Technique: Claim that the news or accusation is silly, irrelevant and/or unimportant. Stress that this is merely a distraction technique intended to take the focus off the true issue (at this point you state what you want the "true" issue to be. Of course this will be an issue that is to your advantage.). In any event, give as little attention to the adverse information as possible and immediately follow with what is truly important. (i.e. Your opinion.)

Sure, you can take years to rig the infrastructure of the vote or intimidate the opponent's constituency at the polls. Maybe you could even send out a "notice" to the opponent's constituency telling them that they can vote several days after the election. Heck, you can claim that the "injuns" cheated you. Who knows what they do on those "secret" reservations. Little doubt it's voter fraud.

Sure you could do these things, but if you really want to have some fun, and claim selfless bipartisanship at the same time, then it's high time you learned about the "Bush-Nader" technique. You see, why waste all that money and energy attacking a formidable opponent when you can undermine his or her election with a few, strategic acts of support for his in-party or third party opposition.

The idea is this: In most races, each party has a primary. It is before this primary that you begin your attack. Within the opposition party's primary there is typically a front-runner and the rest of the crowd. Assuming that you believe the front-runner to be your most threatening challenge, you must hit him or her with preemptive attacks:

Let's face it. Most people are not visionaries. Even those with vision are often beaten down by the belief that they lack the resources, power or influence to act on their vision.

Thus, they look to others to provide a vision for them. They look to leaders who can define an actionable set of principles and goals around which they can rally.

A 'vision' is something that gives hope, focus and meaning to people's lives. It gives people a feeling that there is 'something more' to life.

In politics, a well-communicated vision is something that gets people elected. It is something that excites partisans and nonpartisans alike. And it is something that ensures voter turnout.

In recent times, Republicans as a party have been far more successful than Democrats in communicating their vision -- thanks in part to the efforts of three conservative iconoclasts: Barry Goldwater, Irving Kristol and Newt Gingrich.

In particular, Gingrich's vision, "Contract for America" set the stage for a conservative 'revolution' that served as a rallying point for fiscal and social conservatives. This 'branding' of the Republican party has been critical to the party's success in marketing itself as the fiscally disciplined, morally correct, small government, national security guardian of the free world; attributions that have yet to be earned through actions. But that is the power of vision. If properly communicated, it supercedes reality for all who find favor in its promise.

These same branding efforts have somehow evaded the left-leaning political community. That is, perhaps, ...until now, thanks in large part to Howard Dean, Arianna Huffington, and Moveon.org.

A: A non-loaded, non-leading question simply carries more weight with the respondent. It makes them feel as though they're thinking for themselves in an unbiased context. Thus, they are more likely to connect with that answer, defend it and even convince others of its validity. They've come to the conclusion themselves, using their own style of logic. It's their answer, not yours.

Of course the material you present prior to posing the 'unbiased' question will presume the answer that you are searching for.

Technique 1: Ask Questions that subtly suggest what the "Correct" answer is. You guessed it. That's a leading question.

Example 1:

"Do you want them determining what's right for you? For your children?"

Whoever "them" is, is inconsequential. No one wants other people 'determining what's right for them' or 'for their children'. Thus the answer to this question is 'No!'

But there's more to the question than that. It presupposes some frames that you might like to instill into those being questioned. It says unequivocally that "they" are attempting to make decisions for the respondent. In fact, that may or may not be true. Regardless, it presents the frame that someone else is unfairly calling the shots, making the decisions and holding control over those being questioned. No one likes that.

Example 2:

"I believe in total freedom of thought. Do you?"

"... Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation."

-- Paul Krugman (01/07/2005)

I was sitting in the middle of our trading floor, several positions already established, admiring the sun's brilliant rise over Brooklyn. Wall Street was beginning to buzz and it looked like it was going to be a beautiful day.

I was particularly at ease that morning and was waiting to see what the morning's data releases were going to unleash on the markets.

In the background, I could hear the guy sitting behind me chatting on the phone with his wife who was strolling past the twin towers only a few blocks away.

The morning was September 11th, 2001.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 

-- Benjamin Franklin

According to the US News Bulletin, "President Bush is disappointed but not surprised that Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure him for authorizing surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States without first obtaining warrants."

Nevertheless, Bush stands by his assertion that his crimes were in fact legal despite the fact that he admitted their illegality multiple times in the past.

The staunch footing is part of a greater set of political tactics: 1) never admit you're wrong -- one that the Administration has perfected 2) Insist that your motives are pure -- in this case that national security is being preserved 3) belittle the opposition -- that those who oppose the actions are cowards, incapable of securing the nation 4) Spin the events in your favor -- that the censure vote is merely a political assassination by a desperate opposition with nothing better to offer 5) ignore inconvenient facts -- FISA and the Constitution that serves as our laws' foundation.

Take their latest for example...

A recent study backed by 50 years of research found as one of its conclusions, that "George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

Not surprisingly, the GOP didn't appreciate that finding a whole lot, so they went straight to work in their newest battle in the Republican War on Science:

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he... ...questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that [Researchers] Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.

Did you see that? So quick! So smooth! In a single breath, Brian Jones undermined the perceived credibility of not only this extensive study, but also the prior 50 years of associated research.

You have to respect that political skill and deflective grace.

Announcing the launch of the Political Cortex "Framing" project.

The project will be an ongoing effort to provide a 'handbook' of framing suggestions. To begin, we'll present a 5-part primer to bring those unfamiliar with the concept of 'framing' into the loop. Over time, we will present framing suggestions and resources on various issues. For convenience, we will include a link to the main 'Framing' page in our 'Resources' section.

As we journey down this path to framing supremacy, we will borrow generously from the pioneer in this field, George Lakoff. In his groundbreaking work, Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "Moral Politics", and a Fellow at the progressive Rockridge Institute, has set the stage for a progressive framing revolution.

A: They are answers that:

* Establish your position on the issue at hand

* Frame the issue in a way that elicits a specific context and vision based on your core values. That vision will then be the one within which the issue is evaluated by observers.

Important: 'Yes' and 'No' are not value-based answers and should almost never be used when discussing serious issues.

Technique: Regardless of the framing of a question, give your answer as a statement of your position -- one that you want everyone to hear. Do not play into the questioner's traps by dignifying their heavily spun questions. By directly addressing the question, you will lose and a framing opportunity will be lost.

Think strategically! Think long-term!

In the final chapter of our basic framing primer, we'll take a look at the techniques used to bring it all together -- multiple-issue strategic initiatives and slippery slope initiatives.

In the past, most progressive initiatives have been highly focused on single issues without regard for the larger picture. In contrast, most conservative initiatives have been developed with the specific purpose of targeting a broad range of conservative causes.

They've accomplished this primarily by using 'Multiple-Issue Strategic Initiatives' and 'Slippery Slope Initiatives':

We've defined framing and discussed it's vast importance in the fight for ideological supremacy. And we've discussed the differences between the progressive and conservative world views -- necessary for the creation of effective frames. Now it's time to learn how to frame.

There are 5 major steps:

In the words of Lakoff:

1) Define our basic progressive vision
2) Establish our values coming out of a basic progressive vision
3) Define principles that realize those progressive values
4) Derive policy directions that fit these principles and values
5) Establish a 'ten-word' philosophy that encapsulates all of the above

This is the type of depth of understanding that is needed to appeal to the masses. Without it, we as a progressive movement, are flailing in the wind, pointing here and there without any sort of structure, fluidity or connection to a fundamental, moral, ethical, and effective value structure.

To effectively frame the issues and the world around us, we must first understand how conservatives and progressives are different. To truly understand these differences, it's important that we digest them on a deeply intuitive, emotional and intellectual level. George Lakoff's metaphor of the 'Nation as Family' will provide such insight.

Introducing the 'Nurturant Parent' and 'Strict Father': Lakoff simplifies the contrast between progressive and conservative world views by presenting each as a style of parenting. This flows within a much broader metaphor that equates the nation to family -- suggesting that 'progressive thought' is that of the 'Nurturant Parent' while conservative thought is that of the 'Strict Father'. Where each has the following characteristics:

"Tax Relief", "Tort Reform", "Partial Birth Abortion", "Death Tax", "Marriage Penalty". You've heard them all before. You've digested them. You've probably even used the terms yourself.

And each time you did you were helping to legitimize the Republicans' views on the issues -- that taxation is an affliction requiring relief, that our court system is corrupt and therefore requiring reform, that a very rare procedure (usually reserved to save the mother's life) is equivalent to killing a born child, that you 'can't even die without being 'afflicted' by taxation, that the current tax structure is an assault on marriage (and in turn that the 'tax and spend' Democrats are attacking marriage.) You were reinforcing and legitimizing their frames -- their vision and context of ideas, rationales, images, and perspectives -- in short, the conservative world view.

Don't blame yourself, though. They've been perfecting these frames and their means to meld them with 'mainstream' thinking in America for decades. It's only recently that the left has realized the power and effectiveness of frames in driving the national debate and subsequently the electoral results.

Big fat deal, right?. Bring it on you chigger-brained twerp.

So far, the best Bush had to offer was a cry-baby claim that he had permission to ignore constitutional law from his Ideological twinkie, Alberto Ashcroft.  

Ooooooooh...well, congratulations George. Had we known that the your administration actually approved of your administration's actions, and, had we known that your 'Spy-on-Americans' program was actually your 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', then we wouldn't have made such a fuss. Our bad!

Even so, you have to admit that some of this stuff is just plain Anti-American, right?

Wait. What do you mean you 'reject' my assertions? Even after I made my traditional, spineless-Democrat concessions? Well... Fine! How about instead we Democrats grab a collective backbone and jam this entire stinkin' issue down your weasely, worthless throat?