Redstate

The public is definately more naively susceptiible to framing over facts. The success of todays marketing is proof of this. George Bush was marketed better then Kerry. If every single American read this article  or one like it before the election the facts would overcome the framing.

Please, please, please tell me most Democrats agree with you.

Because, if they do, all we have to do is show the public things like this and y'all can frame until the donkeys come home -- it'll be 2100 before voters trust you again.

From Linguistics Professors never cease to amaze me.  These things are so ominous:

'Conservatives understand what unites them, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.'

So do squeegee men, taxicab drivers, chaos theorists, economists, neurosurgeons, bartenders, filmmakers, talk show hosts, and presumably, on some level, carpenter ants.  And...the point is?

'Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers.'

Thanks, Professor Lakoff, for clearing that up for us.  

The background for Rockridge is that conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing.

Not content to deliberately traffic in meaningless profundities, the Professor just decides -- to lie.  Well, you know, when you can't tell the truth to advance your argument, and you know you can't, you don't really have any choice.

But really.  The rest of the article is just that bad, and the opinion of the author and his acolytes is unshakable.  We're not going to win many converts over at the Free Speech Movement Café.

The lesson of Jesus Christ is not a political agenda.  Jesus Christ does not pick sides in our fight.  Indeed, the example of Pope John Paul II illustrates this.  He fought against Communism.  Yet he deplored the godless materialism of Capitalism.  He condemned Abortion AND the conservative holy grail of the death penalty.  He opposed murderous dictators like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, yet opposed the unjust Iraq War.

I wish we had more reasonable Christians on our side.

'Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers.'

Thanks, Professor Lakoff, for clearing that up for us.  

When you spend $1.2 trillion more then  you bring in you have a problem. But I guess you're expecting this booming  

economy Bush has created to pay off the difference??? Lakeoff is right. Not only do we need to frame things better but we apparently also need to really really dumb it down.

Earth to Moral High Grounders; We're our going broke and praying ain't gonna fix this. When the country finds out that you have neither the moral high ground nor an economic plan the tides will change. If you're looking for a society based on social Darwinism just realize stupid goes extinct real quick or at best becomes a serf to the money lords.

What percentage of debt to GDP is acceptable?

The medium is the message--ooooohhhhh.

Take death for example. An aborted fetus might be life challenged. Regardless, you've still got a corpse.

The corpse is the problem for Democrats. Whether we're respecting life from bith to the edge of death, what ever the hell that means, they're stuck with a grinning death's head, a crushed skulled victim of a PBA, another Terry Shiavo starved to death, Saddam's mass graves, the killing fields of Cambodia.

Dear Dems--it's the corpses, stupid.

I've actually posted on some democratic/liberal sites on the topic of framing.  Here's my two cents.

Talking about what you're talking about is neither interesting or compelling to anyone other than you.  Figure out what exactly it is you want to say, and say it.  If you can't do that, you're in the wrong business.

I agree with the consensus on this thread.  Every minute Democrats spend thinking about their frame is another minute the Republicans are eating their lunch.

Cheers -

But even the blind chicken finds corn.

I'm Cajun, not Roman.

How are democrats responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia?

Thanks -

for Democrats.  4 so far for Republicans.  I would prefer to cut spending as well.  Can you propose which programs should be cut so that we can bridge the gap?

So stop posting on liberal sites, they may start listening to you :)

Doverspa -

Thanks for the kind words, they are appreciated.

I don't think you need to worry about my posting on this topic on dem/liberal websites.  On one site, I posted more or less what I've written above.  The first reply I got was:

"Dude -- what you wrote?  It's a frame!"

No need to lose any sleep.

Cheers -

Would be that it was Democrats that yanked us out of Indochina.

We all bear responsibility, but it's also fair to say that a great deal of the political momentum and disinformation that lead to our abandoning our allies in Viet Nam came from the left and from the Democrats.

What do you propose cutting?

What the heck is "compassionate conservatism?"  

What is the constant comparing of the individual decision of millions of Americans to have an abortion to the State conducted murder of millions in (Hitler's Germany/Stalin's USSR/Pol Pot's ...)

Isn't "framing" all you guys do these days?  Black Robes replacing White ones?  Tyranny of the Judiciary?  Social Security reform is about Choice?  

Give me a break.  Karen Hughes, Rush, and Hannity do essentially nothing but frame issues.  Nothing.

This is the most pointless conversation I have yet seen.  You act as if you all tell it like it is while we lie, and spin.  Meanwhile the "clear skies act" rolls back pollution standards.  And the proposed "Constitution Restoration Act" seeks to unwind our Constitutional system of checks and balances.  

Manifestly are not.

Y'all have no ideas. You have spin. Sorry. Talk to us in thirty years or so.

The medium is the message--ooooohhhhh.

Take death for example. An aborted fetus might be life challenged. Regardless, you've still got a corpse.

The corpse is the problem for Democrats. Whether we're respecting life from bith to the edge of death, what ever the hell that means, they're stuck with a grinning death's head, a crushed skulled victim of a PBA, another Terry Shiavo starved to death, Saddam's mass graves, the killing fields of Cambodia.

Dear Dems--it's the corpses, stupid.

What a shining example a some one being framed. There is no such medical procedure called partial birth abortion. Its medically called dialation and extraction. Proper framing allows the extremely rare and almost insignificant procedure to be used to misguide sheeple and to get thenm to ignore REAL issues as I've pointed out and to vote against their own interest. Thjta's the kinda crap the Mullah's in Iran pull to control their populace. Almost every D & X procedure is done on a baby with NO chance for survival or to save the mothers life.

Jezz do you have to have an IQ of < 90 to be a Republican? Sad that you ignore all other issues to yours and our countries detriment because you are a control freak who needs to push their "morals" on others. No one's forcing you to get an abortion in a prolife world and you can leave the judgement of those who choose to to God ...can't you???

Your "ideas" seem to be comprised of undoing 70 odd years of ours.  Congratulations on nothing.  

As for your mythical and unspoken ideal of the "American Way," I am all ears.  This ought to be good.

Hear the phrase the 'American Way' the majority still associate this with freedom, liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law.  I hope this doesn't grow to include rule by religious dogma but I fear we are well on the way.  And what bothers me most is that the enablers will do it not from deeply held conviction but from political expediency.

Question

By: Old Dad

What percentage of debt to GDP is acceptable?

I would say ZERO. Don't you think responsible people should pay for the government services they use. A pay as you go system per say.  Plus with NO debt we'd have $350,000,000,000 extra dollars not used to pay the interest on the debt to either lower our taxes or fund some needed programs.

Do you think it's respobnsible for a president to say he's cutting your taxes when in fact he's increasing spending and shifting the debt to your kids.... MY GOD HOW CAN ANYONE ACCEPT OR MAKE EXCUSES FOR SUCH BEHAVIOR?  If I voted for a president who acted so irresponsible I'd be all over him with letters to straighten up his act and stop being an embarassment to those who voted for him.

That's a good question..one that the President and the current powers that be should take responsibility for.  But when they tell America the truth that we need to cut the EPA or the education department or Medicaid they know that they'll be gone in a flash.... so infact their tax cuts favoring the rich are actually gutless amoral actions deserving of impeachment for gross financial misconduct...

An honest predsident would cut expenses followed, paying down the debt and only then cut taxes.

Actual cut that President Bush has made in the programs you mention.

An actual cut - not just less spending than the Democrats wanted, not just a slower rate of growth in spending, not just an imaginary program getting shifted.  Find an actual real cut.

1. Pay as you go is fine so long as you want to buy all that you are asked to pay for. I think most of us would agree that we have spent irresponsibly and that we don't want to pay for art exhibits in which an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary is smeared with dung and pasted over with pictures of female genitalia.
   
   
2. Congress, not the President, spends. Congress, not the President, levies taxes.
   
   
3. An appropriate level of debt can produce great economic benefit in both business and government. It's called leverage. So long as the economic impact of the debt exceeds the cost of money, you gain leverage. Many would argue that the current deficit as a % of GDP is not only manageable but healthy.

Would you rather pass on an estate of $10,000,000 with a debt of $1,000,000, or nothing at all? I know my kids would prefer the former and wouldn't presume that I was a bastard for saddling them with a mortgage.

It seems your dislike of the President inhibits clear thinking.

is a component of IQ.

You wrote:

"Jezz do you have to have an IQ of < 90 to be a Republican?" "dialation", etc. When you have the verbal skills of an illiterate fifth grader, you might want to lay off of the IQ tact.

are responsible for the rape rooms of iraq and the deaths of iraqi citizens since '91?

I'd start with a couple departments, probably Education, Energy, Commerce, and maybe Agriculture.  I'd reorganize intelligence into fewer different departments (it spans over 10 right now).  I'd pass PRAs along with a re-indexing to prices instead of wages to cut the ever-growing liabilities of Social Security.  I'm not as well versed in Medicare/Medicaid issues, but I'd probably support a more pro-market approach (maybe Health Savings Accounts).  I'd definitely cut corporate welfare whether it was to oil companies or Harvard University.  They can fend for themselves.  I'm not sure how much that saves, but it would probably be substantial.

Personally, I think the states should spend more than the federal government since police, fire, schools, libraries, and roads are provided at a state level.  Only the military should be a major spending priority at a national level.

Physician, heal thyself.

If the Democrats need to understand this GOP tactic in order to counter it, there's not a thing wrong with that.  Like many tools, it can be used honestly or dishonestly, in support of good ideas or bad.  And when our President finds himself in the position of explaining to the press that his current frame for the SS debate is fair, while the old frame he and other Republicans used is somehow biased against SS "reform", it's clear the GOP isn't using this technique in anything resembling honest way.

So, thanks, but no thanks.  Unilateral disarmament is simply not on the table.

....as a Dem voter, you presumably vote for such candidates all the time.  So really, spare us the spleen.

Jezz do you have to have an IQ of < 90 to be a Republican?

We don't mind lefties here.  But you gotta be polite.  Here's your one warning -- you're on your way to banning.

What the heck is "compassionate conservatism?"

While I wish it were merely a phrase, that actually is a semi-coherent ideology and philosophy of governance.  Not one that I'm a fan of, mind you, but hardly lipstick on a pig.  Take it from the HHS veteran, here.

What is the constant comparing of the individual decision of millions of Americans to have an abortion to the State conducted murder of millions in (Hitler's Germany/Stalin's USSR/Pol Pot's ...)

And you've heard this from the United States Government....when, exactly?

You, along with many other lefties obsessed with a semi-mythical conservative juggernaut, misunderstand conservatism and its history.  First came the ideas, then the presentation: the American left wants to jump straight to the latter.  They call it "framing," and it's dumb.

....that you're armed to begin with.  Which is the core stupidity of this "framing" obsession: it's essentially a mechanism to avoid internal debate over ideas, in favor of the tactics of mere presentation.  Now, you may be among those who feel that the Deaniac DNC and the modern Democratic Party do offer a semi-coherent philosophy of governance, but you'd be in a decided minority.

By the way, "culture of death" -- the late Pope was indeed a master framer, no?

Is that a non-denial denial?

Sorry, my question dejour, I will tire of it eventualy.

as tax cuts favoring the productive.

is that no amount of window-dressing can alter the fact that their ideology has been sterile for many years now.  As you rightly note, conservatism did not become successful overnight.  It only became a force once a coherent ideology was propagated by WFB and others and subesequently articulated by politicians who believed in it (e.g. Goldwater and Reagan).  In my opinion, Democrats will continue to flounder in their present state until they are capable of forming a new, compelling set of policies and vision that is substantively different from the expansion of the New Deal/Great Society tax-and-spend big government programs they love and their muddled message on combating terrorism and the war in Iraq.  

Isn't he he one that started the entire "framing" issue?

Isn't he the one that puts out papers every year for the GOP teaching them how to mask the true intentions of their proposed legislation ("Clean Skies Initiative")?

Why no comments on Luntz's use of misdirection and flat out lying in his use of language seminars for the GOP?

Also, he's been doing it a whole lot longer than Lakoff... yet no comment from you.

My apologies. I went on the defensive after being called a troll after my first post to the blog.

Don't you realize the rules are different for Democrats?  ask Orin Hatch to sketch that one out for you.

All Lakoff has done is to draw popular attention to the tactic and to suggest that progressives shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.  The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, in my experience at least, is that Democrats are actually discussing their own use of this tactic quite openly, while Republicans are just wagging their fingers at the Democrats and quietly cutting checks to Frank Luntz.

it's essentially a mechanism to avoid internal debate over ideas, in favor of the tactics of mere presentation.

Yeah, style and substance are mutually exclusive.  Except when they aren't.  It's "stifling internal debate" when the Democrats do it, and "staying on-message" when the Republicans do it.  You are framing your critique of framing.

Now, you may be among those who feel that the Deaniac DNC and the modern Democratic Party do offer a semi-coherent philosophy of governance, but you'd be in a decided minority.

If by "decided" you mean "slim", then sure.  And yet I am in a substantial majority in thinking our country is on the wrong track right now.  I don't think you should rely too heavily on poll numbers to buttress your positions here.

Three Points

By: Old Dad

<Pay as you go is fine so long as you want to buy all that you are asked to pay for. I think most of us would agree that we have spent irresponsibly and that we don't want to pay for art exhibits in which an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary is smeared with dung and pasted over with pictures of female genitalia.>

You have to be careful here you can't expect to have every dollar of yours go only to programs you want. We'd never agree to fund anything if we approached taxes in such a fashion not to mention NEA is such a small item cutting it would have little effect on the bottom line.

By: Old Dad

<Congress, not the President, spends. Congress, not the President, levies taxes.>

The President has veto power which he's never used and can push through things like Medicare drug bill and the Farm Bill.

This Congress is made up of Republicans as you know. Your making excuses for the President at the expense of Congress.

By: Old Dad

<An appropriate level of debt can produce great economic benefit in both business and government. It's called leverage. So long as the economic impact of the debt exceeds the cost of money, you gain leverage. Many would argue that the current deficit as a % of GDP is not only manageable but healthy.>

That's a good and fair point but I'm not sure what we're getting for our $350 billion in interest payments a year. If your claim is the government beauracracy spends our dollars ineffeciently why would you want them to borrow even more?

By: Old Dad

<Would you rather pass on an estate of $10,000,000 with a debt of $1,000,000, or nothing at all? I know my kids would prefer the former and wouldn't presume that I was a bastard for saddling them with a mortgage.>

Yeah but we're passing on debt, a neglected energy policy, global warming, a decaying infrastructure and devaluing dollar. In short I'm not sure we'll be able to say we're leaving them a country in better shape then what we inherited  when you sum up all the outlays and needed repairs.

By: Old Dad

<It seems your dislike of the President inhibits clear thinking.>

I don't deny that I dislike the guy but I can say that I voted Regan, Regan, Bush, Bush, Brown ? libertarian, before voting Gore and Kerry. I belong to NO party but will vote with who I believe most honest and for the canidate looking at the long term interest of this country and supporting a healthy middle class. I could easily vote for a moderate republican like McCain and I'd bet most on this board would flat out reject McCain not to mention a moderate Dem like Lieberman.

FWIW, I voted for McCain and Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.  I was hoping Lieberman was going to get the nod from the Dems.  Seeing him booed at a Dem event during the primaries really opened my eyes to the direction of the Democratic Party.  Despite all that non-party line thought, the big 3 RedStater still keep me on as an editor.  Welcome to the big tent.

Lost me forever over their treatment of Lieberman.  And since that moment it has gotten worse.  When Lieberman announced, I was actually looking for an alternative to GWB.  Then they threw Howard Dean at me, and then Kerry/Edwards, which was the most purely calculated political move I've ever seen, and it Just Wasn't Going To Happen.  I wasn't going to put up with Michael Moore supporting Wesley Clark and sitting with Jimmy Carter, and then Clark being on the board of George Soros' International Crisis Group, either.  I have a long list of mistakes they made, because I had an open mind at the beginning of the Democratic race.  No longer -- they closed it themselves.

If Lieberman had been nominated, I might very well have voted for him.  But it's a moot point now, because David Corn and Katrina Vanden Heuvel is now a lot closer to where the Democrats live these days than Joe Lieberman.  Adieu!

who went through the same thought process as myself.

The Democratic Primary race very, very, very closely, and I was incredibly patient.  I read hundreds of articles.  I followed them all over the country.  And I weighed a lot of things before I cast my ballot.  GWB was not, and is not, my ideal Republican president (I suspect that he's not for a lot of longstanding Republicans, either) but the Dems. bolloxed it up so badly -- I was infuriated when Larry Lessig came out in favor of Kucinich, then interviewed Joe Trippi, and was so obviously using his blog at Stanford to influence the election that he blurred the line between academics and politics forever.  There's a lot more.  The Democrats lost because they deserved to lose, in my book.  I'll never trust them again.

"Progressive."  But I digress.

....Republicans are just wagging their fingers at the Democrats and quietly cutting checks to Frank Luntz.

You and Gadman above both appear to subscribe to the popular mythos of the ubiquitous influence of Frank Luntz.  It's massively overstated for several reasons (the principal being the left's failure to grasp the nature of the conservative movement at large), but suffice it to say here that no one is objecting to the practice of "framing" per se: rather, the point is that the Democrats and the left are doing it badly and with gusto.  Framing comes once you have something to frame, not before.

It's "stifling internal debate" when the Democrats do it....

Stifling<>avoiding.  You're getting this one wrong.

If by "decided" you mean "slim", then sure.

No, I mean decided.  If you think the American people as a whole think the Democratic Party stands for anything beyond not-Republicanism, you're immensely optimistic.  Before the Deaniac/dKos hierarchy gets too far into framing, they may want something to frame.

And yet I am in a substantial majority in thinking our country is on the wrong track right now.

Pity the early November polling never reflects that.

It's ALL about "framing" ... you've finally got us. That's the only reason the GOP has both the House and Senate, and the White House.

Good luck with convincing the American people that they should be happy you're raising their "citizenship fees" ...

....or Bob Graham, assuming neither tacked wildly left in the primaries.

And neither did, which is why they got shellacked.  Thus ended that brief flirtation.

Doverspa and Kowalski:

GWB was not, and is not, my ideal Republican president

Do you care to elaborate on your differences with the GWB?  You peaked my interest because I was a liberal way back in 1983.  Then I converted to conservatism in 1984, voted for Reagan.  I haven't seriously considered voting for a Democrat ever since.  

I'm just curious about what issues you care about and how that could lead you to occasionally voting for a Democrat like Gore, for example.  I admit that I'm reasonably comfortable with the Republican party and very unimpressed (if not downright depressed) by the Demcorats.

That the President has not vetoed spending bills that he favored. Fair enough. How should he use his veto power? The point is not that the President doesn't influence the Legislature, but that the legislature authorizes spending. Would they have found their way to this position without the leadership of the President? Who knows, but at the end of the day they (we the people) made it law.

2. Leverage: For sure let's question our tax investors, but let's not dismiss out or hand that deficits can work for the public good.
   
3. You lose me here. The deficit relates to global warming how?
   
4. I stand by my point that your dislike of the President inhibits clear thinking. You'd need to demonstrate how your apparent support of either McCain or Lieberman supports your arguments above.

Objection are the budgetary issues and the recent loss of focus.  I'm disappointed that right now the President and Congress that I helped elect aren't getting done what I expected them to concentrate on -- Social Security and Tax Reform.  On national security, the World Bank, the UN, etc., they're doing what I wanted them to do.  I wanted a very strong advocacy for the United States in these spheres, for the simple reason that our way of looking at the world on these issues is demonstrably better.  I want the CIA to be fixed.  I want the UN to be reformed, not abolished.  I want the world bank to do exactly what I think Paul Wolfowitz will do with it -- figure out how to get water to the villages and food to the children.  

I want the government to get smaller and I want to see the authority and money vested in the sprawling federal octopus return to the states.  I want more money pumped into energy research -- in nuclear power, and especially thermonuclear fusion and exoatmospheric solar power generation.  I want America to become the undisputed leader in solving the world's energy crisis -- we have the brainpower to accomplish that.

On social issues I'm a moderate and I have a very hard time explaining to friends why I support Republicans when they tell me they're frightened that Republicans want to be involved in their end-of-life decisions, and get the evangelicals involved in abortion.  I disagree with that.  I think it's a mistake, just as much as I can't stand liberal professors who have devoted their adult lives to outlawing guns.

Just a rant here, you asked for it, and you got it.  This is more a list than it is a coherent argument.  

the most important issues facing us is energy independence and I simply felt Kerry had a better bead on it then Bush. Bush to me is blatently owned by the fossil fuel industry. The next Presidential candidate should put a mandate to the people for an "Appollo project" to solve or energy problems. ANWR will not make one bit of difference.

On issues of science the dems win hands down. From the right side we see all kinds of malarky and anti-scientific claims on issues relating to global warming,  ozone depletion, the environment, creationism, stem cell research, missle defense systems  ect...

The frames tax and spend liberal and weak on defense are IMO no way justified. Clintons economy and handling of Bosnia our my evidence for my claims.  Way fewer dead soiders and terrorist deaths under Clinton Gore.

One of Clinton's failures was that, as you say, there were "way fewer dead . . . terrorists under Clinton Gore."

Sometimes we have to risk the lives of soliders to kill terrorists as the terrorists see no difference between our soldiers and civilians.

...the original comment, although the poor English makes it hard to decipher. I think he was observing that there were fewer dead soldiers and victims of terrorists ("terrorist deaths") under Clinton. A bit like praising the leadership of Buchanan for the low number of deaths over secession during his administration, IMO.

....on this thread are all griping about the utility of framing, but not about the accuracy of Lakoff's statement.

My views are pretty much a pro-life Schwarzenneger.  I'm socially moderate and fiscally conservative.  The President has been good on: Social Security PRA proposal, not pushing the gay marriage amendment, the Iraq War, the War on Terrorism, and pro-life advocacy.  He has not been good on: lowering spending, cutting bureaucracy or the growth of government, closing obsolete agencies, keeping a balanced budget, and upholding federalist principles (Schaivo, medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide).  We are losing the claim to fiscal responsibility by passing tax cuts without spending restraint.  I am fine with a deficit during a recession, but that's over and the spending is still happening.

Post election has been better than the first term (NCLB, Medicare Drug Benefit, etc).  Hopefully SS reform, tax reform, and getting his judges appointed will happen this term.  That would be a strong domestic legacy to add to his international one.

Erick -

It's not clear to me if you misread the post or if you're deliberately twisting the sense of it to make your point.  Please read more carefully and/or respect the sense of other people's statements.  You don't have to agree with or respect what they say, just don't put words in their mouth.

An ellipsis is for excerpting, not rewriting.

Cheers -

As I remember it, Christ said: "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render to God that which is God's."

Also Christ said: "My kindgom is not of this earth."

In both cases it can be argued that Christ did support separation of Church and State, i.e., Man-made laws are subject to man; and, as such, are to be enforced by society and law.

Laws, such as the 10 Commandments, are God's law; and, as such, all Christans will one day have to answer to God.

Until Bush declared we should have one, therefore little reason to rack up a score. I suppose you could blame Clinton for not starting one sooner but Bush needed little nudge making up his mind on that one too I seem to remember.

I'm happy to take the Trevino challenge.

Regarding the beginning of life, I frankly cannot tell you when a sperm and an egg become a human being with the full legal, moral, and spiritual personhood that comes with it.  I just do not know.  Consequently, while I recognize, respect, and to some degree share the very strong aversion to abortion held by many, including many here, I find that I am unable to support absolutely denying access to legal abortion, particularly in the first trimester, to folks that believe they need it.

Regarding the end of life, in contrast to the somewhat equivocal nature of my thoughts on abortion, I am more than clear in my opinion that people should be able to direct their medical practitioners to not extend their life through artificial means if that is their wish.  Period.

I come by these positions after close to fifty years of life, more than a little contemplation of the religious, moral, and ethical issues involved, and after more than a little direct and indirect experience with situations involving many of these exact issues.

Clear?

Cheers -

To make sense.

The President has been good on not pushing the gay marriage amendment

how does he score on proposing it in the 1st place? how is your conscience on his using it as an election wedge? end justifies the means? more votes in the right column?

He has not been good on upholding federalist principles (Schaivo, medicinal marijuana, assisted suicide).... Hopefully getting his judges appointed will happen this term.  

And what effect do you think getting 'his' judges is going to have on your pet projects?

Your all over the place man, get a grip.

I think that's exactly what he said.

Thomas?

Rick -

I agree with what you are saying.  I'm puzzled by your insistence on calling Thomas "Roman".

If, by any chance, you're calling him out for being Catholic, please desist.  It's not necessary or called for.

Cheers -

Ok.  Thanks to both of you (Doverspa and Kowalski) for your responses.  I suppose this topic is probably complex enough for a diary of its own.  

Personally, I consider myself a libertarian influenced conservative Republican.  

I am agnostic on the pro-life issue.  Both viewpoints on the abortion issue can be persuasive to me, though I do favor a more restrictive abortion policy compared to what the Supreme Court has given us.  

I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, though I don't believe such an amendment will be ratified.  

I am libertarian on gambling, pornography, prostitution and perhaps even drugs and illegal immigration (so long as the illegal immigrants don't get taxpayer funding and are not involved in terrorism).

I am a Natan Sharansky/Francis Fukuyama neo-conservative on national security, believing that we should expand democracy when possible and when in our national interest (which is most of the time, but Pakistan might be an exception currently).  

But Luntz is having an impact.  How many supporters of the repeal of the estate tax call it by its proper name?  What happened to Social Security privatization?

Stifling<>avoiding.  You're getting this one wrong.

Sorry, yes, I got the word wrong.  Same reply, though.  What do you say to the substance of my point?

No, I mean decided.  If you think the American people as a whole think the Democratic Party stands for anything beyond not-Republicanism, you're immensely optimistic.  Before the Deaniac/dKos hierarchy gets too far into framing, they may want something to frame.

Who's kidding whom?  What exactly does the Republican party stand for today besides war and tax cuts?  Not fiscal conservatism to be sure.  Keeping gays from marrying?  Undoing the fruits of the New Deal?  Hamstringing the supposedly liberal judiciary?  Denouncing the supposedly liberal media?  Much of the Republican agenda could as easily be described as "not-Liberalism" and is often framed in just those terms when presented to the public.  The Republican party has defined itself in good part by who its enemies are for quite some time now, "big tent" notwithstanding.

Pity the early November polling never reflects that.

I know you mean this to be snide, but yes, it is a pity.  It is a pity that neither party had the courage to put forward the candidate who would do the best job of leading the country.  It is a pity that these elections are as much a referendum on who can put the most fear and doubt into the hearts of voters as they are about who can lay out the best vision for the future of our nation.

It isn't all about framing.  Sorry to disappoint you.

What exactly does the Republican party stand for today besides war and tax cuts?  Not fiscal conservatism to be sure.  Keeping gays from marrying?  Undoing the fruits of the New Deal?  Hamstringing the supposedly liberal judiciary?

Hey, that sounds like a great agenda.  Thanks for pointing out why I vote a straight Republican ticket.  

Much of the Republican agenda could as easily be described as "not-Liberalism"

You are very much on target.  I often describe my votes for Republicans as defensive in the sense that I am voting against the Democrats because I dislike their agenda more than that of the Republicans.  

amos. At first glance I thought the same thing as Erick.  It was a poorly written response and once you got to the end, whew, it did seem kind of off base.

any great secret which way you vote Rock, thanks for opening your mouth anyways.

about the utility of framing.

In fact, trevino,  uses framing, to redirect or "reframe"  Lakoff's statement.  

In full, Lakoff states, "Religious progressives support social justice, not injustice. We want to protect life all the way from birth up until the edge of death. We will brook no government interference in difficult, even agonizing family decisions. ......"

To which Trevino "frames",  "Why not value and protect life on "the edge of death"? " and "Why not value and protect life before birth".

The implication is that liberals/ Lakoff ( or people who don't see things like Trevino) don't value life on the edge. In fact they do. They just come to their decisions from a different perspective and further they respect our different views of life on the edge and the need to allow individuals to make these horrific decisions on their own without interference from others or from the government.

Example,

If my wife were pregnant and the baby was diagnosed on testing  at 8  weeks into pregnancy as having a fatal chromosomal anamoly and would likely only live hours after being born we would likely have decided to terminate the pregnancy because from our perspective it would be safer for my wife AND it would avoid a baby from unnecassary suffering.

Other's would definately see our actions as against God's will or even at odds with their own morality.  But Lakoff and us liberals realize that there our some fundamental differences in the way we see these things. Only if we ALL believed in the same religion or a very specific intpretation of the same religion would we all see this issue in the same light.  Trevino is in fact stating that Lakoff's statement is immoral because its not what HE believes ( he knows he has absolute morality) but he puts it into a frame that doesn't make what he is saying implicit.

I'll take Lakoffs perspective ANYDAY over the alternative of what is basically a forced "morality" via the law versus a view that respects our differences and allows us each to make the decisions based on our own ethical principals without government interference.

but at 8 weeks, you're most likely only going to know if your baby has a beating heart via ultrasound.  AFP testing and the like aren't done until much later in the pregnancy and they aren't as reliable as we'd like to believe.

Next time at leaast try for a more reasonable example.  Maybe you could persuade us then.

that my wife and I might see some ones decision to carry a chromosomally doomed baby to term as cruel and resulting in unnecessary suffering  but in no way would we think to force our morality on others and certainly not via the government.

Likewise I see giving a poor third world mother the option for pregnancy termination less cruel then not offering it when the potential outcome of a baby  born into such extreme poverty could likely result in the baby living 4 months malnourished starving  with flies all over its body and maggots crawling out its rectum, festering skin sores, its stomach buldging with ascites and dying a slow an agonizing death when it finally succumbs to typhoid diarrheal illness.

as such scenarios do occur all the time.  Shift the timing of "our pregnency" to 10 weeks if you need to. Our decision would not change, make it a pregnancy from a rape...whatever... my main theme does not change.

Chorionic villus sampling (CVS):  A technique that is offered for prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities as an alternative to amniocentesis.  CVS is performed between 10-13 weeks of pregnancy.  During the procedure a small sample of the placenta, called the chorion, is removed under ultrasound guidance.  The cells from the chorion can be used to do chromosomal studies.  Results are available approximately 1-2 weeks after the CVS is performed. 

is quite costly and is not done on a routine basis.  Usually only those with prior knowledge of genetic issues would submit to those tests.  

My issue with your example is one of reality.  You did not give a realistic example in your first post and I called you on it.  If you are going to debate, get your arguments straight and coherent first.  Some of us will give you the time of day then.  If not, then head back over to DKos and continue the shill with them.

You've got me with the third world mom one.  What does this have to do with US laws?

Okay, it's late, I'll give you the benefit of doubt there.  But really, you need to work on making your arguments a little more coherent if you are going to be taken seriously.

You folks are so nice here...:)

No offense intended.

a little simpler.

The title of this thread is, "The Missing Pieces" is based on the idea that "framing" is not a factor. IT IS!!!  Ask Frank Luntz and Karl Rove.  It's not even worth arguing the significance of framing as its so obvious that Coke and Pepsi frame their products because that's how them get them to sell. Mass media isn't a multi-billion dollar industry without "framing".

Also the initial post itself was an exercise in framing suggesting that some one who would say, " We want to protect life all the way from birth up until the edge of death.", is some how less moral then the framer himself.

 If you believe you know what absolute morality is GOOD FOR YOU this is still America and others have different approaches to these issues. I tried to give examples of how I thought my position is ethical or at least how some one could choose termination over suffering but I'm able to understand others may not agree and that I should  not PUSH MY opinion onto others. CAN YOU NOT DO THER SAME?

Christ's point was to pay your taxes, not to compromise your belief system because man-made laws required you to do so.  I don't see anywhere in the Bible where Christ states to Christian values in order to adopt and follow the secular worldview.  In fact, his admonitions were quite the opposite -- you are in this world, but do not be of it.

I'm still not convinced Christ was a Christian.

....and most of the evils that they suffer -- excepting active warfare, which I have yet to see -- and I can assure you that their lives are no less valuable, nor no less worth living, merely dint of the physical conditions that they suffer.

This much ought to go without saying in a sane world.

But Luntz is having an impact.

Well, if you really think this is all, or even mostly, Luntz, I guess the man thanks you.

How many supporters of the repeal of the estate tax call it by its proper name?

It appears that plenty of supporters in the Senate, House and Administration do.

What do you say to the substance of my point?

It's insubstantial, based as it is upon a not-very-accurate restating of the phrase in question.  Democrats aren't "stifling" discussion amongst themselves -- their squabbling is epic -- but they are avoiding the kinds of discussion they need to have.

What exactly does the Republican party stand for today besides war and tax cuts?

Indeed, what?  What besides a broad use of government to shape society in a manner seen fit by social conservatives and business?  What besides a generational-level commitment to nation-building overseas?  If you think these are small things, I beg to differ.  If you think this is "not-liberalism," you're ignoring the substantial parts ripped right out of the leftist playbook.

In fact, trevino,  uses framing, to redirect or "reframe"  Lakoff's statement.

QED on the silly obsession part -- exhibited here in a total misunderstanding of what framing is.  If I used alternate rhetoric to recast Lakoff's statement in a manner meant to sway the reader to my side, that would be framing.  Direct quotation, followed by Socratic queries, followed by endorsement of that direct quotation, isn't framing.  This nonsense is stunting the logical skills of many people.

The implication is that liberals/ Lakoff ( or people who don't see things like Trevino) don't value life on the edge. In fact they do.

No, not really.  Not per se.  As you note, it's situational and subjective.  At least Lakoff is implicitly honest about this.

It's Sunday and I'm feeling generous, so here's your 1.5 warnings.  But really, you need to keep this crap to zero.

But what about the positive effect family planning can have on women and families in such deprived areas?  This sanctity of life absolutism is working against the strain to improve the quality of life in the third world and the Bush administration doesn't seem to care but rather seeks to inject domestic US political and moral issue concerns into the process of improving the lot of third world communities.  

When looking for votes outside your natural constituency, the discriminating swing voter, some effort is required to inform and framing loses its utility because the perception is that you are being shallow and decieving.  However, when motivating your own side there is no penalty to judging the audience 'dumb as a bunch of rocks' and framing reaps big rewards.  

....is generally shared by most in the regions in question (at least in Africa).  And its non-native proponents do some of the best work there in bringing relief to the suffering.

I've always been interested in the perverse mindset that holds that preventing children, or killing them once conceived, constitutes a net good to communities.  Inasmuch as there is a logic to it, it seems to be that persons have access to only a fixed quantity X of goods and services, ergo once the aggregate demands of persons exceed X, it becomes necessary to reduce that aggregate demand by reducing the persons until demand equals X again.  Assuming the premises of this argument were true -- and they are not -- the humane option is to increase X.

Sorry, thought I could slip one by being cute, apologies.

Don't know what came over me.

I warned the fellow with the ridiculously long username, sorry, not you.

In any case, though, no more on the flamewar-starting stuff, thanks.

Here like "dumb as a bunch of rocks" I have another one for you.  When speaking to like-minded audiences for the purpose of motivating them, I have heard people from both sides of the political aisle refer to their presentations as "Preaching to the Choir."  And of course, it's usually easier.

artificial birth control is without any valid theological basis.  Nothing in the Bible supports such a conclusion.  In Genesis, it said be fruitful; it didn't say have as many kids as biologically possible.

And nowhere in the Bible does it say that sex is only for procreation.  Indeed, Paul wrote in one of his letters that it is better to marry than to burn, thus stating that marriage is an appropriate setting to express "lust," not just procreate.

And Jesus said very, very little about sex.  God gave us a brain: why should we not use it to decide when to have kids?

bd -

I think you miss the point both of the "render unto Caesar" quote, and of Rick's use of it here.

I think if you read the "render" quote in the full context in which it's presented in Luke 20 and Matthew 25, you'll see that an admonition to pay your taxes was, at best, a small aspect of the point of Christ's statement.  The immediate point was to turn a loaded and duplicitious question back onto the questioners.  More broadly, Christ's reply articulates a distinction between heavenly and earthly authority, which was more or less Rick's point in citing it.

Nobody in this subthread has suggested compromising belief systems to conform to man-made law.  If anything, the opposite.

Cheers -

Great idea, should that come 1st or second? to imposing the moral judgements that make us feel better and help feed our domestic political requirements but exacerbate the situation in the third world.  Population control is the major problem in the third world from which all other problems flow.  Birth control in the hands of women is a powerfull tool to allow those women the ability to determine their own and their families destiny, a sack of rice merely feeds the beast like throwing gasoline on a fire.

No problem, any time.

Regards.

This post wins my personal award for most skillful and subtle act of blogging jiu jitsu.  Are you an aikidoka by any chance?

Cheers -

I liked Graham too.  Sent him some money, followed his campaign.  He's a good guy, I was sorry he didn't do better than he did.

Cheers -

What besides a broad use of government to shape society in a manner seen fit by social conservatives and business?

Precisely.  And, precisely why I will most likely vote blue, blue, and blue until the day I die.  To the degree that this is your project, I resist you.  Full stop.

If you think this is "not-liberalism," you're ignoring the substantial parts ripped right out of the leftist playbook

We have a winner.  Precisely, absolutely correct.  The agenda you outline is anything but conservative in agenda, ambition, and approach.  Folks that advocate this program are not conservatives.

Cheers -

....you're neither Catholic nor Orthodox.  Or if you are, you're unfamiliar with the sources of doctrine for either.  Which is to say, neither Church is a sola scriptura organization: they build also upon the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of their respective Fathers (and in the case of the Catholic Church, upon the ex cathedra statements of the Pope).  Ergo, you don't need something to be in the Bible to establish its theological validity.

So, thanks for playing, but you're getting this one quite wrong.  We'll leave the differentiation in import between the Old and New Testaments for another day.

Population control is the major problem in the third world from which all other problems flow.

Good God, this is abhorrent.  The major problem from which all others flow is bad governance; surely Amartya Sen, among others, has established that well enough by now.  The teeming hordes of brown people are not in themselves problematic: while you may argue that "overpopulation" in disease-endemic swampland, or marginal food-production areas, or in disaster-prone terrain, is the root cause of massive suffering in each, the fact that you've just described Louisiana, Utah and San Francisco respectively ought to give you pause.

....they're not the sort of conservatives I prefer, certainly.  But I wouldn't say they're not conservatives at all.

in my outlook....but so are most American Catholics--and increasingly Irish Catholics and Mexican Catholics.  What happens is as a society becomes more industrialized, the birth rates drop....Your free markets and ecomonic growth patterns, which should delight conservatives, will erode any lasting belief in the evil of artificial birth control.

Papal infallibility doesn't do much for me.  Sorry, I like reading the Bible for myself, using my own brain, and recognizing how wrong the Popes have been in the past....You know, it's the Galileo thing...

So, to each his own in their personal beliefs.  If you want to have a lot of kids, heh, knock yourself out.  The real issue is how far will you go in allowing pharmacists to hassle women who try to fill their birth control prescriptions.  That is the political issue.  What thoughts do you have in that regard?

explains where the Church is coming from and it goes much deeper than a simple explanation about sex.

The Vatican really had a tough time with this monk.  At first, his writings were placed on the banned book list in the late 1950s, then removed from the list, or perhaps the list was abandoned, I forget which--you probably know better than I on this point.  The result of Vatican II?

The broader theological point is that even recently the Vatican has admitted it has been wrong.  All this derision for being a cafeteria catholic I actually consider the apotheosis of godly use of human reason.  To be a cafeteria catholic is to have the moral courage to take individual personal responsibility for one's life, rather than bowing to the authority of men....

I do like the Catholic Church, and will listen to its moral view, but I always reserve the right to disagree.