Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Brief Guide to the Debates
In the first debate, Obama did what he needed to do: convince a majority that he has what it takes. But there is room for improvement.
1. Obama kept working within McCain's frames: Earmarks, tax policy, military policy as foreign policy, and so on. McCain would say something false using one of his frames, and Obama would be lured into correcting McCain in McCain's own frame and then stay in it. Rule 1: Change to your frame.
2. A simple thing: Instead of saying "I agree with Sen. McCain ...", Obama should try "Sen. McCain agrees with me that ... " The former frames McCain as setting the standard. The latter frames Obama as setting the standard. Or try " Sen. McCain and I agree" if you are stressing bipartisanship.
3. Obama's answers kept drifting off and falling in intonation at the end. Both beginnings and endings should be short and passionate.
4. Obama missed a great opportunity when McCain said he would freeze nonmilitary spending. A short, but powerful list of what would be cut and how it would affect people's lives could have been devastation. This can still be done however, even by Biden on Thursday.
5. McCain used "no second holocaust" to effect last week in courting the Jewish vote, which could be decisive in Florida. Obama and Biden need to use it, while pointing to Olmert's anti-bombing position along with Olmert's reasons.
6. Obama didn't take the opportunity to talk about foreign policy at the level of the person, not the state-about foreign policy issues like poverty, hunger, disease, clean water, women's oppression, ethnic cleansing, refugees, global economics, and so on. Military experience doesn't help with these vital issues, and McCain is inexperienced in them.
The reason the list is short is that Obama did so well.
The Democrats are assuming that Biden will win easily over Palin. I hope so, but Palin should not be underestimated. She is being tutored and much of what she will do should be obvious. She will attack Obama viciously, but with humor. I think she will come out as a populist identifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street and say that McCain improved the Paulson bill by going to Washington. She may argue that a corporate income tax cut will put money in the economy. That one's easy to rebut: corporations that need bailouts have losses not incomes and so cutting their taxes would be pointless. But such logical arguments won't carry the day with Conservative Populists. Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist attacking the need for such a bailout. Remember that polls among conservative populists are running more than 100-to-1 against. Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists, and will see Biden negatively if he comes on as a policy wonk trying to upstage Palin on her ignorance about issues. Biden needs to be short, to the point, passionate, and should not forget the Big 5 reasons people vote for a presidential candidate: Values, Authenticity, Communication and Connection, Trust, and Identity. He has to undercut McCain on these, and support himself and Obama on them.
Again, look for the obvious from Palin: She will repeat "That's gotcha journalism" when asked embarrassing questions. She and McCain are the populist reformers fighting Wall street, indentifying Obama and Biden with Wall Street, and touting no taxpayer bailout, private insurance, cutting corporate taxes, cutting spending, the defense of Georgia from the Russians, and drilling to lower energy costs. She will drop the names of the leaders she met in NY at the UN. She will call Obama too liberal and an orator with no content. She will bring back Reverend Wright and Bill Ayres. She will talk about being pro-life and saving the family and the Second Amendment.
Biden will have to practice not falling into any of these frames, but responding (or if possible starting) with framing of his own that casts McCain in a bad light in all these cases and draws her into his framing. I assume those prepping him for the debate will have already told him all of this.
Biden should go after McCain. He should call him a Yes-man for Bush 90 percent of the time, especially on deregulation of Wall Street (which caused this economic crisis), on refusing to fund alternative energy, on starting the Iraq War and not going after Osama bin Laden, and on privatizing-and eventually ending-social security. A debate on whether McCain is Yes-Man will displace the maverick frame from public discourse.
Biden should go after McCain's gambling, and point out his gamble last week, which resulted in his messing up the bill to fix the economic crisis. In a crisis, you need a cool head, not an impulsive gambler. There should be a public discussion about McCain as a gambler.
Biden should not let McCain get away with his remark about freezing all spending except for the military and veterans. He should look at the audience and say, if you have a child who has or needs college loans, Sen. McCain will take them away. If your schools get federal funding for education, say for special needs, Sen McCain will eliminate it. If your town gets ......(fill in your favorites) , Sen. McCain will cut it - and give your money instead via tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations who don't need it.
Biden should also go into the nonmilitary aspects of foreign policy, especially those at the level of the person: poverty, hunger, disease, water, ethnic cleansing, women's oppression, and so on. McCain has no experience working on such people-oriented issues, where military experience doesn't count.
Biden should criticize Palin for making women who've been raped pay for their own rape tests, on not being pro-life after birth because of her views of children's health care, on helping to raise the rate of teenage pregnancies and hence abortions by being against sex education, and on helping to bring back back-alley abortionists by supporting laws that would have the government interfere with the intimate decisions that only individual women should be making. Lack of sex education, lack of pre-and post-natal care, and bringing on the return of back-alley abortionists supports a culture of death, not life.
This is the opportunity to bring up Palin's Road to Nowhere, built from earmark funds, and going nowhere, routed through a nature preserve-a place that shouldn't even have roads.
Biden doesn't have to prove himself in this debate. Palin does have to prove herself. That means Biden can hold back, give short but powerful responses, and try to prevent gaffes.
Finally, there is "gotcha journalism." If Palin brings it up, the right response is that journalists have a job to do, to find out what candidates know and believe, and that experienced candidates know how to respond by communicating clearly what they really do know and do believe.
76 Comments so far
Show AllWhy would true liberals care about how Obama debates ? There are liberal candidates for us to support
And FYI Mr. George Collaborator Lakoff.....
They (the liberal candidates) weren't invited to your corporate "debate"
So take your little corporate collaboration waste of space words and go away
Kinda funny. Here go DPAs trying to "coach" Obama on how to win a "debate" as if he were some kind of idiot and didn't know what he was doing.
It would require a fool to assume Obama doesn't know what he's doing and he needs George Lakoff as a coach. Obama was agreeing with McCain to reassure the PTB (powers that be) that they have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.
"Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists"
Ooops! Lakoff has thrown a serious kink into the discussion by using the terms conservative and liberal. These describe a false political dimension, resulting in massive confusion and apathy among the people that only benefits the elites. There is only one relevant political dimension. The people on the left and the elites on the right. If you want prosperity, justice for the people you side with the left. If you want pain and misery for the people you side with the right. It's that simple.
Lakoff makes some reasonable suggestions about political debating, but except for the most gentle of them they stand at odds with Obama's temperament.
Obama doesn't seem to be emotionally wired for making 'gotcha' points, or toward using aggressive or pre-calculated repartee techniques.
He doesn't even show believable indignation at the outrages he says he's running against.
Obama's instinctual style is more that of a reasoning-out-loud academician than a manipulative give-no-inch debater.
Obama's seemingly more-civilized qualities might be desirable in an elected president, but I'd agree with Lakoff that they aren't very useful in a presidential candidate who's running against a ruthless manipulator like McCain. In the end though, nobody's going to change Obama's style any more than they're going to change McCain's.
What the debates really, direly need is the equal participation of a candidate like Nader: Someone who's able to expose the lies and denials of duopoly rhetoric.
Since Nader is on the ballot in most states, and has both excellent policy-analysis credentials and wide public recognition, it's insane that a private entity called the Commission on Presidential Debates is able to exclude him.
But this will change only when the electorate demands election regs that make it impossible. And that will probably only happen when a strong 3rd party organized the electorate TO demand it.
logos.nine [October 2nd, 2008 1:45 pm] I thought Obama should have been more forceful and outraged in the last debate but Obama is a good politician -- he's gotten this far, against the odds -- so perhaps he knows what he's doing. This was brought home when a woman told me her conservative elderly mother who hadn't really paid attention until the debate said Obama looked presidential; McCain looked mean. Obviously, Obama's uptick in the polls, especially in key 'battleground' states, shows he must have done something right.
Aside from that, we've had eight years of a hothead who shoots from his lip; maybe voters would prefer a calm and collected man who thinks with his brain instead of his guts. Also, the country is trending left -- just check the results of the last three special Congressional elections in what were 'safe' Red districts in Mississippi, Louisiana and Illinois for proof. They all were attacked with Rove's kitchen sink of slime and crapola, but the Democrats were elected nonetheless; in Illinois' conservative 14th district, Denny Hastert's seat, the Dem was running on a very progressive platform and won anyway, defying the 'experts.'
logos.nine [October 2nd, 2008 1:45 pm] wrote:"What the debates really, direly need is the equal participation of a candidate like Nader: Someone who's able to expose the lies and denials of duopoly rhetoric.
"Since Nader is on the ballot in most states, and has both excellent policy-analysis credentials and wide public recognition, it's insane that a private entity called the Commission on Presidential Debates is able to exclude him."
I agree Nader, and McKinney, Barr, and even Baldwin, should be in the debates. It's news to me that Nader is on the ballot in enough states to win -- are you sure about that? Last I checked he wasn't on the ballot in enough states to get the required number of electoral votes to win.
Seems a bit like trying to teach the Washington Generals how to run the pick and roll.
Lakoff is, as ever, on point with his observations and suggestions. My only caveat is his reference to "Conservative Populists." These people will NEVER vote for Obama or anyone like him. They cling to their ignorance and will continue to vote against their own best interests.
Shame on the author for counseling anyone to adopt the "no second holocaust" talking point in order to court Jewish voters. That is sick.
For those who didn't get this, McCain's insistence that there will be "no second holocaust" on his watch is a reference to the threat by Iran's president to bring on a second holocaust on the people of Israel.
The problem is that Iran's president a) does not control Iran's foreign policy and b) did not threaten a second holocaust. The alleged threat is a myth constructed by the mass media. What Iran's president said was, to paraphrase, that former Ayatollah Khomeini was wise when he said that the regime occupying jerusalem (i.e., the Zionist regime of Israel) will vanish from the pages of time.
This would be like George Bush saying that Reagan was wise to say that the regime occupying Moscow (or Havana) will vanish from the pages of time.
We should be so lucky if our leaders were circumspect and invoked karma in this way, as opposed to talking like a schoolyard bully ("bring it on!"). We expect our president to threaten the annihilation of other countries, whereas in other places this is considered undiplomatic. While Iran has not attacked another country in centuries, our nation seems to start a new war every few years.
Pandering to a media-manufactured brouhaha designed to play on Zionist hysteria may be a good way to get votes, but its bad foreign policy and its bad for America.
Perhaps, like me, you have been wondering what you can do to protest the exclusion of third party candidates from debates that are run BY and FOR CORPORATIONS. Congratulations. You are not alone and, unlike many of the 'journalists' at Common Dreams, you are NOT a stooge for the corporations, clapping for totalitarianism of the duopoly.
Here are some things you can do:
1) Check out and help: Coalition For Free and Open Elections--http://www.cofoe.org/
2) Check and help: Open Voting Consortium:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
3) Watch this video on the corporate elections: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiTh1jdsdkc
4) Read about the SECRET debate contract. call on the Commission on Presidential Debates to make public the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and McCain campaigns.
http://www.opendebates.org/makecontractpublic.html
5) Sign the "open debates" petition: http://www.opendebates.org/yourrole/petition/
6) Contact these national debate "sponsors" to let them know that you object to the rationing of political speech and the disregard shown by the CPD for the opinions of the majority of American voters!
Anheuser-Busch Companies
800-342-5283
E-mail-- http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp
Bartle Bogle Hegarty (BBH) New York
212-812-6600
E-Mail Bruce Wellington: bruce.wellington@bbh-usa.com
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
402-556-6641
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com
EDS (an HP Company)
Email-- https://www.eds.com/ssl/forms/contact/index.aspx
http://www.eds.com/
International Bottled Water Association
703-683-5213
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
The Kovler Fund
617-514-1624
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF)
650-854-9400
202-347-5270
YWCA USA
202-467-0801
E-mail: communications@ywca.org
7) Organize Protests outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters in your community, at corporations that sponsor the debates, at radio stations, newspapers and media outlets not covering third party candidates.
8) Write letters to the editor, to blogs, to public forums, and to your friends and family members.
9) Check out the Citizens Debate Commission, created to replace the corporate "Commission on Presidential Debates"--http://www.citizensdebate.org/
10) Watch the third party debates online
Please join us for a third party candidate debate and money bomb (date to be announced as we approach the 10,000 pledges mark, location to be in New York City). All of the major candidates will be invited to participate. The event will be broadcast via www.BreakTheMatrix.com
come on...let's be honest, is there really that much difference between McCain and Obama? Both are corporate tools. Big surprise? Obama raised over 400 million for his campaign war chest. Those $$$ didn't come from mom and pop. The money came from corporate Amerika. The same pack of wolves asking for a bail out. Ah fuck, CD'rs don't want to hear this. Keep living the Dream...Head buried in the sand.
jejune1 [October 2nd, 2008 6:01 am], those who can't tell the difference between Obama and McCain probably also shouldn't be trusted to park a car since they couldn't tell the difference between a station wagon and a horse cart.
In fact, over half of the more than $400 million Obama has raised was in the form of contributions below $200, which puts it in the 'mom and pop' territory, and Obama has taken no money from PACs. Corporate America didn't donate directly to Obama's campaign; the donations came from presidents and CEOs who are limited as to how much cash they can throw around, as well as employees of corporations and their families. Since most people who have jobs work for corporations, that information is meaningless as a gauge to who will have access to or receive favors from the candidate if elected.
As I've posted at CD before, I have a friend who works at a for-profit medical facility as a nurse; she and her nursing friends have all given money to Obama, whereas the head of the facility and the top staff have all contributed to McCain. So, is Obama in the tank for the for-profit medical company? This is the way the money is being tracked, just go to http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 and read about their methodology for collecting data.
No surprise that McCain and Obama share a common framework. I am not surprised. Are you?
It is worth citing some of these declarations of agreement, for they demonstrate the completely conventional and right wing political orientation of the Obama campaign.
On the financial crisis: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility.”
On spending: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused.”
On taxation: “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right.”
On the federal budget: “John is right, we have to make cuts.”
On Iraq: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.”
On threatening military action in Pakistan: “John ... you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.”
On Iran: “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.”
Obama thus acknowledged that he and McCain share a common framework, which is the defense of the interests of the American ruling class, both at home and abroad. If he had been debating a socialist candidate, he would have had no agreement on anything.
read more:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/deba-s29.shtml
Gee, Ric [October 1st, 2008 10:36 pm], you use out-of-context quotes almost like a real Republican -- say, you don't think you could be a ... no, I'm sure that's not the case; you're a schoolteacher, right? But it is interesting that McCain is running ads with many of the same misleading excerpts you have posted here.
For anyone who would like to read what Obama actually said in context, here's a transcirpt of last Friday's debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html
Yeah right. DPA argument #1 "THE REPUBLICAN TROLL"
RSJ you display the basic right wing bent that is the hallmark of a Democrat. Democrats cannot conceive of anyone being to their left and being opposed to them on principle. That's how narrow their thinking is. In your mind anyone not supporting a Dim must be a Pug.
You think Democrats deserve if not own our votes and anyone that thinks otherwise is secretly trolling for Pugs. I don't owe the Dims anything. Just what have they done for me?
Actually, I am sure you are smart enough to understand that your "Republican Troll" argument is really no argument at all. Basically its a clever attempt to change the subject and put Obama detractors on the defensive. It is a very weak "argument". It's a red herring.
Nowadays a Democrat is basically a slightly left of center Republican that supports right wing, pro Big Business, pro MIC, pro bailing-out-fat-cats, pro corporatist, pro war candidates such as Obama. Democrats are on the move to the right.
So please spare me the lesser-evilism lecture too, I don't subscribe to it. Just do whatever you think is right, honestly I'm not concerned with people voting for Obama. I expect Democrats to vote for him being the sheep they are. Yours is a thoroughly typical, conventional, run of the mill and in the box, establishment way of thinking that really just leads to the status quo SAME under the fig leaf of CHANGE. Go for it conventional RSJ!
I pass over many pro Obama posts because they don't interest me and I don't care if they support sell outs. Conventional DPAs seeme more angry by people pointing out Democratic sell outs than the actual sell out, which they ignore. Why do the Obama supporters feel compelled to come to the rescue of the sell out Democrats and try to refute every post they disagree with?
Do you have any problem with the direct quotes of Obama agreeing with McCain I posted or are you just upset that I posted it? Only an idiot or someone who didn't watch the debate would deny Obama agreed with McCain 11 times. I don't think you missed the debate and I don't think you are an idiot. So what is it?
The "Republican Troll" argument is actually a lack of having an argument and only an fool idiot would deny Obama didn't ABSOLUTELY AGREE with McCain during the "debate" many times.
Gee, Ric, I must have hit a sore spot. Actually, if you read my post more carefully, I didn't accuse you of being a GOP troll, only of parroting their Talking Points. I said I found that interesting.
Ric Abreu [October 2nd, 2008 11:42 pm]: "Nowadays a Democrat is basically a slightly left of center Republican that supports right wing, pro Big Business, pro MIC, pro bailing-out-fat-cats, pro corporatist, pro war candidates such as Obama. Democrats are on the move to the right."
If you've read any of my comments here at CD, and I know you have, you know that I am none of those things, so you are, once again, distorting the truth. I disagree with Obama on many things, but I disagree with McCain on even more and, no matter how much third-party bluster you try to mount to the contrary, one of those two men is going to be the next president.
Ric Abreu [October 2nd, 2008 11:42 pm]:"I pass over many pro Obama posts because they don't interest me and I don't care if they support sell outs."
That would explain your towering ignorance. Next time, try reading them before you spout off, Ric.
Ric Abreu [October 2nd, 2008 11:42 pm]:"Conventional DPAs seeme more angry by people pointing out Democratic sell outs than the actual sell out, which they ignore. Why do the Obama supporters feel compelled to come to the rescue of the sell out Democrats and try to refute every post they disagree with?"
Whose angry? Oh, that's right -- you. Why do you feel compelled to attack Obama at every turn? As you know, or would if you read my posts, I have criticized both Obama and the Dems on many occasions but, for all of their imperfections, I think we'd be better off with a Dem president and Dem majority in Congress -- we already know what the GOP will do from the last eight years. Or, like Gov. Horse-Hockey Mom, do you simply want to flush the past eight years down the Memory Hole?
Ric Abreu [October 2nd, 2008 11:42 pm]: "The "Republican Troll"argument is actually a lack of having an argument and only an fool idiot would deny Obama didn't ABSOLUTELY AGREE with McCain during the "debate" many times."
Read the transcript; Obama often started by agreeing with McCain and then stated his own position on the issue. In other words, he didn't 'absolutely agree' with McCain -- that's a scurrilous mischaraterization, probably a result of your odd but overwhelming hatred of Obama.
Why should we vote for Democrats? What have they done for us the last 8 yrs? Well this is just a partial list of what they have done for us:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war after promising to do so
2) Refuse to impeach Bush/Cheny
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers on the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10)Allow Guantanamo to stay open so they can torture outside US jurisdiction.
11)Allow themselves to be pissed on by signing statements
12)Are now in favor of offshore drilling
13)Agreed to bail out Wall Streets fat cats with no provision to save people's houses
14)Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________. (what's next?)
RSJ writes: I think we'd be better off with a Dem president and Dem majority in Congress -- we already know what the GOP will do from the last eight years. Or, like Gov. Horse-Hockey Mom, do you simply want to flush the past eight years down the Memory Hole?
-Good one RSJ. I may have some more fun with you yet. What a thoroughly lame and discredited DPA argument. I think I will coin it: DPA red herring argument #7 the "LOOK AT WHAT BUSH DID THESE LAST 8 YEARS".
What a bogus "argument". You do realize that we have 3 co-equal branches of government with separations of power. The DPA argument #7 is absurd because just what have the DimWits done to stop Bush??? To ask the question is to answer it. Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT CAVE IN AND ROLL OVER AFTER CAPITULATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Congress has the power to filibuster, but Democrats routinely voted with Republicans to give them the necessary votes to pass their agenda. The new #7 takes as its premise that Bush operated in a vacuum like a monarch, outside the law and untouchable and that he couldn't be stopped because they lacked the power to do anything except sit on the sidelines and watch helplessly.
DPA #7 ignores the fact the Dims control both Houses of the Congress and have controlled them since 2006 and could have initiated impeachment proveedings per Kucinich's 35 articles. That is if they had wanted to. Big if.
DPA conclusion: Vote for the same sell outs that allowed Bush to crap all over the Constitution and then wipe his butt on it. Smart.
How was Bush able to do all these terrible things and get away with it? To ask the question is to answer it. Because the so-called "opposition party" are a bunch of sell outs that are beholden to the same PTB (powers that be) as the Pugs.
Ever think maybe the DimWits you support could have perhaps not voted to support the war and then continue to fund it? Maybe the DimWits could have not voted to confirm right-wing judges. Perhaps the DimWits could have not confirmed Mukasey and other right wingers. Hey maybe the DimWits could have even....get ready (drum roll,.................) IMPEACHED THE BASTARD!!!!!!!!
I already know your response which is also a capitulation to the right wing. "They don't have the votes" BS, they have a majority in the house and can impeach Bush if they wanted, which of course they don't. I will agree with the fact it would not have succeeded in the Senate because the Democrats wouldn't have supported it. The DimWit's leader already said impeachment is off the table. Ever wonder why the Democrats have placed Bush above the law? I didn't think so.
Perhaps the DimWits could have functioned as an opposition party instead of enablers. WOW!!! What a novel idea!
Any critique of the Bush administration's excesses must include a scathing rebuke of the DimWits that allowed him to get away with murder unpunished. Bush wasn't even been censured.
DPA red herring #7 the "LOOK AT WHAT BUSH DID THESE LAST 8 YEARS" is actually an argument against voting for the enabling Democrats. Why did the Dims do nothing? Surely you can come up with something better than that.
Look RSJ I have concluded that arguing with you is a waste of time. Why? Because we both know we aren't going to change our minds. I absolutely will not vote for that sell out Obama no matter what you say and I am unlikely to persuade you to vote for Cynthia McKinney. Not that it matters to me who you vote for.
I read the posts I want and I ignore others. For you to assume a person that doesn't read every post or is opposed to Obama is a "tower of ignorance" is silly. Let's pretend you are a "tower of information" You can still be wrong. I respect your right to believe Obama is the lesser evil. I did say spare me the lecture. I do not believe in lesser-evilism unless one of the choices is still acceptable. For me Obama isn't acceptable. Period.
I will continue to say about Obama what I consider to be the truth. He did say what I quoted. I concede there are minor differences between the two. On the big picture there isn't really that much difference though, at least not for me.
I found it interesting today to hear a person talking on NPR, which is very middle of the road, and they were saying the same thing I am saying about how the differences between Obama's and McCain's war policies aren't that big. I have heard many intellectuals talking about the Democratic sell outs and how alike the two Wall Street parties have become. Glenn Greenwald comes to mind. There are many others. I am not saying you are ignorant but if you think there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two parties you certainly sound ignorant to me.
In terms of war, which is where innocent people get killed and my "hatred" of Democrats rears it's ugly head most often, both promise more of it. Split hairs and parse all you want. The truth of the matter is that Obama's definition of "ending" the war is leaving 60,000 troops or more in Iraq and sending thousands more to Afghanistan.
To me the difference between you and reboot above is that your arguments are a little more reasoned but the bottom line is the same. Vote for Obama or you are spouting Republican talking points or you are a "Republican Troll" which happens to be reboot's favorite.
Without a doubt Obama did agree with McCain and he said McCain is "ABSOLUTELY RIGHT" on more than one occasion. He has also said many other pro war things like increasing the number of troops, buying more military hardware, shifting the focus of war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and saber rattled Iran, Pakistan and Russia. If you are okay with that then good for you, I am not.
I will continue speaking the truth as I see it about Obama whether you approve or not. Free speech you know. I am also leaning towards not sparring over the same points over and over again on thread after thread, ad nauseam. I already ignore reboot. What's the point?
My Dad (R.I.P.) once asked me: "Son what do you get when you put an intelligent person in a room with idiots?" I said, "What?" My Dad answered, "A room full of idiots." And that's the truth!
Ric Abreau sez:
"My Dad (R.I.P.) once asked me: "Son what do you get when you put an intelligent person in a room with idiots?" I said, "What?" My Dad answered, "A room full of idiots.""
Ric,
Because it's your Dad, and he's deceased, I held off on commenting on your story.
But this is the third time I've seen you use it to attack someone who disagrees with you.
So I gotta ask: Was your Dad leaving the room as he said this?
"Why do the Obama supporters feel compelled to come to the rescue of the sell out Democrats and try to refute every post they disagree with?"
Why do anti-Obama loonies keep raising the same discredited points over and over again?
In the hope that someone will believe them.
That's why we don't let you just shovel your crap over all the threads without responding.
You guys are like Bush: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Reading George Lakoff is like putting on a set of corrective lens for the mind that enables the wearer to see through all the smoke and mirors of political posturing and rhetoric. Lakoff is exactly right when he says that until you change the frame of questions or your opponents response you will always be at a disadvantage.
Poet
George Lakoff is a typical and thoroughly conventional DPA and an apologist for the PTB (powers that be) which Obama represents so well. In fact Obama has received more money from Wall Street than even the Republican candidate which is saying a lot. No small wonder Obama is going to bat for the bailout!
Obama kept working within McCain's frames...
-why change a frame if you agree with it?
"I agree with Sen. McCain ...",
-hey he's being honest
Both beginnings and endings should be short and passionate.
-Obama has missed many important votes but I noticed his passion for bailing out Wall Street. Neither Obama nor Biden bothered to show up and vote on Mukasey who wasn't sure if water boarding is torture but was in Washington to cheer on the upward transfer of wealth. What a sell out!
...but powerful list of what would be cut and how it would affect people's lives..
-as if Obama's plans to increase military spending wouldn't cause cuts in social programs
Obama didn't take the opportunity to talk about foreign policy at the level of the person,
-yeah Obama needed to talk about the misery he plans to inflict on Afghanistan and put a human face on the suffering. Good point!
The reason the list is short is that Obama did so well.
-look at who he is running against. If Obama were a progressive instead a McSAME-lite he would be 20 points ahead!
A vote for either is a vote for the SAME! Vote 3rd party!
Ric Abreu [October 1st, 2008 10:14 pm] wrote: "A vote for either is a vote for the SAME! Vote 3rd party!"
...and get McCain!
What are the top ten nasty Republican campaign attacks will we be forced to endure?
Enough is enough
End Republican Rule
As I am writing this I am watching/listening to back-to-back political ads. The first is Obama: platitudes with no real substance; The second is McCain: fear without substance. Ho hum!
Will there be alternative party debates this year with Nader, McKinney, Barr and Baldwin on C-Span? They have had such debates aired in past election cycles. Anybody know if and when??
&YYY&
Obama and McCain do not understand real Change in the rules of the game.
The Vampire States mounting debts, and endless wars, they are clinically insane.
Although the mega rich still take comfort from their corporate money gain.
The Vampire States still creates little good and brings on world moral blame.
With corporate paid pretty pollies slow to adapt its up to the people to react.
To overthrow old party machines that can still make future failure a fact.
The graft system machines and media cannot hide, that all over they are cracked.
Let the people become the questioners and agents of change, this is what this system lacked.
Why can't it be challenged in the courts that no third-party candidate is allowed to participate in the debates? Where are all these zillions of US lwayers when you need them?
Maybe because all the judges are members of one of the two corporate parties, and because they are all picked by either the President or by the Senators from their state, then approved by a Senate full of members of the two parties.
I'm like 99% certain that Nader has been trying this route every year. Can't cite evidence, but I'd be surprised since Mr. Nader is himself a lawyer that he hadn't already tried this.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/
Biden, Biden, Biden. Iron Joe, that flinty-eyed man of few words but quick action. That gallant Lancelot who stared down the credit-card usurers, and demanded debt relief for the little man. That fearless Shane who stood tall against Big Chemical in Delaware. Amazing the metamorphosis Sarah Palin has wrought among the formerly despised amd contemptible. Why, even Katie Couric has become a rock-turning, muckraking Upton Sinclair in drag. Next thing you know, Wolf Blitzer will slap Dick Cheney in the mouth. Ah, Progressives...we never really knew ye.
Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Thank you!
(wipes away a tear)
I generally agree with Lakoff, except for this part:
"But such logical arguments won't carry the day with Conservative Populists. Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist attacking the need for such a bailout. Remember that polls among conservative populists are running more than 100-to-1 against. Also remember that conservative populists see liberals as elitists, and will see Biden negatively if he comes on as a policy wonk trying to upstage Palin on her ignorance about issues."
Conservative populists -- who would that be? If they aren't up to their ears in debt and one paycheck away from living in their car, then they must be well-off and those wealthy people are by no means 'populists.' The last 'conservative populists' I knew were truckers and the infamous 'Reagan Democrats.' The formerly GOP-friendly truckers are voting for Democrats this year, and the Reagan Dems -- mostly union members who once held good-paying jobs -- have all discovered what side of the bread their butter is on and are also backing Obama. (Even Country music icon and real conservative populist Merle Haggard is supporting the Dems in 2008.) Populism means you won't be crawling into bed with Grampy and the Beauty Queen this year, no matter what happens in this Biden-Palin debate or the two remaining between Obama and McCainiac. As a trucker told me a couple of weeks ago: "It's about time we had somebody with a brain as president," and he wasn't talking about McCain. The cycle has shifted -- I think most voters want a 'liberal elitist' in contrast to a bitter old codpiece with a temper problem and a moose meat-eating Hockey Mom who can't remember what magazines and newspapers she reads 'every day.'
As far as Palin diplaying her 'smart ass wit' in the debate, someone should tell her that being a smart ass only works if you're smart; otherwise, you're just an...
So, I take it you were doing your Rip Van Winkle bit and missed the whole Ron Paul campaign? That was pretty much a movement of 'conservative populists'.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson [October 1st, 2008 6:19 pm], good point, Samson, and today Ron Paul, along with Swift-Boater Jerome Corsi, is supporting the Constitution Party candidate, the religiously-insane Chuck Baldwin, for reasons I can't fathom.
Chuck Baldwin Thanks Ron Paul for His Endorsement:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=780
Here are the principles of the CP, with my commentary in brackets:
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
[Opposed to women's rights, but not war. I think being killed in combat would qualify as an 'unnatural death.']
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
[i.e: No regulation of business or corporations.]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
[Against gay marriage or civil unions because they think the Bible tells them so.]
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
[No regulation of business, especially polluters.]
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
[They believe the Constitution is a Christian document, even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers were liberal products of the Enlightenment, something the CP most assuredly is not.]
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
[Except women's rights and the right to take drugs.]
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances. [Get out, you lousy Mexicans!]
Dismising Bob Barr, Paul Endorses Baldwin:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-cand...
It would seem like the Libertarian Party would be the closest to the philospohy Ron Paul espoused -- perhaps he really wasn't much of a conservative populist after all.
.I personally believe Libertarianism to be a dangerous, selfish and quite possibly racist political ideology. Ron Paul's friendship with the guys from 'Stormfront' would seem to bear this out.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
A quick guide to the debates.
All the candidates that you will see in these corporate sponsered debates have millions of dollars of corporate money in their accounts. Therefore, you will only hear tiny variations of what is acceptable to corporate America from them.
Meanwhile, any candidate not backed and sponsered by corporate America is barred from appearing in the debates.
This shows up in the obvious issue of the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector. The two candidates both have in the neighborhood of $20 million in contributions from the financial sector. Therefore both candidates will only offer slight variations of the plan to bailout the financial sector with our tax dollars. The candidates that are not bought off by corporate America and who oppose the bailout are not allowed to appear.
That's why this article focuses on narrow framing issues of the candidates. Since Obama and McCain agree on all major policies (war on terror, wall street bailout, globalization of our jobs, etc), the only recommendation that he can give is that Obama should say "Sen. McCain agrees with me" instead of "I agree with Sen. McCain".
The bigger problem is that since 70% of the voters say that the country is heading in the wrong direction, we would really like to hear from a candidate that doesn't agree at all with what's been going on.
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
How can anyone respect any candidate who participates in a closed debate ? Click the link, please.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/a-challenge-for-candidate-palin/
The debates as run by the Debate Commission are just one more scam. Until the voices of Nader and a few others are allowed to be heard, there is no democracy, no respect for the voters, and no hope for change.
Don't be swayed by the fluff and puff. Think about the ISSUES !
George Lakoff makes some good points.
Too bad he must add the apparently required "Obama and Biden need to use it..." referring to the absurd and demeaning red herring of a "second Holocaust."
"5. McCain used "no second holocaust" to effect last week in courting the Jewish vote, which could be decisive in Florida. Obama and Biden need to use it,"
I can't believe CD is publishing this kind of Rovian crap.
"Biden should go after McCain's gambling, and point out his gamble last week, which resulted in his messing up the bill to fix the economic crisis."
That bill was to "fix the economic crisis" and somehow it's McCain fault it didn't pass? Was this article written by the DNC?
Biden should be studying the performance of Lloyd Bentzen vs Dan Quayle. Class, maturity, intelligence, and honesty.
The big red Nuke button is too big of a gun to be "shot from the hip".
Barcak isn't wonderful but McCain - Palin is the "Ticket to Nowhere"
Institute for Public Accuracy
Voter Purge Lists - The Brennan Center
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voter_purges
"1. Obama kept working within McCain's frames..."
That describes the relationship between Democrats and Republicans.
"Biden will have to come on at the beginning as a populist ..."
I think he'd rather lose to Palin than do that.
The Dems have had more than a generation to figure out the obvious, and they refuse, preferring Republican narrative frames. They far prefer to have their anti-war base in a free speech cage away from their convention than inside with a voice. They do respond to right-wing blather about flag lapel pins, however, with alacrity.
The Dems have made a political and ideological decision not to oppose the worst administration in history, so Lakoff has to know the likelihood of his advice being taken.
Face it: the Democrats believe in the Republican frames. Oh, but if you're a progressive, then they also own your vote for some reason.
Dem's are trapped by 'Pub frames because the news media sustains those values and assumptions.
It's not a fair fight when the newspaper editors back home are reinforcing the conservative viewpoint.
Sure, they publish "left" and "right" editorials, but the "framing" is delivered in the wording of headlines, the selection of photos, and the placement of stories from front page to back.
Don't get me started on local TV news...
"Dem's are trapped by 'Pub frames because the news media sustains those values and assumptions."
The news media are bloody awful, but that still lets the Dems off the hook too easily. Don't they have any values? You'd think that any basic principles that give them meaning would be too important to automatically sacrifice to the preferences of corporate media.
"It's not a fair fight when the newspaper editors back home are reinforcing the conservative viewpoint."
Quite right. It's not a fight at all, though, when ... there's no fight.
"Don't get me started on local TV news..."
*barf* Same here.
Well, the big problem is that the Dems agree with the Repubs on almost every issue. The very fact that point number one in this article is that Obama should say "McCain agrees with me" instead of "I agree with McCain" says wonders about this.
IF Obama was really proposing real change, then it wouldn't matter what spin on it the editors apply. There is and always has been a large distrust of the media in this country. And if Obama was really proposing real change, that would kick in and people would listen to Obama and ignore the editors.
Example: Picture what would be happening right now if Obama came out strongly and forcefully against this bailout plan. We see a situations where the wealthy interests in DC want the bailout, but the people in the country are screaming loudly against it. So, what if Obama was giving forceful speeches against the bailout right now. Pounding on the podium and leading crowds in shouts of "NO!, NO!, NO!". Giving speeches asking why we can spend hundreds of billions on wars on the other side of the world, or why we are spending hundreds of billions bailing out Wall Street, but we can't help homeowners stop foreclosures. Or why we can't have a single payer health care system that works for all? Or why we can't pour billions into our schools or our infrastructure and create good jobs for Americans in troubled times in that way.
Obama could cut right through this if he was really talking about change. The problem is that Obama agrees way too much with Bush\McCain. Just like the Democratic Congress agrees way too much with Bush\McCain.
Vote Nader!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Some good points here. But I'm very certain that Barack could never be the asshole that McCain is, so if that's what you're looking for in the debates, forget it.
Sioux Rose
DFAIRLEY: I think you raise important points (and I see it the same way).
Debates mean nothing given that
1. Neither Mccain nor Obama have nothing to run on other than subtely promising more of the same.
2. No invitation of 3rd party candidates such as Nader, Mckinney, Barr, etc ...
There might have been something worth looking at otherwise.
What about the other candidates who have been hogtied by our coporate, MSM media/society?
Maybe if they opened the debates up in line with the primaries we could get somewhere.
Why can't Nader or McKinney or Barr be invited to these "debates?"
To come off as the Democrats they call themselves, Dems could bring up the most democratic of all procedures, to let the people directly decide about the bailout with a binding referendum included in the ballot offering different alternatives popular with voters.
Let's see if Obama EVER says this to McCain: "You own 7 homes, 13 cars, your wife is worth tens of millions of dollars and you call me an elitist because I eat arugala and keep my tires inflated."
Yes, poor old Obama only owns what, two homes. He's got a mansion back in Chicago that he got in the crooked real estate deals with Rizzo or whatever his name was. And I'm sure he's got another expensive house in DC too.
Yep, truly just an ordinary man of the people like all the other Americans who own two or more mansions.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson [October 1st, 2008 5:09 pm] wrote:"Yes, poor old Obama only owns what, two homes. He's got a mansion back in Chicago that he got in the crooked real estate deals with Rizzo or whatever his name was. And I'm sure he's got another expensive house in DC too."
Actually, Samson, Obama owns just one home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago. It's a nice, large house, but I don't know if you could call it a 'mansion' -- at least not in the Hugh Hefner sense. His connection to Tony Rezko was thoroughly investigated and he came out clean as a whistle, and he didn't get his home from some crooked deal with Rezko -- he bought it at full market value. He also has just one car, a hybrid, and he's worth about $4 million, most of it coming from his books.
I suggest you read this:
"UPI baselessly asserted that Obama paid 'substantially lower than market value' for Rezko property," Media Matters, Jan. 25, 2008.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801250006
Meanwhile. McCain has at least seven expensive homes or luxury condos and 13 cars, and he's worth is over $100 million, most of it from his beer-heiress wife.
Nader isn't doing badly either; he earns a pretty good living from his books, speaking engagements and investments (he's worth about $4 million, as well), and lives in a Washington, DC, mansion with his sister that, for some reason, he put in her name.
Read this:
"But in his personal life, about which St. Ralph is very secretive, things are different. He lives well, using a D.C. mansion that he apparently owns (though the title is in his sister's name), earns millions from speaking and writing, and invests in — big, multinational corporations! He has net assets of about $4 million, most of it in corporate stock, such as the $1 million he owns in Cisco Systems, not to mention his stocks in major defense contractors such as GE and IBM. He controls nonprofit organizations and trusts, all secretly run, with his family members on the governing boards. His charitable foundations give away 4% of their assets every year, the lowest amount possible to keep their IRS tax-exempt status. The remaining assets are also in corporate stock, including telecom monopolies such as Verizon, BellSouth, and Qwest.
"It is no surprise that his hidden ownership of these various entities involves conflicts of interest, as when he pushed hard in speeches and legal briefs to break up Microsoft, all the while standing to gain enormously should the breakup have occurred, or when he privately brought shares in Ford while hammering General Motors. (Remember the Corvair?) And, oh yeah, while he praises unions, he blocks unionization of his own organizations."
-- Gary Jason, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Leftist," April 2006.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_04/jason-lifestyles.html
[BTW, I don't particularly like that right-wing source I linked to, but the info can be verified elsewhere.]
The fact is, most of these candidates running for president are very well-off, and it seems even Ralph Nader has feet of clay.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
He lost in 1996
He lost in 2000
He lost in 2004
Can you help Ralph lose again?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
.
Nader says...
"Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
NADER IS RUNNING NECK TO NECK WITH A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
It's not Obama, it's William Jennings Bryan.
Both Nader and Bryan have lost three Presidential elections!
Can you help Nader pull out ahead with loss number four?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
Why give them any help in framing anyway?
George Lakoff would be better off handing his advice to Third/Independent Party Progressive/Liberals for a change.
Once again Common Dreams has an article on the "debate" without mentioning any but the 2 major party presidential candidates or pointing out that the "debate" was run by the Republican and Democratic parties.
Our democracy is failing because many of us with legitimate opinions are shut out of the political process (or getting their heads banged outside the conventions of our 2 major parties).
We don't hear the real alternatives that exist for health care, military foreign policy, trickle-down economics, globalization, a wealth-dominated political system, the growth-is-always-good philosophy, or bailouts for Wall Street paid for by Main Street.
To get a sense of what's not being discussed, I urge you to check out the Ralph Nader interview at http://www.votenader.org/live/. The fact that this man is not considered a "viable" candidate whereas people like McCain, Kerry and Bush are speaks volumes about our dysfunctional political system.
BTW -- The author of the present article wrote "Why You Can't 20th Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain." Maybe they need to print someone who understands 21st century politics!
...and once again we have a so-called "idealist" progressive complaining about there not being enough deck chairs on the Titanic as it heads towards the iceberg. Come on, first let's miss the iceberg.
The problem is that McCain and Obama can't see (or won't admit they see) the iceberg. (And I don't think we could avoid it even if they did.) The first priority of both parties is not to rock the boat, and to provide gold-encrusted lifeboats for themselves and the other members of the ruling class.
I don't think there's any way to avoid serious problems with our economy and our society. Individuals, families, corporations, and our government are heavily indebted. Our national debt has grown from about 2 trillion dollars in 1980 to almost 10 trillion today (in inflation adjusted dollars). The US personal savings rate is zero. We've almost totally lost our manufacturing base, and millions of middle class jobs with it. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. We're heavily over-dependent on energy, much of which we import.
We don't need the little twists of technocratic knobs that Obama and McCain suggest, we need some radical re-thinking about our economy, our society and our lives. Muzzling people like Nader means that we are deprived of the real debate that we need.
Almost everything you said is correct, though I do believe Obama "sees the iceberg" - he just can't admit it as loudly as we'd like because of the silly things candidates have to do to get elected (like feign piety). But you're missing the forest for the trees. Obama and McSame have two different worldviews, even though various details are similar. Obama has a vision of America as a WE society (however imperfectely he represents that) and McSame has a vision of America as a ME society (represented quite well). 4 to 8 more years of a ME agenda and we're all sunk. 4 to 8 mores years of even a flawed WE agenda and we can stay afloat to push a truly progressive agenda.
.If only you were correct in your assessment of your candidate....I see Obama insisting we expand the war, not end it. I see Obama insisting we continue a for-profit health care that leaves tens of millions out in the cold. I see that Obama has collected more campaign monies from Wall Street than has McCain. I see more similarities between the two than one might expect, unless one understands that , in the end, both parties are far too much the same thing.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee [October 3rd, 2008 7:40 am], I don't know where you saw all of this. Obama is committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq within 16 months and closing all forward bases, except for embassy guards. Obama has said that realistically universal health care will not pass in the Congress right now, but has a plan to make sure the uninsured are covered and those with health insurance will pay less. Your claim that he has taken more money from Wall Street is debatable; it depends how you count the donations and who they came from. McCain has accepted PAC money and most of his campaign staff are or recently were lobbyists; Obama has not accepted PAC money, and he has no former lobbyists on his staff.
If you have read what McCain proposes regarding Iraq, health care, and his career closeness to corporations and history of voting for deregulation, I don't know how you can say these two are close on those issues.
I suggest you read Obama's proposals at http://www.barackobama.com/issues
You've got to be kidding! "He did so well!" What planet does this man live on? He was abysmal and presented so many reasons NOT to vote for him!
I agree. Obama was abysmal. So was McCain. In fact the whole debate was a farce.
(Quoting Nader) "Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
VOTE NADER...Waste Your Vote Yet Again in 08.
.I believe that wasting ones brain by refusing to study the positions of your candidate and reflecting upon how closely they mirror your own views and desires for this nation is a far worse crime than "wasting" ones vote by casting it for the only candidate who expresses my views and desires.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You should just do a write-in vote for yourself.
After all, you've got just as much of a chance as any of the other third party candidates...
.A mind is a terrible thing to waste ctrl-z, you should really stop doing so....
. I do not understand why your comments get increasingly childish and shallow, havent you anything to contribute?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee said: "I believe that wasting ones brain by refusing to study the positions of your candidate and reflecting upon how closely they mirror your own views and desires for this nation is a far worse crime than "wasting" ones vote by casting it for the only candidate who expresses my views and desires."
Come on ardee, who is going to "mirror your own views and desires for this nation" more than you? If you do a write-in vote for yourself you'll have as much chance of getting elected as any 3rd party candidate. You'll be a party of one.
Since you've already decided not to vote for a potential winner, you can stand proudly beside the losers. And the best part is you don't have to compromise a single principle.
BTW "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." So is an insult. I know you can do better than that.
progressiveparty [October 1st, 2008 1:03 pm], ha, ha, you finally seem to be coming around to Obama's side! Gee, what made you sour on McCain -- was it the flip-flopping, his inherent nastiness or his bizarre pick of Palin? ;)
I hope someone from the Obama campaign reads this. Because it sure seems like every statement the Repubs make towards Dems nowadays boils down to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". And each time the Dems respond "Yes". The notion of Frames is really so simple...why can't Dems figure this out?