George Lakoff has weighed in with his analysis of the November elections at the Rockridge Institute (and in a Daily Kos diary). He offers some thought-provoking notions on the competition between self-styled centrists and economic populists to claim credit for the Democratic victory, but I'd like to focus in particular on some passages that boost my ego echo themes I've addressed frequently in the past few months:
. . . the new members of Congress did better than their predecessors at communicating their values to the public. Not much has been said about it, but they successfully reframed public debate and did so in the best way: they framed reality accurately.
. . . Framing raises the issue of moral worldviews and overall values and principles, and they in turn raise the question of what values lie behind policy prescriptions.
. . . Neuroscientists know that there are two conditions for change in the synapses: repetition and trauma. The campaign provided the repetition through ads and campaign speeches. And three realities created traumas for the American public: Katrina and the floating bodies, Iraq and the bodies blown to bits, and the systematic financial and moral corruption represented by DeLay, Abramoff, and Foley. The new Democratic winners didn't shrink from pointing to those traumas, nor did they soft-pedal their progressive views. They created a narrative of good guys who care and bad guys who don't; good guys who use government to get things done for people and bad guys who are out to destroy government and don't get things done.
Anyone who remembers my series of posts on the language of a Democratic realignment will recognize the concepts of connecting reality to moral values, and not just having policy stands but being the kind of people who take care of the people's business. This is the first time I've seen Lakoff go beyond the theoretical realm (exploring the difference between conversative and progressive values) to the practical (using reality to convince voters that one set of values is better at delivering what they want), and I'm glad to see that our interpretations are in sync.
(One thing I hadn't thought of, but find intriguing, is his scientist's take on how the GOP narrative crumbled, compared to my comparatively results-oriented views about betrayal of trust and the inability to provide order.)
Lakoff notes toward the end of his analysis that "The goal is not just to move the Democrats in a more progressive direction, but to move Republicans and independents in that direction as well. The idea is to benefit the nation, not just the party." I can't think of a better shorthand definition of the kind of "bipartisanship" and "governing from the center" that the new Democratic Congress should pursue.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
fitz !
B..b..b…but I thought it was all Rahm and Chuck?
Sorry. Great post, Swopa. And that’s a great graf from Lakoff.
Fine post, Swopa. It seems so simple, in hindsight:
They created a narrative of good guys who care and bad guys who don’t; good guys who use government to get things done for people and bad guys who are out to destroy government and don’t get things done.
I’d feel better if I didn’t keep hearing the Democrats in Congress using the same set of phrases that they were using before the last election, the ones that were used to justify inaction for the last six years.
How do we get genuine change from DINOs and centrists and trinagulators?
nous sommes tous des biconceptualistes maintenant.
Scarecrow @ 3
Little more need be said, unless one wanted to quote Chesterton on the relationships between wealth and the desire for anarchy vs. poverty and the desire for good government.
P J Evans @ 4
The same way we’ve started to see some change from corrupt warmongering Republicans: the truth.
Jane Hamsher @ 1
It was, Jane. Except in their version, they’re the good guys who care, and Howard Dean is the bad guy who doesn’t.
Regarding that last paragraph, Swopa, a few years ago I was watching a PBS show that featured American and Canadian journalists discussing the issues of the day. One Canadian journalist described the difference between American and Canadian politics this way (as near as I can recall): In America, the debate is about whether government should be involved in an issue. In Canada, it’s about how government should be involved in an issue.”
We need to move the discussion a little more in the Canadian direction. I don’t dispute that there are many things government is best left out of, but the idea that government should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub is absurd for a modern nation-state.
They think we are still in the eleventh century.
Damn well act like it too.Ignorant bastards.
They keep saying they want smaller Government, but thats not what I am seeing.
Yay, Swopa and Lakoff!
Weren’t the Haggard & Foley scandals a trauma-moment for the True Believers, also? They saw leaders of their enterprise tainted by hypocrisy and the enterprise itself infused with homosexuals at the highest levels. I think this gave some a reason to pause, open their listening ears (as Judge Judy sez) and hear the Democrats’ narrative.
Polls show voters ascribed Foleygate little impact, but its dissonance allowed the D narrative to float in. Perhaps.
Cujo359 @ 9
It was always observed. The Thugs used to love the “tax-and-spend Democrat” meme, although they’ve migrated to still more vicious smears in recent years. Try to conceive of the mendacity of that; when, in the history of state societies, has any government done anything that could not be summarized as taxing and spending? The real issues, as I think the Canadian journalist you paraphrase would agree, are how much? and for what? And if we really want to reduce government expenditure, let’s never forget that historically, the single most expensive thing any government can do is put an army in the field.
What a good concise explanation of why Dems who have run “to the right” have consistently lost, while those, like the new members of Congress, who took progressive positions and RAN ON them, while holding some other conservative positions (but NOT running on them) have won.
Why this isn’t obvious to the loser consultants who’ve led to loss after loss I don’t know.
(mmm, well, guess it could be ’cause they’d have to admit they didn’t see it, and accept blame)
Anyway, good reference.
But check out Lakoff’s listing of how Pelosi’s “100-hr agenda” matches up with these progressive positions of empathy and responsibility.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it was more due to a lack of alternatives than it was the faith in a sincere Dem message.
We Americans VOTED FOR CHANGE. It just happened to be named Democrat. Out of Iraq ASAP, INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION, ah hell…why bother going through the list again.
If the American people don’t see change, the people will seek another representative to give a chance to succeed. This ain’t about partisan politics. This is about substantial, positive change.
If a third party of all shapes, colors and persuasions arises from this, I’ll not be shocked.
1,362 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Swopa and the Firepup soldiers:
Bless your heart for this post, Swopa. I have been tellin’ my Democratic Party friends who are still timid and shell-shocked from the last 25 years of bludgeoning that they don’t hafta be afraid of overstating the change that November’s election represents. The conversation and debate over values has been reframed by people’s experience…the economy, Katrina, Iraq, healthcare are realities that common folks experience everyday in one form or another and the candidates that won had to break thru the corporatist frame on at least one of these issues in their districts and states.
The progressive, liberal, populist values prevailed and stimulated people to vote…voters saw right thru the DLC, neo-liberal corporatist bullshit (witness Tammy Duckworth in Illinois).
So let’s not let the fascist enablers like Mrs. Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Stenny Hoyer or Cuck the Bookkeeper Schumer change the vocabulary on the floor of Congress…the battle for ‘08 will be won or lost within the Democratic Party in the next 18 months.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION THE FIGHT HAS COME HOME AND IT’S A BATTLE WE KEN WIN!!!
EvilDrPuma @ 12
Well, that and imprisoning people rather than educating them or providing a healthy economy so they can find work. As we’ve observed recently, this seems to be the other solution we’ve settled on for various problems.
EvilDrPuma @ 12
Until the age of entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, that is.
Cujo359 @ 16
A point well taken. In any case, it looks like we’re on the same page: for cheaper government, ditch the authoritarian big-daddy routine and focus on diplomacy and economic and social justice.
How’s this for hysterical?
Mint: Don’t melt money
Government threatens prison for violators; at current prices the metal value of the coins may exceed their face values.
snip
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/1…..tm?cnn=yes
H/T Shakes Sis for the link.
morbidly obese ballerina @ 17
I did not say that and I did not mean that. Stop capping SS-taxable income so the rich don’t get a free ride and those programs would become solvent forever. By contrast, military adventurism is enormously expensive and often produces nothing. Or were those Iraqi oil revenues finally going to start paying for this war, and I just didn’t get the memo?
That last word is the key: accurately. Lots of frames get tried during a political campaign, but those that work do so because the people look at the picture and say “Yeah, that fits with what I can see around me . . .”
All the repetitions of “heckuva job . . .” did NOT instill in the electorate a sense that BushCo was indeed doing a heckuva job. Repetition, when at odds with what folks can see plainly in front of them, only served to reinforce the notion that BushCo is not just disconnected from reality but in denial about reality.
Accuracy matters. Lather, rinse, repeat.
rumi @ 14
I’ll repeat one of my pet theories here – each voter votes for his own reasons. Nevertheless, I think it’s correct to say that many voters voted for the reason you stated – they’re just tired of what they see happening to their country. The challenge for Democrats will be to effect some meaningful positive changes in people’s lives so these people won’t regret the choice they made.
I think a third party of all shapes, colors, and sizes will be just as ineffective as the two we have now. Both are coalitions, and the only thing those coalitions are both really good at cooperating on is holding onto power. I’m not sure what the answer is, but we at least need to properly define what we’re faced with first.
OT (but a type of framing) – online poll at msnbc.com:
Note the lack of simple “yes” response. because, you know, a temporary dip in gas prices takes away all motivation to go green.
Cujo359 @ 22
We’d almost certainly have to trade the current winner-take-all voting system for proportional representation before third parties could even begin to compete anyway. Is the constitutional amendment that would probably be needed to accomplish that likely to get through Congress? Ha. I agree with you: better to determine what can be done with what we have.
Would you vote for Barack Obama?
No, I am not black.
No, I am not biracial.
Yes, I like the way he dresses like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Yes, I am seduced by his charisma.
I already voted for him for Senator.
punaise @ 23
Hmm. Would you buy a hybrid car?
A. No
B. Yes, as soon as my welfare check arrives
C. Yes, when I win the lottery
D. Yes, if I can get one without airbags
E. Not sure
How’s that for unbiased sampling?
morbidly obese ballerina @ 17
Hmmm, I’m not so sure about that … really
But I could be wrong
morbidly obese ballerina @ 25
Anybody else here smell bridge timbers and rancid goat meat?
EvilDrPuma @ 28
Hee. Good one.
A written progressive platform would help framing immensely, imo.
Also something that should be off the table (at least for awhile) is gun control/regulatory legislation.
Cujo359 @ 22
The influence of a third party isn’t limited to their actions if elected. Simply having a semi-viable threat is enough to create the competition to keep some individuals of the other 2 parties more genuine in their words and actions.
In the great words of someone else…we don’t need a 3rd party as much as we just need a 2nd one.
Lakoff’s observations have been very helpful at the pub. After much practice, I can spot a framing attempt a mile away and I always go for its jugular. It’s amazing how much easier it is to “win” a conversation by exposing them.
While a “frame” is a neutral, well, framing of the situation, all frames are not equal. Thinking people, even conservatives, respond to truthful frames vs. disingenous ones, and sometimes that’s all of the shift you need.
Anyone interested in the future of the Democratic Party should read Lakoff’s full article. It makes a lot of sense.
rumi @ 31
Oh, A-MEN.
no commentary here, just got the urge to (mis)quote David Bowie:
EvilDrPuma @ 28
As a proportion of the federal budget, entitlements add up to more than the DoD budget, so there’s a point there. I think if you look at how many people are helped by those entitlements, and how much a secure source of income for seniors like Soc. Sec. helps the economy, it’s just not such a valid way of looking at things.
neurophius @ 33
I liked his analysis of biconceptuals:
county party meeting in half hour, bloodbath expected over change in executives, have to go and
stick in the knifevote…Want to point out that last part is so very important. Beck and Cowan, authors of Spiral Dynamics and “cultural counselors” post-Apartheid in SA, acknowledged this in their reconciliation work. We cannot move forward without also taking the rest of them with us.
See also Ken Wilbur’s work in transpersonal psychology; says the very same thing. We will have to learn to use language that not only reframes, but persuades from here on forward.
Off to the bloodbath…
OT: Check me on something here.
Quick aside: I wonder whether “urging” al-Maliki to break ties with al-Sadr might actually go nowhere faster than the speed of light.
But anyway, here’s what I was wondering about: Didn’t McCain’s original impossible send-more-troops plan call for an even more impossible 200 thousand rather than an only superficially less impossible 15 to 30 thousand? Is he bringing the number down to match the impossible increase Bush may be thinking about asking for, or is it just that he’s realizing that the only thing more impossible than a significant troop increase is winning the 2008 election by calling for that increase?
Rayne @ 38
[waves]. Have fun storming the castle!!
punaise @ 37
After what happened here last night, I hope nobody discovers a link between soy products and bioconceptualism…
Can we get an honest list of progressive definitions and how they stand on possible opposition to likely realities?
For instance, would it be a progressive value to deny funding for the war to start drawing down troops or would the progressive option be to approve funding so as not to endanger the troops?
If high oil prices promote a quicker move to green technology, is it progressive to manipulate oil prices upwards to quicken support for greentech?
Swopa,
Don’t have time to stay and play any reindeer games but you did a really good job on your series, I’m going to have to come back to this and read through your posts on this very carefully.
Rayne @ 38
Et tu, Rayne?
rumi @ 42
How about (the begining of a shorter)
progressives do not support preemptive military conflict.
Any increase in revenue from oil will be invested in alternative energy.
EvilDrPuma @ 12
A little factoid I repeat now and then to reinforce the above: For most of the time since the Cold War was started, defense spending has been running (and this is just for the advertised, rather than hidden, portion of the budget) at 3.5-4.0 times peacetime levels. That total amount (from 1948-2005) is, in 2005 dollars, $22 trillion dollars. With nothing else changed, if we’d just spent double peacetime spending levels, we would have a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus right now, rather than an $8.5 trillion deficit.
Knife in Ned’s back?
What knife in Ned’s back?
http://www.nysun.com/article/45198?page_no=2
montag @ 46
What period do you use for your baseline of “peacetime spending levels”?
I could really come to hate the word ’surge’ because it will mean more deaths, the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings, the beautiful sons and daughters of mothers who will never recover. And fathers. Grandmothers and grandfathers. Children who lose daddy or mommy forever.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, you are now a gold star family. Or simply one more anonymous and therefore invisible Iraqi family caught in the crossfire of greed and arrogance.
And FOR WHAT? So the Republicans can save face? Pretend to have a strategy? Pass the problem off to the Dems in ‘09?
Surge
Dirge
Coming to a funeral home near you soon.
“Surge
Dirge
Coming to a funeral home near you soon.”
If Bush orders a “surge” of U.S. troops into Iraq, he can then demand even higher levels of defense spending. If the Democrats don’t go for it, they “don’t support the troops.”
Eureka Springs, AR @ 45
You sidestepped my question(s) I didn’t ask about pre-emptive military action. I asked about defense funding votes when the political pressure is cranked up.
I didn’t ask where the windfall would go but your answer lends me to think it would go to associates who profit from green technology. How would(progressive values assist the lower economic, average people overcome the extra burdens of higher oil prices?
There
aren’t
any
more
troops.
Shhh!
egregious @ 49
Pass the problem off to the Dems in ‘09?
One of my friends is hoping for a Repuglican to win in 2008, so they get stuck with dealing with Iraq and the responsibility for all that’s happened so far and all that will happen in the next two years. She’s a progressive; she just doesn’t want the whole mess to become the albatross around the necks of people who didn’t shoot it.
I have finally found a person I dislike more than Lieberman. I want Tom DeLay’s political head. This chauvinistic pig belongs in the trough. Right along side Newtie. I want these mother/father-f’s gone.
If Larry Kudlow is giving such an effusive reach-around to Harold Ford, that confirms my notion that Harold Ford is barely a Democrat.
-GSD
egregious @ 52
That’s right.
And we have whole lot of nukes. So does Israel, China, India, Pakistan and Britain. :-)
neurophius @ 48
Published appropriations spending from 1947-1950.
I exclude the 1946 fiscal year, because of the large expense in demobilizing after WWII. It’s important to note that in that time period, there was still money for R&D–the first all-jet bomber flew, Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, the B-52 and various missiles were under development, the War, Army and Navy departments were restructured into the Department of Defense, along with the creation of the Air Force, and nuclear weapons development was proceeding apace–it certainly wasn’t a time of abject starvation for the military.
The real change comes about with NSC-68, in which it was recommended that defense spending be raised to roughly four times peacetime levels. They promptly went up to that level during the Korean War and never came back down to peacetime levels after the conclusion of those hostilities.
That level of spending was policy.
“Published appropriations spending from 1947-1950.”
Of course, that was before we started outsourcing national defense to entities like Halliburton…
montag @ 57
Have you run across any reliable figures for the actual cost effectiveness of outsourcing/privatization?
Thanks Swopa, as per usual.
IMHO, the narrative for government is that (outside of the military) it functions primarily as a referee of a sporting event, determining eligibility and issuing penalties for bad behavior. No Football/Basketball/Baseball/Soccer/Hockey fan would ever tolerate fewer referees, because they understand the pressure to cheat in order to win. But, that’s exactly what the neocons mean when they talk about “shrinking” government. In an age of oligopolies, the government’s resources and expertise are often dwarfed by the oligarchs, which makes investment in “referees” even more important than it otherwise would be.
neurophius @ 58
Yes, and no. The military always outsourced what it could not do itself (the very largest expense, for example, in the Manhattan Project was not the laboratory in New Mexico–it was the huge reactor and separation facilities which were run by government contractors).
The two major changes we recognize now as Halliburton-related came in 1988 and 1991-2. Frank Carlucci, in Reagan’s last year in office, found ways to hide portions of the defense budget in other areas of government (that’s why I say that the “published appropriations” budget no longer truly reflects the amount spent on defense), and Cheney, in his term as Sec. of Defense, created the studies done by KBR which essentially allowed them to write their own rules and changes to the existing LOGCAP program. Thus were the deeds done to bloat that budget big-time.
rumi #51- Good point, I was in framing mode.
Direct respnse to your first question: Bad question, imo. It does not have to be an either/ or scenario. Cut funding a certain percentage while covering self defense / exit costs etc.
Second question: My first response would, a switch to green technology may cost everyone while researching and implementing change. In the end everyone gains, everyone has skin in the game, including life on our planet.
Petro @
32
Petro, you are a very strange and interesting person. If I am reading you correctly, you are proposing to use truth in a new and creative way. From all intents and purposes, I feel like you intend to say what you mean and mean what you say. Is this actually your intent and, if so, can facts even be presented in such a way as to convey this ‘truth’ thingy?
rumi @ 59
To my knowledge, there has never been a comprehensive defense study to measure the effectiveness of privatization. Why would they want to know, when things are going so great for everyone? :)
Privatization has nothing to do with “effectiveness”. I would think. It does have everything to do with profits, going to the top one or two percent income levels.
montag @ 64
(emphasis added)
WAXMAN!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 65
This is quite true–but, the mantra oft repeated by the free-marketers is that private companies are inherently more efficient, and therefore, can do any job more cheaply. So, the question must be put in a way that addresses that claim.
Nobody wants to know if it’s true, or not, because that maintains the fiction that privatization really does work….
Carlyle, Halliburton, Bechtal, KBR, and others. And of course, let’s not forget the DLC. Democrats are guilty of putting up with, and directly participating in, this s’t.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 62
I’m still not sure if Progressives will bring the troops home.
As for the cost and return of green technology, I can appreciate your perspective on a general-society greater good goal, but poor folks through the middle class aren’t likely to see benefits in this lifetime. Part of the problem is the pro-corp/utility attitudes that allow offsetting(for the business) increases. It’s like the theory of energy/electric deregulation and then what Enron did to CA residents.
Isn’t that part of what investors do?
Do Progressives look out for the little guy any at all?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 65
Wasn’t that the argument used to support privatization? It would be cost-effective due to free market forces?
Not really OT:
I believe the situation is so serious, the risk of this horror degenerating into a regional explosion with global consequences, that i believe it’s time now to consider the funding aspects of this horror.
Given the state of the Dems, i don’t know if it’s likely they will shut down funding without a supermajority.
We’ve had instances around the world where people camped in the main square until the head resigned. if i know amurkans, ain’t gonna happen.
But April is coming soon, and if the netroots led a campaign whereby the 30 million progressives stated they would refuse to pay taxes, we would have enough time to convince a few dozen million others that there is no other choice. (But we could pay our taxes into a holding fund, so no one could charge us with shirking, with the caveat that certain conditions must be met before the fund paid rightfully.)
Of course this is quite dangerous for those who would need to lead and put it together… but it was also dangerous for the bunch of farmers and small business owners who thought that tea belonged in Boston harbor.
then again, all the signs point to escalation of ME war, and many signs point to a slip of a nuke. After three decades in the energy world, i laugh when people call bush an idiot. He may actually be, but those who he supports by his idiocy know full well how important controlling the black goo is to the coming power struggle. It’s that serious, they ain’t leaving Iraq no matter what the murkan people vote. (They know if they don’t act now, when China isn’t ready militarily, they will not have a better chance… though they seem to have ignored what happens when China fights only economically!)
It is up to us to provide the missing backbone to those entrusted with power, and in amurka, that only means through the wallet.
I wish it wasn’t so. But the IRS gets no more from me, until such time as sanity and reality intrude in america. Personally, i’m scared of that, it might destroy the last years (decades?) of my life, but what else is there to do?
If a couple hundred do it we all go to the camps. If tens of millions…?
rumi @ 70
Can we say then we are ‘victims’ of a charade?
Argument against privatization:
US Postal Service.
Send same size package via USPS, UPS, and FedEx. Compare costs and delivery speed. (Yes, the USPS is slower, but UPS doesn’t deliver on weekends and holidays and Fedex charges extra for those.)
rumi-
Lakoff’s kos diary left me wondering about that. Would like to hear his answer.
All I can say from my heart and reading progressive blogs/comments is of course! Inclusion of all – in terms of health and welfare (food, housing), and civil liberties, are among the most basic fundamental values of progressives.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
I was thinking more along the lines of being a victim of a gang mugging rather than charade….but shhhh,…they don’t know that we know what they know. We’re gonna have to liberate the free market forces next.
Crazy Horse – The neocon-green alliance bothered me for their inclination to escalate ME conflicts as a way to make alternative energy more attractive.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 72
Let’s say, for now, we have strong anecdotal evidence–from both inside and outside the country–that it does not work, in most instances (there are a few exceptions, mostly in poorly-run African countries).
But, we need some comprehensive dollars and cents proof that–at least on the defense side–that it is more costly. The problem is greatly complicated by the continuing diminishment of auditing personnel in the DoD. If they can’t get their books straight–and they can’t–one can’t make that sort of determination (and, yes, that is intentional, too).
There is a new thread upstairs.
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..t/#respond
Bustednuckles @ 77
Great. the riskiest thing i’ve ever done online is already EPU’d.
Swopa – That’s really a great post and it’s one we need. I wanted to make sure my respect for your work didn’t get lost in what might have appeared (but not meant to be) a confrontational manner. Thanks…great discussion
Crazy Horse – Tens of millions could figure out if they have a refund then file, the other millions could file for every possible extension on the books! Would be a hoot!
While we’re waiting to see if anbody comes back downstairs, I’d like to point out that tax withholding protest is:
Nonviolent
In the highest tradition of america
works
Fitz with current Gestalt where we’re too busy surviving to gather
likely to work with enough support
will work because it reflects the fram called reality
and will make a great movie.
so while i’m waiting let’s do it.
BTW, i have the career credentials to propose this intelligent madness.
Half hour later, this is why top-down blogging only works within a certain frame. Community is way better, and successful blogs must migrate to that frame, or remain static.
Crazy Horse @ 82
Does ‘top-down blog’ refer to the Haloscan single line comments?
Great idea for tax protest. Think we can get a celeb to jump onboard….heh,…mebbe Wesley Snipes or somebody?
rumi @
83
I don’t know what Holoscan is, but top-down blogging refers to a community con”troll”ed by the blog hierarchy. In the WELL, the first onlne community, which lives today, there was no control, debate was left to the intelligence or lack thereof of the community.
Blogging results in the complete migration of the lurker class to the next thread, without the long term discussions which give us the ability to make real policy.
I either don’t know, understand or follow the EPU protocols. The best riffs are just warming up by the time the next thread posts. Sometimes, I wonder if the timing might be a tactical move….nah, too cynical. I appreciate your protest efforts.
Danke.
Your tax withholding protest idea might work if some really high profile people led the way. As to the blogging issue, it seems like whenever I post a comment that I have spent a goodly bit of time composing, the next comment posted is “new thread” LOL.
Well, then, come back and check to see if anyone is engaging you “downstairs” and keep it going that way. It can go on for days, if you nurture it. In fact, thoughtful discussions might ensue, imho, if some topics were treated this way. Sleeping on it matures the flavors.
crazy horse, we’re living in a crazy time. It seems the parties have swapped ideologies again. Tax revolt was once the purview of the loony right, especially survivalists and religious protesters. Ditto deficit hawkishness, out-of-control government spending, and attacks on personal freedom.
btw, ignore my previous comment. i didn’t go far enough upthread before I wrote it.
I do tend to keep an eye on the number of comments posted to old threads that I’ve posted to. There’s lots of good stuff to be found on this blog and I can’t blame folks for trying to keep up with the new stuff.
Eureka Springs >
actually a more likely move would be to have ALL of the group file for every possible extension & force the IRS to deal with all those extensions
Overload the process (which is part of what the neocriminals are doing)
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.” – Eleanor Roosevelt
“…but to move Republicans and independents in that direction as well.”
That’s what the true Jesus would do.
Overloading the process is not a bad idea either, but it does fall short of the underlying principle of refusing to fund this criminal madness.
From my perspective, america is way out of control, which demands a response of equal proportion. and it’s not just the war, though that far outweighs the other madnesses.
Can you believe that america is still building new coal plants? the most poison of all the carbons! Wall Street is actually financing this shit, in 2007. We haven’t learned a foockin thing.
We need to turn this around fast. And the current political system is not the ideal forum at its best, and what we now have is its worst. I’m just thinking out loud about a way to create some real people power. If there are better ideas let’s hear them.
I would add to Lakaoff’s analysis: “good guys who care and bad guys who don’t; good guys who use government to get things done for people and bad guys who are out to destroy government and don’t get things done” and use government to enrich themselves.
Out in California’s District 11, one reason Jerry McNerney won is that he was able to make the case that Richard Pombo’s number one cause was Richard Pombo.