipulation implies lying, and nothing could be less progressive than that.

However, framing or marketing, or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't have to be manipulative. In this world of blurbs and rapid-fire images, it seems to me we progressives are compelled to find not only the right message but the right way to deliver our message, or we might as well stick to our echo chambers. Sometimes that means quick and dirty. The Freeway Blogger knows this. As does any good political consultant.

Rightwingers have beaten us silly for decades with terms like "Tax and spend" Democrats. "Weak on defense" Democrats. And it seems to have taken us an interminably long time to learn how to effectively return fire. Last election cycle, we did this with great effect by means of "rubber-stamp Republicans."

None of this is to say progressives should abandon core principles for marketing techniques. Framing is no replacement for in-depth, rational discourse. The framer's technique is no substitute for the comprehensive analysis of, say, a Bill Moyers or digby or Orcinus (to name  three of a plethora). Done right, it's a means to open people's minds to those analyses.

There is also the other side of the equation. How to smash the framing of our foes. This is a more difficult task. For example, while some have worked prodigiously to transform the Administration-framed "surge" into "escalation," that hasn't really taken hold. And we've been cornered when it comes to what is the most hollow of phrases, "support the troops." No matter how often we correctly (and with righteous fury) say the Bush Administration is doing the opposite of "supporting the troops," we haven't been able to deconstruct that phrase with all its freighted meaning.

The Administration has embedded "support the troops" so firmly into public consciousness that many actually believe opponents of the occupation of Iraq actually want, as Senator Feingold has lamented, to go to Baghdad and force soldiers to turn in their helmets, assault rifles, and vehicles, and continue fighting unarmed. The Administration has managed to persuade too many people that the phrase "support the troops" actually means the troops are being supported. Which is probably the second biggest lie of this whole disaster, the first, of course, being that we needed to invade Iraq in the first place.

Nothing progressives have come up with has been as powerful as that phrase, as proved by the fears of many wavering Democrats in the debate over the supplemental appropriations bill now working its way through the conference committee.

This week, the fruits of the rightwingers' framing abilities in another arena, reproductive rights, proved its worth. As Gloria Feldt of the Women's Media Center writes today:  

The federal abortion ban is the result of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.

[The] partial birth abortion ban is a political scam but [also] a public relations goldmine. ... The major benefit is the debate that surrounds it.
     -- Randall Terry

So said the founder of Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice group that blockaded abortion providers, in 2003.

Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. Carhart) upholding the federal abortion ban is the fruition of that pubic relations goldmine. It is a travesty of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.

Indeed, the travesty of language around abortion is so pervasive that even Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's majority, in addition to using the inaccurate term "partial birth abortion," also referred to the "abortion doctor" repeatedly in the ruling. Why did he not simply refer to doctors as "doctors," or "ob/gyns"? If another surgical procedure were under scrutiny, would he have he referred to "tonsillectomy doctor" or "hysterectomy doctor"? Of course not. But those who want to take away entirely a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions have used the term "abortion doctor" for so long as an epithet that they have succeeded in getting even the highest court in the land to adopt their language.

Such bias is just the tip of the iceberg in the battle over what losing plaintiff Dr. Leroy Carhart has called "partial truth abortion." ...

The public relations goldmine of those who aim for nothing less than to eliminate reproductive justice at all times from all women has paid off for them. Language, after all, has consequences too.

We have been learning that lesson about language, painfully. But we've got a long way to go.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:08 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If framing is used to clarify... (10+ / 0-)

    ...rather than occlude meaning, then yes, it's a positive thing. Too often it's employed to make ridiculous wingnuttery seem palatable.

    We should use techniques of persuasion, but there should be substance to back it up.

    "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman

    by Autarkh on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:06:05 PM PDT

    •  Effective tool; Learn to use it. (12+ / 0-)

      framing can turn into an excuse to substitute marketing for principles

      Framing can be used to express our principles in ways either better understood or better remembered. There are useful and useless ways of saying something.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:37:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vets74, Thomas Twinnings

        As I said, as a tool of persuasion and to facilitate understanding, we should frame arguments. Putting an idea in a context relevant to someone's life would be an instance of positive framing.

        My problem is when framing is used to confuse and obscure.

        "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman

        by Autarkh on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:44:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Everything is presented in a Frame (6+ / 0-)

          We always speak from our own perspective and framework.  Most frames are unconscious and accepted as self-evident truths.  E.g Governments work for the people.

          A major need is to become conscious of constructed frames like "tax and spend".  

          Marketing is an attempt to construct a desirable or undesirable frame. e.g. political campaigns.

          Wanting positive framing is an understandable sentiment but it is irrelevant in a political environment.  Everyone is trying to find an effective frame to be used for persuasion.  

          The frame Democrats often use is tell the truth and the facts.  But if an emotional frame is offered in opposition it will be more effective despite the facts.  That's the way it works.  

          Many are intuitive in developing good and effective frames.  Democrats have not been as effective in constructing frames about their opponents.  They get frustrated and angry when a disingenuous or false frame takes hold.  

          Until we become more deliberate in developing effective frames we will not win the persuasive battles.  We will keep losing the battle of ideas until we can couple them with appeals to emotions.  We want to do it differently than the Republicans and neo-cons, but we haven't found the right combination yet.

          It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

          by pioneer111 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:51:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Think The Problem Is More Specific (7+ / 0-)

            Liberals and Democrats tend to approach politics from a policy perspective.  We tend to frame everything political as being about policy.  Therefore, we naturally tend to talk in a policy framework, and to regard any other framework as somehow unnatural, even disingenuous.

            Republicans and conservatives, however, tend to approach politics from an identity perspective: we're the good guys, we're fighting evil.  This lends itself very readily to propaganda, salesmanship, and story-telling, just for starters.  And nothing seems unnatural if your basic orientation is that you're fighting evil:  whatever works is fine.

            Naturally, the Republican/conservative approach strikes us as dangerous.  It's quite akin to (if not identical with) tribalism, which is something that modern democracies are designed to contain and transcend.  We don't want to sink down to that level in order to oppose it, because that only increases the amount of tribalism in the system.

            So we have to do a lot of extra work to distinguish a specific modality for confronting the Republican/conservative approach that can match it in effectiveness without simply collapsing into a mirror image of it, that exacerbates the very problem we are trying to combat.

            This is the quite legitimate concern that lies buried beneath layers of misunderstanding on the part of many--if not most--of those who reject framing without really understanding what it is.

            •  Your frame is the exact problem (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vets74, KansasLiberal

              You have framed it as "they are tribal, and we aren't sinking to their level."

              If you frame it as such, you've already lost. You are identifying your position as the opposite of what they are, and they have already staked out the most desirable of two opposites. When you do that you lose the opportunity to frame the issue in a context with with people can identify.

              The act of framing isn't the problem -- it's WHAT they are framing that is the problem. They hide ugly ideals in pretty words. Couching noble ideas in pretty words is easy to do if we don't pretend like we should be above it.

              Example: one common new frame for us should be "we've tried that, it doesn't work." Then we can talk about our ideas, which are better.

              •  I think a large problem is that many leftwing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...frames hit a bit too hard at a deeply entrenched economic consensus.

                For example, if I say "debt-slavery", I'm automatically marginalized as some sort of cook, whereas I "personal responsibility" merits nary a second thought.

                "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman

                by Autarkh on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:22:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Tribal Is Good? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Meteor Blades
                Ehtnic cleansing is "the most desirable of the two"?

                That's news to me.

                But that's not the biggest bone I have to pick.  You're treating my comment here as if it were stump speech or something.  It's not.  I'm not talking to the general public here.  I'm talking to fellow Kossacks.  And I frame my arguments accordingly.

                Sure, we often present arguments or ideas exactly as we'd like to have them circulate in the world at large.  But that is not and cannot be the default condition standard for appraising what people have to say.

                Now, it just so happens that in this case I don't see anything wrong with my framing--other than taking care that it doesn't come off as elitist.  (Funny how they can say, "We're going to heaven and you're not!" or "We've got money and you don't!" or "We're real Americans and you're not!" and it's not considered "elitist," isn't it?)

                Conservatives and the GOP do act like a tribe.  They do put themselves and their cronies ahead of the common good.  Not just occassionally.  Not just here and there.  But consistently and systematically. It's what they believe in.  It's what they did in Iraq (Imperial Life in the Emerald City), it's what they did with FEMA, it's what they did in the DoJ.  "Ethnic cleansing" is precisely what they were carrying out in the recently-revealed DoJ personnel policies.  And we ought to point this out every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

                We ought to do it sensibly, of course, acknowledging that what they have done is not essentially evil, but rather a perversion of something that's basically good.  For example, something like this:

                "Loyalty is an admirable trait, but you can take it too far.  When you become an elected official, you have to set aside personal loyalty when it comes to serving the people. In office, your primary loyalty is to all the people you were elected to serve.  And if you can't do this, that doesn't mean your a bad person, necessarily.  But it does mean you shouldn't run in the first place.

                This is something that today's Republican Party has utterly and completely forgotten.  The only form of loyalty they know is to their cronies, not their constituents.  They are a tribe unto themselves, scornful and hateful to outsiders.  So long as they continue to think and act this way, they are unfit for public office--each and every one of them--until they have cleaned up their own house.

                Conservatives and Republicans have spent the last 30-40 years demonizing liberals and Democrats.  It's about time they got some of their own medicine--but not in their sick, twisted way.  Rather, we need to attack their core identity for what is really wrong with it--not just what reasonable people can disagree over--and do so in a way that allows for the possibility of change.  Those are key points that distinguish us from them, and we must hold fast to them.  But that doesn't mean we can't attack them directly for who they are and have chosen to be.  We just have to do so honestly.
            •  Policy vs Identity frames (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pohjola, Dauphin, Autarkh, Pink Lady

              I think that is an interesting idea to work with.

              Are there any think tanks looking at the issue of framing for the Democrats?

              I think campaigns and the Democratic Party needs to clearly identify the frames of the Republicans - I would like a list.  That would take some research.

              I also think we need to develop frames.

              And we need to differentiate frames from slogans.  They sometimes may sound the same, but they are not.

              It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

              by pioneer111 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:15:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  But sometimes its KISS. PBA is U-G-L-Y. (0+ / 0-)

            This "procedure" is gut-gag, up-chuck ugly.

            Who the hell could watch one of these things happen and not hurl ???

            Fighting over this one was a political mistake. The medical value of the "procedure" balanced against a huge loss of MOR support.

            You come off as callous, uncaring, almost inhuman from supporting a "procedure" that pulls the kid partially out of the mother, then sucks the brain out.

            It sounds and looks like something out of an alien invasion sci-fi movie crossed with "Saw III."

            YOU BEEN HAD ??  Sounds like it. Liberals got tagged as the folks who want more PBAs....

            Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

            by vets74 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:07:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hear Hear (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mike101, Autarkh, vets74

        To me framing is just another way to 'look at' and present an issue. It's not marketing at all.

        Tax and Spend?

        How about:

        Tax and schools

        Tax and Police

        Tax and Library

        Tax and Public Transportation

        That is something I have benn using with my Right Wing friends for years now when they laugh and say I am a Tax and Spend Liberal.

        You know what? When I throw back all or some or even more of the Tax and (fill-in-the-blank) back at them it stops them cold every time.

        The best re-frame is to take your opponents frame and use it's form with a subtle twist like I did above. It works every time and has served me well in many ares of my life.

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:05:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So when Anthony Kennedy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby, slade7

        has a penile implant attached can we say he had a gigolo implant?  An don't forget his doctor will be called a pimp doctor.  

    •  Think of it as formatting an idea. (7+ / 0-)

      When you write something, you are arranging thoughts to transmit to another person - the reader, somewhere and sometime.

      We all follow patterns of presenting our written material in order to increase understanding of our ideas by others. We capitalize letters, we bold for emphasis, we use punctuation - we format in order to deliver a thought or series of thoughts to our audience with as much meaning as possible.

      Language is a tool. Framing is a tool. The tool is not responsible for how it is used - it just is. The craftsman is responsible. There's nothing wrong with framing if it's done well and thoughtfully -- it's predigested, true. But if it's predigested truth, what's the problem?

      Like it or not, we, being the creatures that we are, are most susceptible to repeated arguments. (Remember George, he of the catapulting propaganda? He knew he'd have to say something a quizillion times but he was up for it.)

      So whatever idea you transmit to the public must be repeated. (Think of commercials and jingles.)

      It helps if it's catchy.

      It helps if it's short.

      In BushCo's case, it's usually misleading. That's the part we don't have to do.

      In our case, it is required that what we say, slogan or not, must be true.

      First - you have to get them to listen.

      Then you sneak in some nuance.

      "We're all in this together" -- Harry Tuttle, legendary plumber

      by bablhous on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:07:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (4+ / 0-)

      It doesn't matter just what you say, but also how you say it. The "how" isn't a substitute for the "what," but without it the "what" won't reach the right people; it will be merely preaching to the choir.

      The right wing has been successful because it understands that to persuade people, you have to use persuasive communication techniques rather than merely providing information (they're using them unethically by lying, but that's not an argument against our using them ethically). We, on the other hand, seem to favor communication techniques that would work well on the planet Vulcan, but that fall flat with most people. We expect the recipients of our messages to be geeky about our concerns; we think that if we just throw out enough details, people will get the "urge to immerse" and dedicate a lot of time to understanding them.

      We use the communication style of a scientific paper (start with the details and work to the conclusion) rather than that of a journalistic article (start with the "big picture" and then expand on it). But scientfic papers are targetted at an audience that's already strongly engaged with the subject, and that is by and large reading them as part of their jobs. Newspaper articles, on the other hand, are targetted at an audience whose interest needs to be built; the reader can read the first few paragraphs and then decide if the subject is important enough to him to want more details. The fact is that most people's brains are wired in such a way that it's more natural for them to work "top down" from the big picture to the details than "bottom up" starting with the details. The latter requires a lot more effort for them, and they're not going to put in that effort unless they can understand how it will benefit them. By using a "bottom up" style that's intended to be purely informative rather than persuasive, we're essentially trying to give homework assignments to our audience.

      •  However even the journalistic style (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mike101, ebohlman

        is intended to be "objective".  Yet the news stories that catch the public eye have emotion as part of them.  That's why gossip stories are interesting, murder, etc.

        The Republicans have framed war in emotional positive ways - "shock and awe".

        Escalation vs. surge.  Surge is simpler and less cerebral, and it is something you can feel.

        Truthiness is a frame that has worked.

        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

        by pioneer111 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:58:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am one who pretty much does hate the term. (13+ / 0-)

    I consider myself more a fan of anti-framing: calling bullshit and insisting on calling things by their proper names in the first place rather than running off and trying to concoct counter-campaigns.

  •  Here's What You Can Do: (13+ / 0-)

    There is no single, fast fix to this problem, but you can support the following resolution that will be reviewed at the California State Democratic Party convention in San Diego next week (April 27th-29th).

    You may wish to use the language below and insert the name of your club or central committee and push this issue in your state.

    A Resolution in Support of the Free Flow of Information

    WHEREAS radio and television stations license holders are granted a public trust for a fixed period of time to broadcast over the public airways and stations are licensed for the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and

    WHEREAS ownership of multiple stations in a single market as well as ownership of multiple information distribution systems and/or simultaneous providing of content constitute a restraint of trade that is harmful to the public interest, and

    WHEREAS vertical integration of an industry is detrimental to free enterprise and the free market,

    Therefore, be it resolved that [insert the name of your group here] supports creation of federal legislation and Federal Communications Commission regulations that limit:

    • the number of broadcast stations that may be owned by one company to no more than one AM radio station, one FM radio station, and one television station in a given market -- with no ownership of newspapers within that same market, and
    • to no more than 5 AM radio stations, 5 FM radio stations, and 5 television stations in the United States, that may be owned and/or operated by a single licensee, and
    • the assignment of broadcast licenses to only United States citizens and/or companies


    be it resolved that [insert the name of your club or group here] supports creation of federal anti-trust legislation that limits a person, company, or organization to either only:

    (1) own or operate broadcast stations, or:

    (2) own or operate information distribution systems, or:

    (3) provide content -- that is operate a web site and/or create and produce broadcast programs -- to broadcast stations or information distribution systems.

    Also, introduce and push resolutions calling for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time requirements.

    •  Truth has suffered since Reagan (17+ / 0-)

      Repealed the Fairness Doctrine.  AM radio promptly became the U.S. equivalent of Radio Moscow, just when Radio Moscow was opening up.  

      We need to restore the Fairness Doctrine.  What ever happened to the theory of the infamous left wing liberal Herbert Hoover who argued as Commerce Secretary that the air waves belong to the people?

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

      by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:15:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We can do better than that. (5+ / 0-)

        We can become the media itself.

        The FCC has opened up a window from Oct. 12-19 for a full-power FM license applications in the noncommercial spectrum. It's the first such window - a seven-day period when they will be accepting broadcast license applications from noncommercial and educational groups - in almost a decade.

        It's almost a given that the megachurches and national religious broadcasters, the Wal-Marts of radio, will use their considerable resources to apply for most of these open frequencies. However, since the application process has been changed to a point system, the process, while expensive (estimated funds needed to hire an engineer to do the frequency study and help with the application as well as the services of an FCC-savvy lawyer to vet the paperwork = ~ $2500 - 5000) is open to any noncommercial group, including those community groups formed specifically to apply for a license.

        Full-power stations, unlike low-power FM stations, can apply to increase their range beyond the minimum 100 watts if they have the technical and financial ability and if their coverage profile allows it. Low-power stations (the legal and legitimate heirs of illegal "pirate" stations), on the other hand, can under current FCC regs be bumped permanently off the air by any full-power station in the same frequency which successfully petitions to increase its coverage or which acquires a "translator" permit to extend its range into a new area.

        More info here. I've been commenting less lately here because more than three quarters of my free time has dedicated to helping a progressive slate in their quest to win the local municipal and school committee elections on May 7, and to corral the disparate progressive elements in town and browbeat them into applying for a radio license for my underserved area in time for the application deadline.

        Sofar, so good, on both counts.

        Unlike blogs (which are wonderful but are foreign to most non-computer savvy non-news junkies) and public cable access, which is dependent on the largesse of cable companies and doesn't reach beyond the host communities, access to community radio programming is open to anyone with a radio. It doesn't get more basic than that when it comes to reaching people.

        Check it out. There must be other Kossacks out there who are capable of organizing a grassroots media effort for their community besides this fiftysomething ex-dirtyfuckinghippie.

        You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. --Albert Einstein

        by Sharoney on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:14:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you aware of the Lowell, MA (0+ / 0-)

          Grassroots Radio conference on June 21-24?

          I'm involved with an organization to bring progressive radio back to Boston. It's a grassroots efforts even though we're trying to work with some non-grassroots people. The person who's tried hardest to coordinate such groups around the country is Aldous at

          By the way, feel free to contact me at the address in my profile (alanfordean AT-SIGN yahoo). I hope you don't mind my also trying to contact you at the address in your profile.

          •  I have the conference on my calendar. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm a little disappointed that they don't even have a description of events published yet, and I'm a little hesitant about registering without it (especially since a large chunk of my discretionary income will be dedicated to going to YearlyKos). Fortunately I have a place to stay within driving distance of Lowell, which will help cut expenses should I decide to register.

            Last year's schedule looked good, and if the Prometheus people show up and they also hold a workshop on funding for community radio, like last year, then it's a definite go.

            Truth be told, I'm more interested in the organizing/licensing process for a new station in my area at the moment, though, than working on behalf of an existing station 75 or so miles away that I can't even receive in my part of the state, mainly because I can only split my free time into so many pieces.

            But sure, email me at my profile addy if you like.

            You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. --Albert Einstein

            by Sharoney on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:55:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder sometimes if a hundred years (13+ / 0-)

    of advertising as the prime mover of the media has left this country further than ever from any notion of direct apprehension of reality. It seems sometimes like we have to circle the wagons just to insist that there is even an objective reality out there. Not just in the media, everywhere. "Well that's you opinion" is considerad a valid dismissal of mountains of fact in everyday conversation.

    •  Agreed 100%. (13+ / 0-)

      It's infuriating when an evidently fatuous argument is given equal time to one based in empirical evidence.

      What's even worse is when people are allowed to repeat falsehoods and talking points without any confrontation from the interviewer. A journalist's job is to discover and report the truth, not to be collegial for its own sake.

      "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman

      by Autarkh on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:16:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Subjectivity (5+ / 0-)

      It is the bane of our culture.

      And that's no lie.  

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:21:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Subjectivity and normative arguments... (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AlanF, RickWn, A Citizen, melvin, Krush, Dauphin

        ...have their place. But certain things need to be objective and positive insofar as possible.

        When formulating a public policy to reduce teen pregnancy, for example, data showing that real sex education is far more effective than "abstinence only" must be given far more weight than objections based on millennia-old moral sensibilities.

        "Liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to Liberty." -- Emma Goldman

        by Autarkh on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can't resist (0+ / 0-)

        Subjectivity is Truth (Who said that?!).

        That said - we do have Mathematics, Science and other self-regulating systems which manage to keep themselves within a relm of reason.

        And there are the visual arts, music, and poetry, which manage to convey something of the Truth - subjectively.

        In politics, we are dealing with people who are very talented at using words as weapons - this is their job.  Try not to play directly into their game.  If you must, simply talk past them, using your own framework.  If your framework IS better, you just might win the day.  

        For instance, Alberto today attempted to do exactly that - he tried to talk past his questioners.  But, sad for him, the context where he is coming from is just about out of credibility (but not power).


        the particular is higher than the universal -SK

        by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:14:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What about the mother's life? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, elveta, Willow72, Dauphin


    Pro life does not apply to moms, I guess.

    •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elveta, Willow72, Dauphin, Pink Lady

      You are right and it's a strong message I think EVERY Democratic should say loudly and often.

      Also, coat hangers aren't just to hold up the black robes of old white men anymore.

    •  Since this is about words, (8+ / 0-)

      I've always preferred referring to 'the woman's life' when discussing abortion.  A minor point, but it feels more respectful to me of the women who have made the choice not to be a mother at that particular point in time.

      •  In the general case, yes (0+ / 0-)

        But in this specific case, "mother" is actually better because the overwhelming majority of intact D&Es involve women who really want to give birth but discover that for purely medical reasons, they either can't or would severely injure themselves trying.

    •  I wonder what the Right would say (13+ / 0-)

      if the term "Life-Saving Abortion" were used.

      It would be interesting to see how they tried to twist that without directly saying the fetus's life is more important than the mother's.

      Of course, the life of the fetus is not even an issue in most cases, as I understand it, as it could not be saved in any case.

      "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you." -- Fry, Futurama

      by LithiumCola on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:42:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i just thought of a counter to that: (0+ / 0-)

        Life Style Saving Abortions

        it's better not to frame


        frames can be messed with

        truth is better, but it doesn't always fit into a slogan unfortunately

        (and no i am not a republican)

        from this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections! -slaughterhouse 5

        by Krush on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:58:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about "Support your Obstetrician" (0+ / 0-)

          After all, aren't we abandoning them with this ruling?

        •  Just today.... (5+ / 0-)

          I was listening to the vile Richard Land to hear how his listeners were "framiing" this whole DC& X issue -- and "lifestyle choices" was a key ingredient. Caller after caller (mostly men, BTW) couldn't stop yapping about how "these women" who killed living babies snatched from their wombs with nary a thought was sickening. That's the image the Rethugs have been successful in portraying to the "average American," although the callers on the show appeared only marginally literate. (One railed "Nancy Pulloosky [sic] says she speaks for all Americans. How can she say that? How does she know how I feel? Shouldn't the people get to vote on this?")

          Richard Land was very crafy. He harped that the "federal government" can't decide what's right for women -- it should be the STATES! LOL! I couldn't stop laughing. Not the women themselves, not their doctor, not anyone remotely qualified who actually had a stake in the procedure, but STATE GOVERNMENT!

          So that's what they were saying today... "partial birth abortion" is extracting a living, breathing viable child kicking and screaming from its mother while she passively watches because she's made a "LIFESTYLE CHOICE" to be a slut.

          The whole exchange was utterly nausiating.

          Politicians and diapers need to be changed frequently -- often for the same reason.

          by KnowVox on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:56:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i grew up with that kind of 'framing' (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pink Lady, KnowVox

            at the pulpit

            at school

            from my family

            most of those people just parroted what they heard, so I don't think them of as evil or anything, just ignorant

            for people who were not raised in red states, this takeover of the common language seems outrageous

            from this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections! -slaughterhouse 5

            by Krush on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:19:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Those are both just slogans. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          -- We are just regular people informed on issues

          by mike101 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 09:11:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Iraq is lost." Repeat that DESPITE criticism (5+ / 0-)

    That's what Republicans do: Frame their statement and repeat it despite criticism. Democrat ALWAYS relent when criticized. That's why Republican frames work and Dem frames don't. Because Dems don't have courage to repeat themselves amid criticism. Nor do they have discipline: Joe Liebermam - Democrat or not - is always there to tsk tsk tsk right along with the Republiclans.

    •  Iraq is lost...we aren't in a war...the Iraqis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking

      are at war...with each other.

      Iraq is lost.
      (good one, overlander)

      Lets lose the frame that the US is in a war.

    •  I so agree. This is Dems' PERPETUAL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cal in cali, Thomas Twinnings

      . . . problem -- fear of criticism and a really troubling and unfortunate lack of courage.  We know the reThugs are going to throw everything they have at us, all the time, no matter what, so what's lost by standing for something and really standing for it?  When will the electoral Dems ever finally get this?

      "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

      by Miss Butter on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:04:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Better (0+ / 0-)

      Iraq was lost when it began.  We quickly saw that things would not go as planned, but no substantial corrections have been made.  Even today, it is still "stay the course". But Iraq WAS lost the day we began.  Stronger persons now must correct the mistake.

      Taking this frame a step further (it is the Republicans who are weak - and this is true as far as I am concerned).  They are so terribly weak that they cannot admit to their mistakes and correct them.  They are so weak, and fragile, that they need to constantly avoid contact with the reality of the war situation on the ground, and attempt to delude the rest of us as they themselves are deluded.
      Too weak to handle the truth. Weak to the point of sickness.  Weak to the point of being a danger to our country and loved-ones.

      the particular is higher than the universal -SK

      by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:26:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not interested in the framing, (0+ / 0-)

        I'm interested in the strength of the frame. Republiclansmen don't frame better than Democrats do, they merely ignore media and Democratic criticism of their frames and repeat those frames over and over and over again until they're done with them.

        So my reference to the "war is lost" framing is not advocacy for that frame, although there's nothing wrong with that frame if Reid wants to run with it and repeat it over and over and over again.

  •  I agree with Gloria Feldt 100% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, elveta

    This decision has mainly resulted from successful right wing framing. Its infuriating.

    Name a body part and a planet, and I've taken a bullet in it, on it. Relentless!

    by ablington on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

  •  Partial truth abortion? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, elveta, LithiumCola

    I don't like the term. It seems open to unintended meanings. Part of the problem is in defending instead of attacking. In politics the best defense is a good offense and, as Lakoff has said that once Nixon argued he wasn't a crook he already put people in a situation to consider whether he was or wasn't. We need to emphasize the privacy and science based aspects since they play into frames that are owned (or should be) by progressives. Partial birth abortion has to be defended as part of a plans that goes after the Republican weaknesses in regards to doctor-patient privacy, the right of Americans to determine their own health care and a society that respects the best trained medical professionals (and scientists) in the world.

  •  Framing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, elveta, Thomas Twinnings



    We need frames. We have frames.

  •  Another Terry Schiavo Moment For The GOP ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elveta, MikeBaseball

    Call Dr. Frist, we'll need him to read the sonograms. Or he can just phone it in.

  •  OF COURSE (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, elveta

    Any weak argument, to persist, would require what you succinctly call "framing".

    It is only logical- in other words, it would "go with the territory."

    As this cannot be a new phenomenon, can we look to the past for the solution?

    Can anyone advise what history teaches us?

  •  Thanks, MB (5+ / 0-)

    It is a scam.  And it's disheartening to hear one of the few politicians who actually came out and said the decision was awful use the right wing frame to do so.

    It's so entrenched, so endlessly repeated with so little opposition it's going to be awfully difficult to dig it out of the public consciousness.  Posts like this are an excellent start, I'll be referring to it often.


  •  I'm in M&C and frankly it is definitely (9+ / 0-)

    a daring tack, but I'm saying that the SCOTUS decision amounts to "killing women" and "letting women die" for a fetus that is not viable.

    That is my "framing" because it is true and because it attacks their lies about being "pro-life" head on.  No beating around the bush and when my gut tells me to go this risky right I am usually right.

    •  Unfortunately (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elveta, Thomas Twinnings

      You would be required to show proof.

      If no one dies (or is crippled) because of the SCOTUS decision, then their argument is lifted.

      However, I would not hope for the alternative.

      •  No. (6+ / 0-)

        The only time that procedure is used is in a last resort life saving capacity.  Proof is in the statistics of mothers dying during child birth for hundreds of years before medical science became sophisticated enough to anticipate these problems and at least save the life of the mother.

        There is plenty of proof.

        •  Too Complex (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:


          I am afraid you will need a heart-rending situation- clearly indicative of the horrors unleashed by the SCOTUS decision.

          Otherwise, people just won't care.

          Very sad.

          I read somewhere that there is an alternative to this procedure- however, its description is even more shocking.  The Anti-Choice crowd knows this but are playing a cynical game.  

          I know, I know  .  .  .  "I read somewhere"  .  .  . sorry, too lazy to find and link.

          But if there is an alternative  .  .  .

          •  What part of "life-saving" don't you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Marlboro Lite, sberel

            understand?  Don't get too far down into being Marcus Welby on the internet.  You don't and they don't have a freakin' clue about why and when this procedure is even contemplated.  It is not an "elective" unless you think that dying is an option that should ever be on the table.

            There is an alternative procedure and it is a higher risk procedure which means that there is a greater risk of DYING = so that means that people can take a safer "life-saving" route or they can risk killing people - specifically mothers because the babies are already dead for all intents and purposes.

            It will kill women.  It may not be tens of thousands of women, but it will KILL women and it is that simple.  How many is too many?  One is my answer to that question.

            •  One would be too many (0+ / 0-)

              Unfortunately, that is what it would take.

              Do you suspect that many people would be swayed to action by a hypothetical?

              My point is that if you are framing this saying that the SCOTUS decision is killing people, you will be called on it and asked to provide evidence.

              If you cannot provide evidence, your argument will be critically weakened.  It may be poisoned forever, regardless of what really happens.

              The trouble is, if this procedure is truly necessary, it is likely to be done "on the sly"-- "off the books" etc. I believe you may not be able to find a Medical hero to claim martyrdom in the courts.

              However, it it is truly necessary, and because of SCOTUS a woman dies or is crippled--- I simply don't want to win that way.

              •  People can't hide behind "on the sly" and rely (4+ / 0-)

                on having their conscience eased by the bogus notion that a woman taken into an emergency room about to die might find a sympathetic medical staff brave enough to conspire to perform an illegal operation on a patient under the watchful eye of hospital administrators and insurance companies.  Women will die and that is the the deal.

                •  I Agree (0+ / 0-)

                  But there is even a LAW, passed by Congress, that states we are WRONG.

                  Horrible as it is, nothing is going to sway people otherwise than:

                  1.  A Scopes-type trial with a brave Doctor falling on the sword of legal Martyrdom;
                  1.  A very dead or a very crippled woman.

                  This is another true horror of 2007.

                  •  We? (0+ / 0-)

                    I am quite sure that there are a good number (not a majority to be sure) of Democrats who believe that a "partial birth" abortion is wrong, and should be illegal.  You may not agree, but this is democracy in action.  We Democrats will have the chance to appoint Supreme Court justices if we can manage to appeal to a wide-enough electoriate - let's try not to forget traditionalist Christians.  They are your neighbors.

                    the particular is higher than the universal -SK

                    by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:43:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  inclusiveheart (0+ / 0-)

                  Is there any language in the law that would stop a woman from having a c-section to get the same end result?

                  Thanks in advance since you seem to know a lot about this issue.

                  This is the BEST DIARY EVER!

                  by Marlboro Lite on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:27:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would not a c-section deliver (0+ / 0-)

                    a living baby?  Or is this not what you have in mind?

                    the particular is higher than the universal -SK

                    by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:45:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The procedure that they have banned is (6+ / 0-)

                    apparently the safest evacuation of the matter that would endager the life of the mother if she waited until she miscarried the child.  Basically, this procedure is an end run around the much more risky proposition of allowing the pregnancy to continue until nature ends it and possibly kills the woman in the process.

                    Think "Little House on the Prarie" era here where women just died during child birth and the baby was stillborn too.   we've spent a hundred years trying to stop that phenomenon and now in one edict handed down by lawyers and preachers and now advancements inmedical science are totally derailed.

                    We have a safe procedure that can save the life of the mother.  I am not a doctor and it is important to note that, but from what I know about when this procedure is employed it is considered the safest for the mother when she is in crisis and the fetus is not viable.  Which means that physicians only choose to do it if there are no other options and it is the appropriate thing to do from a medical perspective in a specific case.  There may be instances where a c-section or some equivalent makes more sense.

                    But right there that is the problem with this whole debate.  The right wing has made sure that lots of people have heard the gruesome details of what happens when this procedure is used, but they have given no context for its use.  They have portrayed this procedure as some sort of elective abortion and likened it to a choice between getting a nose job or not. It is a life or death choice.  There is no physician in the real world who would perform this procedure without having had all of the other options cut off.  This procedure is only ever employed when the viability of the fetus outside the womb is almost certainly death or life without critical organs such as a BRAIN.

                    There is no scietific of medical reason to further endager the life of the mother - the only life that can be saved in these cases - in order to basically avoid offending the sensibilities of the religious right and others who aren't wise enough to learn about the reasons that these situations are unavoidable.

                    The bottom line is that a bunch of religious nuts and lawyers cut off one life-saving option in the arsenal that physicians and medical professionals had to save lives.  The reality is that some times the procedure they have outlawed is the very best and least risky of all of the options.  The reality is that if women get sub standard care, they will die in some number.  Probably not enough to move this nutcase crowd who has condemned them, but one is too many for me.

                    •  thank you very much for your reply (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RickWn, inclusiveheart

                      The reality is that if women get sub standard care, they will die in some number.  Probably not enough to move this nutcase crowd who has condemned them, but one is too many for me.

                      One is too many for me too.

                      This is the BEST DIARY EVER!

                      by Marlboro Lite on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:25:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I am wrong & You are Right (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Marlboro Lite, inclusiveheart

                      Your arguments are pursuasive.

                      My part of this dialogue is predicated on the idea that people are dumb.  They are NOT, at least, relative to me.  I deal with lots of people daily, and nearly all of them are in the same ball park with me regarding smarts.

                      Yes, people can be stubborn, especially in politics, but, hey, who isn't?  I am not a progressive by birth, I got this way the hard way.

                      But, getting back to the subject at hand, we need someone to provide, IN LAYMAN's TERMS, why & when this procedure is necessary.  Ideally, in a Diary.  

                      Armed with this "framing" perhaps Progressives can change the environment so that a Brave Doctor feels emboldened to stand up in a Scopes-type situation.

                      Much, much better than the alternative.

                      •  The task at hand is undoing the disinformation (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Marlboro Lite, RickWn, Poor Grunt

                        that has been well ingrained in our culture for more than a decade.  It will take more than a diary to undo the dammage we are seeing in attitudes.  Do me a favor and tell the next person that you meet that this is not the kind of thing that happens because of vanity or out of choice.


                      •  We're not doctors, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Marlboro Lite, sberel

                        so it would be difficult for us to name all the possible situations.

                        Here's one, maybe.  A pregnant woman who develops cancer.  Would keeping the fetus make it less likely that the treatment would be successful?  Would the treatment kill the fetus in any case?  What's involved in a c-section?  Imagine the healing that is necessary after the c-section.  Imagine the body trying to fight the cancer and also having to heal from the c-section.  My guess is that both fighting the cancer and healing from the c-section would be far more difficult when the body has to do both at the same time.

                        I don't know the answer to all the medical questions.  I do know that when there are serious medical problems, I want my doctor to tell me what the best thing is to do, and I want him to do it.  I don't want judges or legislators to decide.

                        •  Why isn't anyone talking about the option of... (0+ / 0-)

                          injecting the live fetus with a lethal drug, and then performing Intact D&E on the dead fetus which is perfectly legal under the Intact D&E ban?

                          •  Poison the fetus, Poison the Mom (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not a doctor, but I think this is right.

                          •  Not according to this artical... (0+ / 0-)

                            Exerpted here...

                            It is not standard procedure in the United States to perform feticide prior to the D&E although this is routine before medical induction after about 20 to 22 weeks to ensure that the fetus is dead when expelled. Feticide involves an ultrasonically guided injection of potassium chloride or of digoxin into the fetal heart. Those physicians who were questioned in court about feticide before D&E said that they did not consider the procedure to be necessary to protect the health of the woman and, that it involved additional risk of injury and psychological trauma for the woman (6). It was revealed, for example, that digoxin can cause nausea and vomiting, does not lessen the pain experienced by the woman, and does not reduce the length of the abortion procedure. Thus the fetus is usually alive when the evacuation process begins and dies during the procedure.

                            This is why Justice Kennedy voted the way he did.

                            Link to Artical (note it is a pro-choice site)

                            There is no additional health risk to the woman except for psychological trauma...and I can tell you that any woman who is going through an abortion at this stage in her pregnancy is going to be psychologically traumatized.

                          •  I stand corrected --n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  Help me out here... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Poor Grunt

                      While I agree that the decision is terrible...I keep hearing that lives are in danger.  Even this lousy piece of crap legislation has an exception for saving the life of the mother (but sadly does not provide for protecting the health of the mother because of the alternative procedures available to Intact D&E)

                      So it seems to me that there is a little hyporbole here on this act putting women's lives in danger.

                      In the slippery-slope argument, I would concur, but not on the ban on Intact D&E on its face.

        •  Good point (3+ / 0-)

          or should I say: good frame.
          I also work very hard to always use the words "late term abortion" and not reinforce the horribly effective label invented by the Right.

          Maybe "life-saving abortion" would be even better.

          What's M & C?

          •  "Life-saving medical procedure" because (6+ / 0-)

            at that point it is highly debatable whether it would ever fall into the category of "abortion" as it would be understood by the average person.

            I was thinking the other day that maybe we should start a right to life movement for gangrenous limbs and explain that people can't have them cut off regardless of whether or not it means death because a leg has a right to life too you know.  There is a point where life ends and there is a point where one has to save as much life as one can.  That point is generally where this life-saving medical procedure is used.  It is a last resort.  We don't just cut people's legs off for the hell of it either.  We normally do everything we can before we go to that last resort.

          •  I don't like "late-term abortion" either... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ...I realized, a couple days ago, reading about the decision, that "late-term abortion" implies that it's ONLY about, well, late-term abortions, and that's not a very accurate description - nor is it particularly sympathetic, because it can make people think, "Oh, so some woman got knocked up and took her sweet time deciding to get an abortion? I should want to defend THAT?!?"

            I'm not saying people should think that way - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was a common perception...

            Since Bush said "We're not leaving [Iraq] while I'm the president," that means you're either for years of more war or you're for impeachment. Your choice.

            by Christopher on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:18:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neutralizing the inflammatory language (0+ / 0-)

              is what I'm thinking about when I say "late term" rather than "partial birth", trying to take it down a notch and maybe start a brief conversation. At the very least, not repeating that ugly frame.

              You're absolutely right that it does nothing to convey the reality of these life-saving situations.
              And that's what I really need to start saying.

              Saving the lives of women.


              •  Yeah, I don't mean to single you out... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Meteor Blades

                ...and it took me years of hearing LTA as the alternative to PBA to realize how it could have other meanings or connotations, and how conservatives could take advantage of those (basically, I underestimated what an arrogant dumbass Anthony Kennedy could be, with his "Oh, I know what women really want - it's for me to save them from the awkward knowledge of what their medical decisions entail, even if it involves ravaging their own bodies for no particular benefit" argument) (that's the kind of inflammatory language I think we should have more of...).

                It's good for us to avoid saying "PBA" - and it'll be better when we can figure out a better term than "LTA" - I wish I had one, too...

                Since Bush said "We're not leaving [Iraq] while I'm the president," that means you're either for years of more war or you're for impeachment. Your choice.

                by Christopher on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  On the other hand, if a fetus (0+ / 0-)

        from an abortion was actually saved as a growing baby, then your statement about the fetus not being viable would be proven false.  Perhaps your frame needs a little work.

        the particular is higher than the universal -SK

        by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:37:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ? (0+ / 0-)

          I am not sure, but it seems that you are replying to my post entitled "Unfortunately".

          If so, I am not sure of your logic.  

          Indeed, I am not sure of your logic as applied to any of the responses in the same line.

          How can the fetus from an abortion be saved as a growing baby?

          How often is the medical evaluation of a fetus being not viable wrong?

          Should public policy be predicated that the medical evaluation is wrong?

          I apologize if you just missed your target post, I have done that too.

  •  Did you mean to say this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Who can argue that we shouldn't manipulate people? Manipulation implies lying, and nothing could be less progressive than that.


    by ormondotvos on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:20:46 PM PDT

  •  The Real Truth About The Compassionate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, elveta

    Oleta Fitzgerald, southern regional director for the Children’s Defense Fund, said: "When you see drops in the welfare rolls, when you see drops in Medicaid and children’s insurance, you see a recipe for disaster. Somebody’s not eating, somebody’s not going to the doctor and unborn children suffer."

    Yeah, so they may be born, but then the bastards abandon them to a fate worse than abortion. It's begun to be too hard for them to hide as the news slowly creeps into the mainstream press.Infant Mortality Rises.

    -8.63 -7.28 Molly Ivin : "..We want to find solutions other than killing people. Not in our name, not with our money, not with our children's blood."

    by OneCrankyDom on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:21:13 PM PDT

  •  We Have the Power (5+ / 0-)

    We have the power to change that by adopting our own language and promoting it. If 400,000 Daily Kos readers adopt the same language, then it will make a difference in how others have to talk about the issues.

    Please participate in the process. Go to Framing and set up your own frames. Who is going to step up on this for the abortion debate? Who is going to step up on who supports the troops?

    We don't have to put up with this any more. We have the power to turn off the right-wing frames. We need to work together to do that.

  •  All true (4+ / 0-)

    But part of it is message discipline.  Democrats have less robot in them.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:25:28 PM PDT

  •  The Marketing of "Partial Birth" (7+ / 0-)

    Anti-abortion forces never really cared about intact dilation and extraction, a rare practice used in extreme late-term cases perhaps 2500 times annually. No, as its own advocates freely admit, the so-called partial birth abortion was all about marketing:

    "(The) partial-birth abortion ban is a political scam but a public relations goldmine...This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life...The major benefit of this bill is the debate that surrounds it."
    Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue), News Release, September 15, 2003

    For more background, see:
    "Marketing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban."

    •  That's Always Been My Question - How Many ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Anti-abortion forces never really cared about intact dilation and extraction, a rare practice used in extreme late-term cases perhaps 2500 times annually.

      My impression always was that it's more common than bigfoot sightings and probably less frequent than cattle mutilations.


      •  That is an awlful lot of bigfoot (0+ / 0-)

        perhaps 2500 times annually.

        Oftentimes, the strength of an argument is most clearly seen at the extremes.  Late-term abortions can be seen to verge on infanticide and very early abortions can appear to be nothing more than "Plan B". It does not really help resolve matters to try to pretend that the other end of the extreme does not exist.

        the particular is higher than the universal -SK

        by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:03:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Women will be forced to carry dead fetuses? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Meteor Blades, sberel

          Or terminally deformed fetuses? Now these are pretty common medical conditions, but nobody has been very forthcoming about how often this particular operation is done. Apparently pretty pretending that something is a crisis or epidemic is pretty effective.  

          This is going to be real interesting when Oprah has a half dozen women with dead babies stuck in their bellies that the government is compelling them to carry

  •  Marketing and advocacy are not the same..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  No, they aren't the same (5+ / 0-)

      but marketing is necessary to successful advocacy.  Marketing is a tool that we ignore at our peril.

      Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

      by Radiowalla on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:50:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary Rettig in "The Lifelong Activist" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, SusanG, ebohlman

        spends a good number of pages explaining why progressives do need to market their ideas. For instance (emphasis hers):

        Two other activities that aim to influence people with the goal of changing their behavior are marketing and sales. These are anathema to many activists, who consider them inherently exploitative, and the essence, really, of all that's wrong with capitalism. There's some truth to this viewpoint, but it is also somewhat of an oversimplification, since marketing and sales can, in fact, be used non-exploitatively and to positive ends. In business classes, and in this section of The Lifelong Activist, I teach what is called "consultative sales," where you're not manipulating the customer, but working alongside of him to arrive at a solution to a serious need he has. That need might be "I need a computer," "I need a birthday gift for my girlfriend," or "I need a government that represents the interests of everyone, and not just the top one percent." The salesperson's/activist's job, in consultative sales, is not to manipulate the customer but to guide him toward an informed choice, and the outcome is not zero-sum, but win-win: the customer gets what he needs, and the salesperson/activist gets what she needs, be it cash, a vote or a petition signature.
           The bottom line is that activism is, or should be, marketing and sales.

        I highly recommend the book, by the way. See SusanG's and OrangeClouds115's reviews.

  •  Iraq is not a "war", it's an "occupation" (5+ / 0-)

    That is the best framing yet. We have to take these powerful words away from Republicans, who have been experts at using them against us.

    R: Don't you want to win the war in Iraq?
    D: It's is not a "war", it's an "occupation."

    Framing has always been a Republican tool. We need to take it back.

    "We already won the war, it's the occupation that's killing us."

    by cal in cali on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:31:02 PM PDT

  •  Framing (3+ / 0-)

    Whomever wins the GOP nomination, our mantra has to be: More of the Same.

    Want more of the same? Vote for McCain.

    Want another four years of more of the same? Vote for Guiliani.

    Want more of the same in Iraq? Vote for Romney.


    That's the true harbinger of spring, not crocuses or swallows returning to Capistrano, but the sound of a bat on a ball. ~Bill Veeck

    by MikeBaseball on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:31:23 PM PDT

  •  Partial birth aboration (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not even sure what that means.  Does it mean an abortion in the last trimester?  If so, I am curious as to why a woman would wait that long.  I have had  two abortions in the first trimester.  Why would someone wait until the last trimester to have an abortion?  The only reasons that I can think of would be evidence that the fetus was somehow damaged and that carrying it to full term would result in a disabled child.  I'm hoping to be educated!  

    I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein

    by elveta on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:32:39 PM PDT

    •  I think that you a right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am not a doctor, I just blog as one on dKos.

      Just kidding-

      But I am really not a doctor  .  . . I am an engineer, Jim!

      Anyway .  .  .

      I can also imagine that this might be necessary for the Mother's safety.

      In any case, I think that the anti-choice crowd sees it as an attack on the weakest reed of the pro-choice arguments, IMHO.  

      A wedge, as it were.

    •  Or (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RickWn, elveta

      You were going to die if you carried it to term.

      Considering how much effort the woman has expended in the first 9 months, having an abortion in the last one obviously means she has a very compelling reason.

      Congress would only vote to ban this because it was full of weak-minded pussies. We could frame these guys. We should frame them as "busybodies".

    •  Late term abortions (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elveta, Krush

      Are always an agonizing thing. Sometimes the woman is very very young, sometimes access is so limited a woman must travel great distances, sometimes it's a financial issue - which is even more tragic because waiting not only means less safe, but much more expensive.

    •  Maybe the Rh blood factor? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Poor Grunt

      If you know your blood type or are familiar with their common descriptions, you know that some people are B- and some people are B+. This designation of the positive or negative aspect of your blood's make-up is all determinative in what blood transfusions you can be given that will save your life or kill you if given the wrong type of blood.

      Me? I'm B-, so if given B+ blood I'm going to get very, very sick and likely die. Just the same as if they gave me AB positive or negative blood.

      Imagine, if you will, a woman who is of Rh- negative any blood type. She becomes impregnated by a man who is similarly of Rh- negative any blood type. The resulting fetus will be a negative for the Rh factor and will grow to term with no Rh factor complications.

      Imagine the same Rh- negative woman impregnated by an Rh+ male and the fetus develops with the Rh+ factor. Now you have a complication of the pregnancy.

      You see, the Rh- Mom's immune system see's the Rh+ fetus no differently than a foreign substance and begins an attack on the developing fetus that is putting the Rh+ factor into the mother's bloodstream and would likely result in a miscarriage if left unattended.

      Fortunately, medical science has learned how to mitigate this particular complication and successfull pregnancies where the mother and fetus are of different Rh factors are achieved everyday. But that happy circumstance is dependent upon competent and regular pre-natal testing and treatment of the mother during her pregnancy.

      Now imagine, an Rh- mother who is not only carrying an Rh+ positive baby, but suffers a weak immune system that doesn't go into attack mode (and would not likely result in a miscarriage). And in addition, she is not getting, whatsoever, any pre-natal care which would discover this anamoly in time to treat it successfully.

      The poor woman, devoid of medical insurance, perhaps her first pregnancy, takes advice from well-meaning relatives and dismisses all the slowly increasing symptoms of her body's distress as just a "difficult" pregnancy... unaware that she is slowly being poisoned by her fetus's blood type, just as surely as you or I would be killed by the introduction into our systems of the wrong blood type in the more famliar blood transfusion.

      And then, one day, later in her pregnancy... much later than the first tri-mester, she collapses into coma and is rushed to a hospital emergency room.

      Obviously pregnant, doctors type and match and determine the woman will die within the next few hours if the fetus, the source of her continuing wrongly matched blood transfusion is not immediately removed from her womb.

      Why not just infuse the ailing mother with the correct blood type? Well, then the fetus dies.

      It's a no-win situation for the doctor who has to make the decision. The question of why doesn't the doctor just perform a Ceasarian and save both lives is a moot point as the fetus, having grown all this time in an inhospitable womb is not without injury itself and has negligible chance of viability.

      Women do not just breeze into Doctor's offices a month before delivery and get partial birth abortions because they've changed their minds about carrying a fetus to term, no matter what Terry Randall and Operation Rescue would have the American public believe.

      Partial birth abortion is a procedure rare in the extreme and one employed as a last resort to save the life of a pregnant woman. A woman who with later, better pre-natal care, could survive and go on to have many happy, healthy children.

      May this Supreme Court majority forever hold thier heads in shame.

  •  Okay: First off this is an awesome subject. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    Second, I would never lose Bill Moyers by lack of bold... okay, Terry Randalls and gamesmanship:

    How about we focus on-

    Non Coercive.

    "The methods of the White House are coercive. They aim to gain..."


    These "Non Coercive Measures are taken to more fully engage (employ, pre-empt, chose your slot) to accomplish what could not be accomplished by coercion!

    Now, to accomplish this, the word "coercive" need to become a regular meme. Like Liberal - Only Stronger.

    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:34:41 PM PDT

  •  i use framing so no one thinks i am republican (0+ / 0-)

    im not, im definately a bleeding heart -but not a 'go team!' dem, either

    i want the political discussion to leave the r. v l. areana so badly

    from this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections! -slaughterhouse 5

    by Krush on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:36:45 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, MB (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Radiowalla

    I subjected my ever-loving husband to a 20 minute rant on this very subject earlier today. He wisely nodded his head and agreed with me.

  •  You got it right! (0+ / 0-)

    Dems need to invest more into these so called think tanks to formulate both policy and "frames" AKA Propaganda.

  •  Repug spin on Reid "lost the war" (0+ / 0-)

    President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier. The banner said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.  Bush declared a victory in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.Mr. President is that your definition of "winning"?

  •  It's the criminalization, Stupid! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sample conversation:

    So you are "pro-life, are you?

    -Well, I'm not real fond of the idea of abortion either, but I really hate the idea of sending doctors and women to jail.  If abortion is criminalized, then someone is going to be sent to prison.   Do you think it should be the doctor or the woman?  Or both?

    -What about the nurses?  Should they go to jail as well?

    -How long should the sentences be?

    -Yeah, I think abortion is pretty sad, but I don't think it should be criminalized.
    That's why I am pro-choice.

    Memo to James Carville: sit down and shut up! You too Begala!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:43:27 PM PDT

    •  In addition: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, Marlboro Lite, Dauphin
      1. What taxes should be raised and/or what other law enforcement should be cut to enforce a procedure that currently occurs approximately 1,000,000 per year?  What taxes should be raised to incarcerate the several hundred thousand law breakers?
      1. How is law enforcement going to treat miscarriages?  As crime scenes?  You know there would be a mysterious increase of miscarriages if an abortion ban is enforced?  There are currently millions of miscarriages in the US per year now, every one of them could be a crime scene?
      1. How would you restrict travel of pregnant women and potentially pregnant women to jurisdictions that allow abortion?  How would you enforce?
      1. How would you pay for the policing of shipments of RU-486 to women?  What taxes would you raise and/or what other law enforcement programs would you cut?

      Do you know that in Mexico and Latin America countries where an abortion ban exists there are in excess of 1,000,000 abortions per year.  How much tax dollars would you allocate towards enforcement (all these are new dollars) and where would these enforcement dollars come from?  Tax Increases and/or Law Enforcement Cuts?

  •  We was framed! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Hillbilly Dem, Krush

    You are so right--No Child Left Behind hates the Patriot Act.  Reagan called his missile toy the Peacemaker--and lazy newsmen--and Fox actors--repeated this over and over.  I believe Orwell and Goebbels understood repeating the big lie and the power of loose language.  Unfortunately, people like Safire used these lessons and taught the Republican party that ethics and/or morality mean nothing if we sell the words.  


    •  The BIG Lie is not framing (0+ / 0-)

      The big lie is pure propaganda.  There is nothing of discussion or rhetoric about it - it is an almost agressive act, that at the very least shows disrespect for the people you are supposedly communicating with.  

      This Bush administration is one of the biggest users of the Big Lie to date.  Is it any wonder that we have all been surprised, in a "shock and awe" kind of way?  Such powerful propaganda weaponry used directly against the American people is unprecedented in living history.  

      Yes, we must develop a defense.

      the particular is higher than the universal -SK

      by Thomas Twinnings on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:12:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How do you solve it? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    They are a sloganeering factory and they have the media marketing it for them. What can you do?

    I'll tell you what I do: I don't give anyone an inch. If I disagree with someone's opinion on some political issue I tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong and that they are still buying into the right-wing drivel that has consistently, constantly been wrong.

    Is it because I am stubborn and arrogant? No! It's because I am right and I am sick and tired of wasting logic on people who are hell-bent on suspending it.

    Thinking otherwise=wrong.

    This sentence has threee erors.

    by MouseOfSuburbia on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:44:31 PM PDT

  •  Smashing the Framing of our foes (3+ / 0-)

    How to smash the framing of our foes. This is a more difficult task. For example, while some have worked prodigiously to transform the Administration-framed "surge" into "escalation," that hasn't really taken hold. ...No matter how often we correctly (and with righteous fury) say the Bush Administration is doing the opposite of "supporting the troops," ...

    ...The Administration has embedded "support the troops" so firmly into public consciousness ...The Administration has managed to persuade ..

    The one detail missing from the picture is in those phrases. Yes, the Administration strove to do all these things. It was impossible without the Media's insistence on repeating Republican lies and slogans, as if they were legitimate discourse. Be a Liberal and see how far you'd get away with that.

    Beltway Bubblism and laziness and stupidity all have their role. But the de facto Corporate monopoly on public discussion is still the key. If they did't cooperate, Bush couldn't have done it. (And Rudy wouldn't even be vaguely possible.)

    As to a direct counter to "support the troops," speaking marketing/framewise, you'd have to have an intense ad campaign that juxtaposes the hollow speeches of Repub Congressionals and the reality of their voting records and their results.

    Little known Constitutional fact: the phrase "executive privilege," does not exist anywhere in the Constitution! Justice Scalia...?

    by Jim P on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:48:20 PM PDT

    •  How powerful would a commercial be . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that featured a split screen, on the left showing Chimpy McShrubster, over and over again squawking "support our troops" and on the right showing totems of the exact opposite -- soldiers in shredded vehicles and the like.

      "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

      by Miss Butter on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:22:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The one thing I have noticed (6+ / 0-)

    over and over again is that progressives/liberals/Democrats are always two steps behind in framing almost any issue.  We always seem to be reacting to the Republican frame instead of anticipating the debate and putting our frame out first.  Even if/when we do, the gut-level reaction to the words we use seem less visceral than the words that the Republicans come up with.  At least that is how I see it.

    Here are some examples:
    pro-life vs. pro-choice
    tax-and-spend Democrats vs. rubber-stamp Republicans
    flip-flopper Kerry vs. incompetent Bush
    Hate-America-First Crowd vs. Culture of Corruption

    I agree we need to do a better job with trying to put our frame out there.  However, I think there are 3 other pieces necessary to win the framing debate...

    1. We need to come up with better frames than the Right Wing.  (An example is "global warming".  It is really too mild a term and Republicans were able to replace that phrase with the somewhat more neutral-sounding "climate change" because that phrase didn't really "sound" that much different.)
    1. We need everyone to consistently use these frames.
    1. We need to come up with the frame before the RW frames the issue.  The phrase needs not only to reflect the reality of the issue, but it needs to be a phrase that elicits an emotional response in people when they hear it and say it.

    We need to change the wind.

    by Naniboujou on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:48:23 PM PDT

  •  Worst abuse: 'the far-left anti-war' (3+ / 0-)

    when more than 2/3 of the country is against the military occupation of Iraq.

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:57:14 PM PDT

  •  Offering: (0+ / 0-)

    Protect the troops.

    Protect the troops; provide them armor -- the best armor.

    Protect the troops; only send them to war with just cause.

    Protect the troops; bring them home when they've completed the mission.

    Protect the troops; make sure they get all their training before sending them in harm's way.

    Protect the troops.

    Protect the troops--because they protect you.

    Protect the troops; don't let war profiteers sponge up money that should go to the troops.

    Protect the troops; they deserve it.

    Protect the troops.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:57:20 PM PDT

  •  The Daily Show (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Pink Lady

    as much as I love it, occasionally gets lazy with the language. Last week, Jon Stewart repeated the "partial birth" trope on more than a few occasions. I yelled at my TV. It was not funny.

    For what it's worth, an e-mail was sent. I think it's important that the folks who are aiding us in the fight (and TDS is definitely a friend) don't unconsciously or through laziness help "catpault the propaganda" and undermine the effort unwittingly.

    "...." -- Harpo Marx

    by BobzCat on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:57:24 PM PDT

  •  Framing, as I understand it, is rhetoric. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pink Lady

    On the one hand there's empty rhetoric (e.g., most of what emanates from Wingnutistan), which is pure marketing devoid of substance or, worse, a cover-up for something sinister or a way to shut off debate and effect a kind of censorship (e.g., "support our troops").

    On the other hand there's good rhetoric, which I see as a way to succinctly, accurately and memorably encapsulate an idea.  "Iraq Occupation," in my opinion, is an example of good rhetoric.  Thinking aloud here, one might also counter the "support our troops" tactic with something like "honor our troops -- bring them home."  I do hope people keep thinking about a counter to "support our troops."

    "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

    by Miss Butter on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:58:43 PM PDT

    •  Yes, the great orators paint the picture (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pohjola, Miss Butter

      with words that promote understanding of the issue.

      Truth telling is an art form.

      (So is deception...and the Reps have perfected their art.)

    •  Support for Troops (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pink Lady, Miss Butter

      Anyone who uses the phrase "support our troops" is suggesting that we don't. Probably the most cogent reply is, "Prove it! Prove to me that I don't support our troops!"

      This points up how empty the phrase is. Anyone who actually supports our troops would do all of the following:

      1. Support a smart strategy in Iraq by redeploying the troops in a strategically meaningful way.
      2. Provide the armor needed for them.
      3. Eliminate supply-by-profit contractors and war profiteers.
      4. Support diplomatic efforts to bring Iran and Syria into the solution.

      If they can't say they don't support all of those points, then they can't claim to support the troops.

  •  NPR interviewed doctors who were complaining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pink Lady

    "partial birth" is not a medical term, yet it's illegal.
    I don't think we need slogans in this area. We need abortion taken out of the courts and decided by states. The Supreme Court ended debate a long time ago it resulted in these catch phrases.
    A super majority of people want Big Brother out of this debate, yet Justice Kennedy gets to play doctor instead.

    Jimmy Carter is right.

    by LandSurveyor on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

  •  Just a thought in passing re: support the troops (0+ / 0-)

    Support the Troops vs. Sacrifice the Troops

    Something my father's group of 80+ year old VFW buddies think about when they hear Bush call for sacrifice.  These are WWII vets that see the cuts in VA benefits and votes against supporting the troops in congress being led by Bush and the GOP, most noticably was  Senators Bond and Talent in the 109th Congress (I'm sure this had more than a little to do with Talent's loss, too).  Their opinion is that Bush/GOP are "Sacrifice the Troops" while the Democrats are the ones trying to support the troops. They are also fed up with the national heads of the American Legion and VFW, especially after the support given to Roskham (a Republican who never served) over Iraq war vet Duckworth in the last election.

  •  There is not much you can do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thomas Twinnings

    to frame partial birth abortion positively.   It is what it is, and it's viewed very negatively  by  most who have  the procedure explained to them.  It seems the country including some pro choice  people  are ready to accept  reasonable abortion limits  when it comes to  extreme  procedures like this.   I agree that  there should be an exception to save the life of the mother  and my understanding is that  there is such a provision in this law.  Is that correct  or not?  

    •  Not. nt (0+ / 0-)

      "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

      by Miss Butter on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:24:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may be mistaken (0+ / 0-)

        From an AP article:

        The majority also left open the possibility that doctors could ask a judge for permission to use the disputed procedure for particular medical conditions that pose a health risk to the mother.

        •  Sorry, but I'm not mistaken. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marlboro Lite, sberel, Dauphin

          Justice Kennedy, in addressing the need for the health exception, said on Wednesday that it was acceptable for Congress not to include one because there was "medical uncertainty" over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for the sake of a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could assert an individual need for a health exception by going to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

          New York Times article

          The legal sticking point was that the law lacked a "health exception" for a woman who might suffer serious medical complications, something the justices have said in the past is necessary when considering abortion restrictions.

          CNN article

          And Kennedy's excuse for dismissing the lack of an exception to save the woman's life -- that while her life is in imminent danger she and her doctor will file a lawsuit and wait patiently for a decision -- is ludicrous and disingenuous.

          "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets . . . we shall never surrender[.]"

          by Miss Butter on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:34:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  RvW allowed significant restrictions (0+ / 0-)

      on late term abortions (then defined at 3rd trimester).  Not much has changed there.

  •  Why dont you give this win to pro-life (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bandersnatch, Thomas Twinnings

    This technique is very rare and there are alternatives.  Arguing this strongly will lose religious voters who are inclined to vote Democratic like me.

    I think Abortion is murder but I believe it should be legal and safe and that we need to solve the root causes of why mothers choose abortion or have unwanted pregnancy.

    I believe we should not fight what is really a very rare procedure and has other alternatives.

    •  Why Not? (0+ / 0-)

      Well, because to give this win to the anti-abortion crowd is to give them the right to decide when women should die.

      Do you really believe that women have this procedure done just because they don't want to be pregnant or they have decided they don't want to raise a baby? Think about it. Why wouldn't they make this decision in the first month, the second month, the third month, the fourth month, the fifth month, the sixth month, the seventh month, or the eighth month? The reason they are having it done is not because they feel like it.

    •  Indeed it is quite a narrow win (0+ / 0-)

      I could have been a lot worse.  And still only 2 justices Scalia & Thomas voted for overturning RvW.

    •  grave deformities (0+ / 0-)

      I have read of women who have discovered late in pregnancy that the fetus has a grave condition such as hydrocephalus or encephalocele

      Click on the link below and scroll down to the third image. Do you think this fetus could be delivered vaginally?

      Doctors should be free to use the best options for their patients. The fetus will not live. The woman will.

      Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling only bans D & E. Now the physician's other options are to do a C-section or dismember the fetus in utero, both procedures are more dangerous to the woman and rick complications such as infection or sterility.

      •  Again this is very rare (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        dadanation, FishOutofWater

        Abortions by dilatation and evacuation after the 12th menstrual week of pregnancy are said to be both hazardous and impractical. To evaluate this hypothesis, we compared the safety and feasibility of 6213 abortions by this means and 8662 induced by intra-amniotic instillation of saline during the 13th to the 20th week of pregnancy. Abortions by dilatation and evacuation had a lower rate for major complica-tions (0.69 vs. 1.78 per cent; P is less than 0.001) and lower rates for treatment of complications, including antibiotic administration (2.22 vs. 5.65 per cent; P is less than 0.001), blood transfusion (0.19 vs. 0.91 per cent; P is less than 0.001), and curettage or manual evacuation of the uterus (0.98 vs. 34.10 per cent; P is less than 0.001). Such abortions also had a lower rate for failure of the method to produced abortion (0.11 vs. 2.52 per cent; P is less than 0.001). Although large, randomized trials are required to determine the appropriate role of mid-trimester abortion by this means, this method appears safe and practical through the 20th week of pregnancy.

        1.78% complication rate for the other alternative--which is just infection which can be cured by antibiotic or bleeding by blood transfusion.

        So let us give this win to pro-life people.

        •  timber -- 2 things and a trooll rating to boot (4+ / 0-)
          1. the link is insufficient/limited. we only can read the limited abstract summary, not the full article.

          that's a problem.

          1. why do you not reference the issue of the 3rd trimester?  weeks 25 - 36 (the last three months)?

          oh, i see why you provide an unreadable link and why you do not reference the third trimester -- because you are actually writing a troll post.  this post is wrong and you know it.

          see, originally i thought your post was a good attempt to try to cite credible data to make your point.

          now i am clear this comment is a troll comment and i am rating it as such.  why?  how about for repeating anti-choice memes and frames and intentionally misapplying data to appear to be in agreement with your unhelpful and anti-choice [(?)pro-life(?)]conclusion.

          so, let's start with the cates et al data "kind of" link you cite.  i note that you do not cite anything from the actual article -- we can't read the actual article from your link because it isn't TO the actual article but solely to one of those thumbnail abstract summary links. (hmmmmmmmm)  

          i would also note that it is the entire summary thumbnail that you blockquote.  this would, i daresay, violate this site's copyright rule.  

          but your copyright violation pales in comparison to your distortion and misrepresentation of facts.
          it is great to see that there are safer and more practical and less hazardous procedures for abortions in the first two trimesters, especially given tat these abortions are most often elective abortions.

          thats what this blockquote thumbnail abstract demonstrates using its data sets.  

          but that is ALL it corroborates.

          you should know that as the pregnancy moves towards the later part of the 2nd trimester (which in total encompasses weeks 13 - 24), less and less abortions are elective , and more and more emerge as medically-necessitated because of complications arising that endanger the life and health of the mother (also late in the 2nd trimester is when more of the genetic tests come in...).

          once you enter the third trimester (which encompasses basically weeks 25 - 36), elective abortions are illegal. period.

          and the so-called "procedure" the scotus ruled on is one that is specific to the 3rd trimester.  this point can not be underemphasized - no elective abortions in the third trimester, only those that are medically-necessitated because carrying the fetus to term would jeopardize the life and health of the mother (or that the fetus is dead, etc,).  this pricedure can only happen if and when the doctor has concluded that carrying the fetus to term does in fact jeopardize the life/health of the mother. it is not an elective abortion.

          the choice to have the pregnancy terminated in the third trimester is not based on anything EXCEPT the medically-determined fact that the carrying of the pregnancy to term seriously jeopardizes the life of the mother. the pregnant woman is no longer exercising control over her body in these cases, she is now in a setting where her life is in grave danger. the medical procedure is to save her life and health.  period.  are you with me still?

          so, if your data cite were to have applicability here it would state that the intact D&E procedure (what the scotus ruled on) is in fact hazardous for women in the 3rd trimester.  

          but lo and behold your cite is silent on this issue.  completely silent.

          so, we have to then believe that there are no credible cites which would tell us if in fact the intact D&E is safe and appropriate during the medically-necessitated procedures in the 3rd trimester.  you allow the absence of specific data (or, cynically simply you citing NO data) to then conclude that they are not safe or advisable.

          and that is inaccurate and you know it.

          the question is, is the intact d&E procedure a safe and appropriate medical procedure to be used when appropriate and necessary for a 3rd trimester abortion?

          and you know what? it is.

          that is according to the american college of ob/gyns(acog) who issued a statement following the scotus decision which included this salient fact:

          This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

          so the data you cite may in fact be quite accurate for the first two trimesters -- but clearly NOT true for the third trimester of a pregnancy.

          when we give this "win" to the (?)pro-life(?) people, what we are in fact doing is allowing the anti-choice community the opportunity to deny both physicians and women an appropriate, safe and responsible medical procedure, plain and simple.

          conflating all three trimesters as all being somewhat the same or all operating under the same rules, laws and considerations is one of the more odious framings that the anti-choice community has been mouthing for years.
          you have been called on it.

          and you are also being called on the other anti-choice framing in this post: "(?)pro-life(?)."  right.  as if pro-choice = pro-death.


          "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

          -8.25, -6.15

          by dadanation on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:17:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Troll ratings are not for disagreement (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Besides if you check my history--I have a low ID of 5684 and relatively active commenter.

            But I am also a Catholic and a Democrat(a big Dean supporter) and you have to respect Catholics and pro-life people.  You may disagree with them but you cannot discount our beliefs as troll.

            NEJM is a very eminent medical journal.  You can read the article if you buy it.  

            My point here is complications of alternative are just mild and rare. Thus it is not worth it to make prolife and religious people support for Democrats drop out.

            •  You're not pro-life. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You're anti-abortion. When you call yourself "pro-life," then you are begging the question because you are assuming that the question about whether the fetus is a living being or not has already been decided.

              And as pointed out, your statement that complications of the alternative are mild and rare is true for the first two trimesters, but not for the third.

              The main question is this -- who do you trust to tell a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy what to do with her body -- God or George Bush?

            •  this was not a disagreeent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              it was about you providing a narrative recapitulation of a few of the anti-choice memes and framings.  plain and simple.

              the article you cited is good (cates is a friend and a good researcher) but the article did not address what acog did, and explicitly so -- the utility of tee procedure now banned. your coclusio,baseed on no data s eaxatly te raming of this ssue tha has cased tis non-procedure toave literaaly a life and now power of its very own.

              that's why yuo were TRd, for the memes and frames.


              "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

              -8.25, -6.15

              by dadanation on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:34:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Marlboro Lite

          You believe the PBA bans D & X and D & E.

          You realize that your view supports the Ob/gyn's who protested this law on the basis that they really didn't know what procedure(s) the ban applies to.  The only thing that seems clear from this law is that viability is no longer a factor in banning abortions (ie, non-viable fetuses may not be aborted in certain cases).  Thanks for posting this.

          To answer your first question,
          "Why dont you give this win to pro-life"

          Because if the fetus is not viable, it's a medical decision how to terminate the pregnancy.  It should be left to medical professionals, not attorneys, judges, or politicians.

          Support the troops (for real)! write to any soldier

          by sberel on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  disningenuous ad vile (0+ / 0-)

      you are being so disingenuous here.

      see below, to your troll-rated comment about the "pro-life" victory thing...


      "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

      -8.25, -6.15

      by dadanation on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:21:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Language of the Oppressor (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, Krush, Pink Lady

    Rule number one of any difference of opinion or negotiation is never to allow the other side to get their term in common use especially if the term they are using is a false depiction of what is really occurring. I remember once a college administration wanted to fire a few of its more vocal professors. They appointed a couple of admin-friendly lame-duck professors as arbitrators and publicly proclaimed that certain profs would undergo faculty peer review. Sounds great, doesn't it?

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:14:40 PM PDT


    In tomorrow's NY Times.

    Does that surprise you?

    HOLLANDALE, Miss. — For decades, Mississippi and neighboring states with large black populations and expanses of enduring poverty made steady progress in reducing infant death. But, in what health experts call an ominous portent, progress has stalled and in recent years the death rate has risen in Mississippi and several other states.

    The setbacks have raised questions about the impact of cuts in welfare and Medicaid and of poor access to doctors, and, many doctors say, the growing epidemics of obesity, diabetes and hypertension among potential mothers, some of whom tip the scales here at 300 to 400 pounds.

    "I don’t think the rise is a fluke, and it’s a disturbing trend, not only in Mississippi but throughout the Southeast," said Dr. Christina Glick, a neonatologist in Jackson, Miss., and past president of the National Perinatal Association.

    Yeah, these assholes care so much about a fetus's life. They just give a goddam once the baby's born.

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

  •  Support our oops (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caldonia, Krush, Miss Butter
    now I know what to do with that yellow ribbon magnet someone gave me.

    War is outdated. Dalai Lama

    by x on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:25:43 PM PDT

  •  Framing vs Spin or Marketing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I suggest everyone read George Lakoff. Framing is about activating deep seeded beliefs people already hold.

    Framing Versus Spin: Rockridge as opposed to Luntz
    Framing Versus Spin: Rockridge as opposed to Luntz

    •  Sounds good, but can their writing be placed into (0+ / 0-)

      some kind of catchphrase?

      Otherwise, I won't read it

      from this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections! -slaughterhouse 5

      by Krush on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:29:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many bullets, subheadings, summaries in 152 page (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        paperback.   Concise and on point.

        George Lakoff is a linguistics and cognitive science professor at Berkley.   Thinking Points
        Got my copy at Borders $10.  Also at Amazon.

  •  Made to Stick (0+ / 0-)

    BTW, you should all go out and get the book Made to Stick. I say that purely for it's information content. It's important for us all to know how to communicate ideas.

    Just in case you don't want to spend the money or the time, I'll give you the Shrinklits version. (Another book I highly recommend, BTW.) Here goes:

    Make yourself the Aesop of your message. Tell it as a story that gives your audience a picture of reality in a form they can use.

    Example: Instead of talking about global warming, explain to people, "This ground you are standing on will be under water." For the other half of the population, those who live more than 300 feet above sea level, where this won't work, explain to them, "The people from New York City will be moving here in a few years." (I think this should be particularly cogent in Georgia.)

    There's much more to the book. "Create a knowledge gap and then fill it."

    Oh, and there's more, too. You'll have to read it, though, because I'm out of time.

  •  To be perfectly clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think framing is lying and that its goal is manipulation.

    The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

    by Free Spirit on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:36:36 PM PDT

  •  I'm opposed to government-forced maternity. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marlboro Lite, Krush, pioneer111

    I don't believe in protecting a rapist's right to breed.

    I don't believe in random parenthood.

    We need to stop putting petri dishes ahead of the post-born for a change, and care properly for the children we already have.  Which as a country we're just not doing.

    •  That is a good one - random parenthood. (0+ / 0-)

      It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

      by pioneer111 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:01:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you also in favor of the killing (0+ / 0-)

      of a nine month fetus,  sometimes referred to as a baby.  When he or she is partially born?

      It seems like we can still be prochoice and give up this procedure, especially if exceptions are granted to save the life of the mother.

      •  your framing of the issue here (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, sberel, FishOutofWater

        is both offensive and absurd.

        odd that you would chose a diary about framing to then be a walking personification of the problem itself.

        as was noted in the diary, these framings are often done absent a real knowledge of the issue or the facts, and rely heavily upon stick and loaded phrases.

        your post here is the best working example of such  as i have ever read.


        "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

        -8.25, -6.15

        by dadanation on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:24:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe a woman and her doctor should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marlboro Lite, sberel

        be the ones to decide, without the interference of other people's specific religious beliefs and behaviors.  It's so arrogant.

        If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

        No Blood for Hubris

        by tryptich2 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 06:05:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What arrogance to assume that your religious (0+ / 0-)

        beliefs and behaviors should be imposed upon others not of your religion.

        If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  End of story.  What part of that do you not get?

        No Blood for Hubris

        by tryptich2 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:25:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some very good stuff here...... (0+ / 0-)


    However, framing or marketing, or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't have to be manipulative. In this world of blurbs and rapid-fire images, it seems to me we progressives are compelled to find not only the right message but the right way to deliver our message, or we might as well stick to our echo chambers. Sometimes that means quick and dirty. The Freeway Blogger knows this. As does any good political consultant.

    I take exception to your assertion that ReThugs use language better. What they are doing uses language but the success of their propaganda has more to the way the wiring in 'some folks' heads works.

    It's of paramount importance to understand that. Otherwise we will never reach those on the other side who are 'reachable'. ReThugs are not simply 'using better language...'. They are manipulating people who are peculiarly susceptible  to the artfully crafted memes the ReThugs and their allies in the MSM are very good at producing.

    I'm not overly concerned with them you understand but truly I'd rather not have to follow in the footsteps of John Brown.

    Which is where we are headed if we cannot reach those RWAs who are reachable and peel them away from those who really do deserve to meet a 21st Century John Brown.

    So, please reconsider your statement about the Rethug's using language better than progressives. If that was true the war would already be won.


    You think Malkin and her Monkeys are better writers than you are.

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 07:45:58 PM PDT

  •  Two Lines Election Time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

      I spend considerable time reading certain newspapers, attending discussions, and working as a political activist.  The last election the end result was "Rendell:Moving Pennsylvania Forward."  What does that even mean?  Nevertheless, it is good to win.  It is good to have clout.

  •  Five Catholic Justices hand down a ruling (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, FishOutofWater, blackshards

       Am I wrong in thinking that no one much has noticed that Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are all Roman Catholics?
      As Catholic myself, I am intensely aware of the shortcomings of this variant of Christianity: hostility to women and gays, a culture of child molestation, idolatry of the Pope etc.
      Why is it that the majority of Americans ( and the majority of Catholics who don't subscribe to the papal lunacy) put up with being dictated to by this crew of elderly Catholic men?

  •  Maybe I just don't get this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marlboro Lite

    Isn't the whole point of the Christian right's crusade against abortion to force women to have to bear the burden of shame for having a child out of wedlock? Isn't it a reaction to the perceived permissiveness of culture towards sex? What else explains the opposition to RU-486, which from my understanding, merely prevents fertilization.

    There's all this parsing of words and endless debate over minutiae but ultimately it's all about one thing: they don't want you to have sex. And if you do [and you're female], you're supposed to pay dearly for it.

    It's not about the protection of "life." None of these guys care about life. They care about sex. The cynical evolutionist in me says that this is an instinct in some people which seeks to supress others' genes by providing a mechanism to reduce their fornication: via shame. That it doesn't work and would produce a population increase is only proof that it isn't rational.

    •  Depends on which aspect you are discussing (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:

      The whole abortion debate is polarized to a ridiculous extent.  Your description  might describe  the minority  of extreme religious wackos.  At the other extreme  are the  few leftist wackos that think a minor restriction on   partial birth abortion  is  athreat to their sexual freedom.

      There are a lot of Democrats out there that can live with this decision.

      •  when you state this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marlboro Lite

        There are a lot of Democrats out there that can live with this decision

        please demonstrate the factual basis for such an assertion.  this claim is highly charged, and as such would merit that you gave a factual basis by which you would ground this assertion.

        so, please show me the proof for this assertion.


        "...Repeat, the dog pisses on the gardenia at midnight. Over."...

        -8.25, -6.15

        by dadanation on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:13:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Government-forced maternity benefits no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marlboro Lite

        one, least of all the being in question.  Filling the world with the unwanted is immoral.

        Looked up the drop in crime that happened after Roe v. Wade?  Hard to look at those stats, isn't it?

        Unwanted children pay for being unwanted all their lives.  Having another kid is not like picking up an extra bottle of milk, though the government-forced maternity crowd would like you to think so.

        No one's forcing people to have abortions against their will. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  Stop forcing your religious behaviors on others.

        No Blood for Hubris

        by tryptich2 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:54:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you are a troll: username + "leftist wackos" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Marlboro Lite

        combined with your medical disinformation taken from right wing talking points wins you a donut.

        Your user name is offensive.

        "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:15:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Framework=Structure. Get It??? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Pohjola, mike101, ibonewits


    Framing is no replacement for in-depth, rational discourse.

    is an example of framing.  It frames "framing" as something different from "in-depth, rational discourse."

    But it is utterly impossible to carry on in-depth, ratrional discourse without numerous similar acts of framing one thing as different from another.

    That's because framing interpenetrates all of human cognition.  Every time we categorize in some fashion, we are framing.  And it is virtually impossible to think without some form of categorization going on.

    Now, what folks in the political blogosphere usually mean by framing is consciously paying attention to/concentrating on framing, brining it into the foreground.  And this is certainly not something that we do all the time.  Nor should we.  But it is only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of all the actual framing that we do.  The vast majority of framing is unconscious and automatic, taking place in the background of consiousness.

    Realizing that framing is something we do all the time in background mode can help us get a much better handle on the issues involved with framing in foreground mode.  For example, having realized that foreground framining is subset of all framing, it's a lot easier to grasp that spin, in turn, is but a subset of conscious framing.  The manipulation and dishonesty involved in spin is what sets it apart from framinig in general, just as the conscious intentionality in foreground framing is what sets it apart from background framing.

    There is a very real and legitimate argument to be had about how much focus one wants to give to consciously framing issues and arguments, as well as how one wants to go about it.  But that argument cannot be fruitfully engaged so long as the basic facts are clouded in misconceptions--misconcpetions that come as readily from under-informed proponents of framinig as from under-informed opponents.

    There's a great deal of confusion surrounding the whole issue of framing, coming from people on all sides basing their actions and attitudes on insufficient information.  Right now, in the midst of an off-year, is probably the ideal time to get rid of that confusion, and get the information we need to be firing on all cylinders when crunch time comes next year.

    •  An important point (0+ / 0-)

      We also need to understand how framing can be seen as the organizing of memes into memeplexes (or "frames").

      These are natural, human processes. "Spin" is only one way that these processes can be manipulated to dishonest effect (affect?), not the whole.

      Buzzwords, memes, and frames are all variations on how humans communicate effectively. Progressives can get better at these techniques without betraying our principles. It just takes work.

      First, oversight; second, investigations; third, impeachments; fourth, war crimes trials!

      by ibonewits on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:16:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The criticisms you mention at the start (0+ / 0-)

    are mine as well.

    Framing is what the Republicans do.  Our goal shouldn't be to out-frame the Republicans, it should be to help people recognize it on sight, see through it, and become immune to it.

    Strange, isn't it, that the party that claims they believe in moral absolutes and claims that we don't is the party that has to rely on an intellectually dishonest tactic which implicitly assumes moral relativism in order to get their point across.

  •  this is a great topic (0+ / 0-)

    and needs wider discussion

    thanks for making the frame for it, Meteor Blades!

    from this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections! -slaughterhouse 5

    by Krush on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:52:27 PM PDT

  •  Wonderfully written post (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Cogent, thoughtful, persuasive.  Greenwald / Marshall couldn't have done it better.  Now I get why you have your legion of fans MB, and I'm glad you're front paging on DK.

  •  Framing IS intelligent discourse (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marlboro Lite, Pohjola, ibonewits

    You make a point, and then you support it. Today, you have about 6 words to make your point.

    If you think your (progressive) ideas are "too good" to have to be framed, you're wrong, and you're going to lose. Get over yourself.

    I'm tired of losing. The sooner we all get it, the less likely it will be that we'll have to.

  •  Stop defending and state your case (0+ / 0-)

    I picture progressives stumbling backwards while stuttering "But...but...but" in the face of yet another grossly distorting and unfair frame.  We must learn to stand our ground and keep our eyes on the prize.  We must stop taking responsibility for helping the listener hear; instead, we must state our views repeatedly, clearly, in the face of willful word-twisting.  In the case of the "support the troops" frame in relation to the emergency spending bill, why don't democrats simply state what is true?  "We have voted to supply the troops with everything the President has said he needs for the troops.  We are also requiring that the President begin bringing the troops home by next year."  I have not heard this simple presentation of the facts, plainly stated, once in this frustrating "debate."  With reality and the American people on our side, I truly believe we don't need to worry so much about framing.  It will be enough to learn to state our position simply and repeatedly.  (As an aside, I believe many difficulties attributed to framing problems are in fact better attributed to a biased MSM.)

    The above frame can be fleshed out to great effect, with the purpose of keeping the onus exactly where it belongs, on the President.  How about adding this zinger:  "We have provided what the President asked for and more.  If there is a chance the troops will be underfunded as the President has stated, he better come to us immediately and let us know what else they need."  How about this attack:  "We will provide for the troops through March 2008.  If the President is threatening to leave our troops in harms way without adequate resources, in defiance of the Congress and the will of the American people, he will have to answer to us and to every American soldier he put at risk."  These seem to me to be strong statements, and I don't think of them by trying to frame, I think of them by trying to state the plain facts.

    I don't believe in evolution. I am convinced by the evidence.

    by geomoo on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:07:55 PM PDT

  •  Framing is a matter of creating memeplexes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Rosenberg

    Stop thinking that it's something only Republicans do. Everyone does it, every day. Successful megamemeplexes, such as religions, political parties, or artistic fashions, usually do so consciously. Unsuccessful ones have usually done it unconsciously, or were aligned with less militarily successful other memeplexes.

    Republicans got to be good at framing/creating memeplexes by starting out with advertising methods of creating successful memes such as slogans and jingles. Being the party of big business, the Republicans were naturally open to adopting the methods of Madison Avenue to sell candidates and policies.

    As progressives, we can learn to create healthy, truthful memeplexes/frames that will also be successful in dominating larger memeregions in the greater memepool that is America. It doesn't require us to be dishonest or deceptive. It does require us to dissect exactly how our opponents have created their memes and why they have been so successful (hint: many of them hook into dualist memeplexes). Then we can start creating our own.

    By the way, such memes as "partial birth abortions," "abortion doctors," and "pro-abortion activists," as used by a few trolls above and Supreme Court justices recently, were created specifically to slant thinking about abortion issues in a particular direction. As long as the mass media uses them, instead of other possible memes such as "third trimester abortions," "obstreticians," and "pro-choice activists," women will continue to have decisions about the most crucial aspects their lives made by constipated, impotent, old men.

    IMOHO, there should be no room in a progressive political party for people who use the Religious Reich's memes for an issue so crucial to women's freedom.

    First, oversight; second, investigations; third, impeachments; fourth, war crimes trials!

    by ibonewits on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:40:09 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely True (0+ / 0-)
      The success of framing around abortion that ibonewits points to is particularly evident when one realizes how little change there has been in public opinion over the past 30 years.  While there have been significant shifts in subgroups, largele due to sorting effects, the overall balance of views has never varied by more than a few percentage points.

      This strongly indicates that framing has succeeded in realigning people's views at an individual level, and inhibiting the effective presentation of countrasting views, which have not eroded, but have become muted because of ineffective communicative practices.

  •  "Support the Troops" <==> "Screw the Troops" (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans SAY "Support the Troops."

    What they DO is "Screw the Troops."

    That's framing.

    BTW::: the Democrats put in $2-billion to replace the egg-shell "up armor" GOP-Humvees with Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

    Democrat-MRAPs DO the real support for the Troops.

    Ike skelton, D-MO, is the guy who got that done over the dead bodies of several Pentagon bribe-masters.

    Jefferson and the Dixie Chicks. Imus and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

    by vets74 on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 05:23:05 PM PDT

  •  Were these guys on Bush's "Map"? (0+ / 0-)

    When I heard these guys were killed at or near a patrol outpost I started to wonder ... I wonder if they were on that map of troop positions that Bush showed the other day?  Somebody should look into that ...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site