Thom!

Thom welcome to the Lake.

Welcome, Thom! So good to have you here. We are big big fans of the show and the book is great.

So, Siun, any stories you can tell us from the old days that are Not Ready for Prime Time?

Welcome Thom – it’s a treat to have you at the Lake!

(and Jane – my lips are sealed!)

Hi, Thom — why can’t liberals be disciplined enough to always call Iraq an occupation? It shifts the entire debate in our favor.

I listen to your radioshow often. I wonder what you think of Jeffrey Feldman, FrameShop and Lakoff, Thinking Points? It seems that they also work in neural linguistic programming.

I really appreciate your giving the “other side” time on your show and teach people how to handle their arguments. Thanks for the excellent work that you do.

I was really intrigued by Thom’s book … and could not believe how timely it is as we jump into election time. There’s a lot to learn and also I think some great ways to look at political statements with more clarity about how certain frames and languages impact us and voters.

Hey, great to be here!

Thom, the only ways I can listen to your show are Sirius and during my visits to Portland on 620 am. I wish there was a progressive radio station in the north Iowa backwater where I live (about 20 miles east of I-35). Getting clear sane voices on the air is one way to counter the dominance of stations like WOI in Des Moines.

I only listen online being out in the boondocks like you. It’s easy if you have DSL.

Thom … I’m sure folks will have all sorts of questions since you are so much a part of the work we do but I wanted to make sure we spend some time on the book and the lessons you’re sharing.

I noticed you mentioned writing the book on air – could you tell us a bit about that process and how it shaped the final text?

Mr. Hartman:

Would you care to comment on how we can or perhas should deal with NCLB and getting a decent education for our kids? These are very important questions in this house.

Speaking of clear sane progressives, I was in Portland when you introduced Al Gore. I wonder what role you think he should play, if any, in the presidential election?

“Why can’t liberals be disciplined?”

The conservative world view is essentially hierarchical, paternalistic, top-down, follow-the leader. This comes out of their belief that people are essentially evil (original sin, etc.) and that the purpose of “leaders” and institutions like government and church are there to constrain the evil impulses of people. Thus when a “good person” leader is found, they want to lead.

The liberal worldview – first articulated in the 1600s by Locke and Rosseau and the 1700s by Jefferson and Madison, is that people are essentially good and therefore can be trusted to self-governance. Therefore the purpose of these institutions isn’t to restrain us, but to empower us to achive our greatest potential, and help out the helpless.

The consequence of that is that liberals don’t follow leaders well. Reed and Peolosi are trying to herd cats. And, truth be told, if suddenly dems were to all whip themselves into shape, they’d no longer be the kind of people we want to vote for.

Will Rogers was right…

I am particularly fond of the discussion of framing Iraq as occupation rather than war.

would that be genocidal occupation?

I suspect that Al Gore will simply play the role of elder statesman, endorse whomever is the Democratic candidate, and get out of the way. The party is already largely behind him and his agenda.

WRT writing the book on the air, I’d thought it would be fast and easy and we’d be done in a few weeks. Instead it took about a year. Geez. The spoken word is frighteningly different from the written word, so there was a pretty massive amount of editing we had to do…

What sort of tactics and dialogue should we perhaps avoid when we are confronted with right wing dogma on social issues?

Thank you for coming by today, Thom (and great introduction, Siun!)

I really enjoyed reading this book, and learned a lot. I have a question about the words we use to engage different senses. When I started working again in 1998, it was in a very ethnically diverse workplace, and there was a new word use, primarily among African-American employees: “I feel you” or “I feel that” which, I learned quickly, meant “I understand you.” People used this construction instead of “I hear you” or “I see.”

Soon, everyone in the workplace was saying “I feel that.” I always thought “I feel you” was over the line for a mixed-gender workplace, considering the valid discrimination actions our employer constantly faced.

But, when I read your book, I wondered if “I feel you” is a construction used, and invented, to appeal specifically to the kinesthetic sense. I wondered also if there have been any studies about ethnicity and primary sense.

Thanks for this great book which provides many useful communications tools.

And how cool to have one of our old DTP Forum members here! Thanks so much for the nice welcome!!

I don’t think using the word genocide will get us anywhere productive – other than maybe in the dock at the World Court in a few years when these guys are brought up on charges. For the moment, though, I’d just stick to “occupation.”

While wars are won or lost, occupations naturally “end.” I wish Obama and Clinton would pick up on this the way Edwards had…

Thanks Thom … where better for a MacWoman TeaOp to end up than with the ladies (and gentlemen!)of Firedoglake.

Teddy – the discussion on auditory, visual and kinesthetic language really jumped out at me too … and is very worth exploring.

Teddy – yes. When I worked with the Apache on res in AZ, and with the Dene in the NW Territories, I noticed that about 90% of them were kinesthetic. But Apache kids who grew up in Phoenix were mostly visual. I think this is probably almost entirely cultural, but aboriginal – and oppressed – cultures seem to be more likely to be predominantly kinesthetic, and dominator cultures seem to be more visual (maybe a dissociative necessity to keep them/us distant from the pain our conquest of the world is causing others).

The Homeland

Arggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Thom Hartmann! Welcome!

You, sir, are an inspiration.

So glad you’re here today! You have countless fans here on the Monterey coast. My dear 88-year- old neighbor calls you her “link with sanity” and right up there with her other great American hero Thomas Paine. Her name is Bessie if you’d like to give her a wave during this FDL Book Salon it will surely delight her.

Democratic flaccidity has become the mother of impatience for many of us. What to do?

I listen to Hartman almost every day, and the depth of his knowledge on many subjects, including the various complicated scandals of this administration is incredible. I do think he often gives too much latitude to some of the wingnuts who call, but that’s part of his inclusive style…very unlike the combative and ego-laden style of Randi Rhodes.

This sounds like a great book, but I’ve pretty much given up hope in this country. For every knowledgable and strong progressive voice like Hartman’s on the national stage, there are twenty Savages, Limbaughs and O’Reillys who know how to appeal directly to the Reptilian brain of their listeners. Not to mention the hundreds of clueless bobbing head pundits and brain-dead “reporters” who distort and deaden the Democratic discourse. SIGH!!!

But keep up the good fight Hartman…we’ll go down fighting!

Thanks, Sangemon – and to everybody else for their kind words!

WRT NCLB, I think it should be simply and totally scrapped. As Jim Jeffords pointed out when it pushed him over the edge and out of the Republican party, the primary outcome of it was to turn a multi-million-dollar private testing industry into a mandated-you-must-buy-from multi-BILLION-dollar industry (which Neal Bush is part of). It’s got nothing to do with education other than trashing public schools to set up privatization.

in the dock at the World Court in a few years when these guys are brought up on charges

Do you really think that they will be? Or will it be, “Let’s just move on and put all this unpleasantness behind us”?

hi, Thom. I’m a longtime listener, and appreciate all you do. (and you do so MUCH, too. you are, without doubt, the hardest-workin’ man in talk radio!)

that said, I’ve got a smallish problem with the way you frame something… :)

whenever the subject (on your show) turns to wingnut talk radio (Savage, Rush, et al.), you say that they “do a good radio show”. (or at least you did with Savage, recently.)

I don’t see any way in which they could be thought of as “good radio”, with the possible exception of show production and/or the host’s ability to fill time. the contents of these shows are SO vile as to be injurious to the public via the corruption of fact-based, accurate reporting. it is the rough equivalent of a toxic spill, and to my mind, should be treated as such. (in other words, we don’t allow toxic spills because they injure the commons, and we shouldn’t allow these aural toxic spills, either.)

I think if HC wins, her changes will remain. Ditto for Romney and/or McCain. Politicans frequently change positions, and usually the changes stick.

FDR ran on a platform far less progressive than Hillary or Obama. We must keep reminding ourselves of that…

I must say that your deconstructing of Nancy Pelosi’s statements on the war were eye-opening for me. How would you rank her on your continuum of communicators, Thom? When you analyze her words, you seem to find much to praise, but I wonder if it isn’t entirely unconscious on her part. She does not seem that skilled to me.

So Thom, are you having fun with the lack of influence that conservative radio talk show hosts (no names) are having on the GOP nominating process? I know I am.

Savage, Limbaugh, et al do “good” talk radio, in that they *effectively* communicate with and hold audience. There are, tragically, a lot of liberals who don’t know how to do that. The medium itself – unlike a toxic spill – is values neutral. We need to be teaching a new generation of progressive hosts how to do more than just do boring interviews with authors and suck-ups to big-name politicians.

What? I think you have to take into accout the time frame and events. I strongly disagree with your statement.

I find it interesting, Jane, but not that different than my support for Edwards and Kucinich (and Dodd would have been okay) but now we have H/O. Talkers, by their nature, tend to be at the outer edges of politics, as we represent the movement, not the machine.

WRT Pelosi, she’s a brilliant communicator in many ways. That’s how she got to where she is. AND she could do a few things much differently – she needs to take a few Newt lessons.

What statement?

I don’t know if you would call Rachel Maddow “talk radio”, but she really is effective at holding my attention.

Hey Thom,

I haven’t kept up with what you do, I’m sorry to say, but in your opinion, are the Dems siding with Bush on telecom immunity doing so for altruistic reasons or are they bought? I know my senator J-Rock got a timely 40k.

Also, do you think McCain should publicly thank Ann Coulter for campaigning for Hillary? Seems to me she is to the Republican Party what Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was to Chicago.

Thom … one thing I’ve been thinking a lot about recently is how our anger at Bush et al shapes our statements on politics – and how perhaps that anger is not the best core for us to draw on if we want broader change.

While I love John Edwards, I wondered if his “fight, fight,fight” messaging hurt him in contrast to his more nuanced “fight but sunny” 2004 effort?

presumably wrt whether H. Clinton would govern according to her campaign rhetoric.

Coulter, IMHO, is the Paris Hilton of politics – she’s famous for being famous. So she’ll say whatever she things is most likely to get her in the news. Her books are shallow and vapid, so she has to go on shock value. My guess is that if there was any thought beyond the above in her “endorsement” of Hillary, it was to hurt Hillary with Democratic voters.

Dems haven’t yet caved on telcom immunity. we need to keep up the pressure.

I think there’s a slight difference in that you really didn’t see yourself as a kingmaker, and I think RushBo definitely did feel his altar needed to be knelt at before a Republican could get the nod.

Unless you’re hiding a huge ego problem exceptionally well.

“what statement?”

kiddo is referring, I think, to your saying that FDR ran less progressive, but wound up being very much so.

I wish we could count on something like that happening with Hillbama, but don’t see any signs that they’re inclined to do so. Obama’s constant dogwhistles to “centrists” and right-leaners doesn’t fill me with hope. (actually, for a guy who supposedly peddles hope, I really feel very little when I think of an Obama presidency.)

Thom, do you think David Atlee Philips and Maurice Bishop were one and the same, as Gaeton Fonzi has suggested?

Noted, sport. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, and hope that I’m right, cuz if you are, we’re all in trouble.

WRT Edwards, I think he would have had greater success with the “inclusive” frame that Obama is using than the divisive frame that most often dominated his rhetoric. That said, he is/was totally right that there *is* an oppressive “them” out there who have declared a predatory war on the middle and lower-income classes, that they’re mostly inherited wealth and corporations, and that the only way to stop them is to confront them the way TR and FDR did. But most middle class Americans don’t yet feel it as intensely as we did in 1932…

I was an Edwards supporter BECAUSE he was willing to fight. How important do you think Obama’s ability to inspire and bring in new and younger voters will be to Democratic success in 2008. Hillary seems to be “nuts and bolts.” Obama has been accused of being more “form” than “substance.” Do you think Obama will develop more of a fighting instinct after the primaries or are we likely to end up with another John Kerry type?

Thom -

You speak often about how the lack of closure after Watergate, the pardon of Nixon and the lack of prosecutions, has made it possible for the cons to get us into the mess we find ourselves in today.

Do you see any possibility for forcing the next administration to really hold the Bushies to account, and I’m talking World Court here?

And if so, what do we as citizens need to do to make that happen?

While I love John Edwards, I wondered if his “fight, fight,fight” messaging hurt him in contrast to his more nuanced “fight but sunny” 2004 effort?

I think it did hurt because this election is about vision

Like Bobby Kennedy’s using George Bernard Shaw’s words

“Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.”

And I might still vote for Edwards on Tuesday – or Kucinich, or Dodd – because they’re all still on the ballot

Sloth – don’t know. That would be a good question for Lamar, who did most of the detailed research on the book.

And, yes, the “centrist” positions of H and O concern me. OTOH, the next president – who will certainly appoint at least 2 SCOTUS judges – being a Republican scares me a hell of a lot more. We can at least infiltrate and influence the Democratic party. Look how much we’ve been able to influence the Republicans (shudder)…

I haven’t seen so many Kennedys on my teevee in a very long time. This week, there are both Hillary and Obama advertisements swamped with Kennedy imagery — RFK and his children for Hillary alongside Cesar Chavez’s grandson; Caroline, Teddy, and Patrick for Obama, with JFK imagery.

What’s the utility of this imagery, Thom? It seems to me like lots of “them” and not much “you.”

Sang – we need to (as the election passes over the next year) convert the “impeachment” movement into a “prosecute the war criminals” movement, IMHO. But it’s frankly far too early to be pushing that; it could backfire at this stage.

I too still might vote Tuesday for edwards–not for the man but for his policies and to say to the other two: Dont Waiver. As my political scientist daughter said to me: you will get a chance to vote for OB or HRC, but this is your one shot to stand with edwards and his policies.
that said, I am intrigued by whether these two “leaders” will lead against telecom immunity, and also how we can improve the framing of that issue before it is too late.

Good Day Thom.

‘But most middleclass Americans don’t yet feel it as intently as we did in 1932…’

‘Yet’, being the significant word.

Analytic philosophers are concerned with:

1) meaning
2) the link between language and reality
3) cognition

Are we basically talking about ‘intension’ here?

Howie linked today to a good example of Obama fighting … Obama v McCain

and I liked his ability at the debate to use humor to take them on …

I really think the country is ready to ridicule the right.

I think that the Bushies all get away free because of pardons. There will be no appetite in the country to go to the World Court. This Bush walks and we really can do nothing except prevent another Bush from gaining power sometime in the future.

JFK and RFK were iconic figures. In the US, the prez combines two functions that are separate in most other nations: Head Of State and Head of Government.

In the UK, for example, the Queen is the head of state, while the PM is the head of government.

Because we combine the two, we tend to notice the HOS part the most because it’s the most visible. JFK was brilliant at it. As was Reagan in many ways (although he was criminally bad as HOG).

Anyhow, watching the debate, I kept thinking that HC was running for HOG and Obama for HOS. Each now has the challenge of convincing voters s/he can also be the other.

What do you think of a big impeachment push after election day, Thom? Couldn’t the 110th go out with a bang in December by impeaching both Bush and Cheney, and referring their Articles of Impeachment to a (presumably more Democratic) new Senate in January?

In other countries, btw, they elect both a PM and a prez (like Israel, for example), thus splitting up the HOG and HOS.

Hi, Thom

Welcome to the Lake. Sorry I didn’t know earlier you’d be here.

I’m working with Nancy Skinner on her campaign and just want to thank you for your help in promoting her in the DFA All-Star contest. She’s on to the finals now, which end at 11:59 p.m. this coming Wednesday. I hope all the Firepups remember to go out and vote for her and that you’ll remind people to vote on your show this week.

Sharon

That’s a really good way of looking at the difference … interesting.

Are you directing your question in my direction? ;0)

we really can do nothing except prevent another Bush from gaining power sometime in the future.

But isn’t the way to prevent them from gaining power sometime in the future to prosecute them when possible?

I don’t think impeachment will happen, before or after the election, which is why we will need – in about a year – to really push for criminal prosecutions. The SCOTUS has ruled that presidents are not immune from such prosecution and cannot use confidentiality/privelige to withhold documents or testimony.

What’s problematic here, though, are 5 million missing emails. They need to start nailing people down for those ASAP…

If any of Conyers’ or Leahy’s investigations uncover “dramatic” enough crimes (e.g. – political crimes, like Nixon wiretapping Dems), then impeachment is still possible, btw. That’s why we need to be supporting their ongoing investigations. Conyers said last week that “Impeachment is not off the table.” And he’s the guy who would initiate it, not Pelosi.

Amen, sage

Mr. Hartmann, I just tuned in so I’m not up to speed on the direction of the conversation..but I couldn’t let this opportunity slide by without telling you how much I appreciate your work with ADD and ADHD children.

My very first introduction to your writing was with “Hunter in a Farmer’s World”. It was recommended by a psychologist right after we were told there was a possibility that our son had ADHD (He was three and had been kicked out of preschool, with the director telling us not to bring him back until he was on medication. He never went back, instead we moved him to a Montesorri.)

That book helped me understand how wonderful it is to think the way we do (I was diagnosed soon after he was), even when the rest of the world doesn’t see it. I went through all the stages of grief – for him AND for me – and when I finally got the courage to tell my mom and she just looked at me and said, “We had no idea what was wrong with you”, I just had to laugh. She still doesn’t get it, not completely – but I do. I wouldn’t be ‘normal’ now even if I could. Neither would he.

After attending private schools, skipping a grade, and four years of homeschooling (there are not many options in our little rural farming community for kids like him), my son is now a high school junior taking honors classes and working towards an academic scholarship. His teachers adore him, and he has a very large circle of friends and a very cool outlook on life.

From all of us, thank you so much. You made a difference.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

I totally agree, Thom. I’d be much happier seeing them all thrown in prison after they leave than even seeing them impeached. Seeing them all lined up in their orange jumpsuits would be a beautiful picture, indeed.

Did you see where Carl Bernstein, in his book on Hillary, says that she strongly opposed her husband’s pushing NAFTA? Whew…

I think this is partially why Teddy’s out there

Thanks, Kest – from one Hunter to another.

I don’t think impeachment will happen, before or after the election, which is why we will need – in about a year – to really push for criminal prosecutions. The SCOTUS has ruled that presidents are not immune from such prosecution and cannot use confidentiality/privelige to withhold documents or testimony.

What’s problematic here, though, are 5 million missing emails. They need to start nailing people down for those ASAP…

I don’t see how we can better communicate to the world and to ourselves that we recognize the criminality of BushCo than by bringing them to justice in our own court system. I pray and hope this happens. It needs to.

I am most afraid of another “bygones” Presidency, and both our Democratic candidates have all the language at their disposal to implement one: “Look forward, not backward,” “Let’s solve today’s problems and avoid tomorrow’s, not look to the past,” etcetera.

What specific pressure do you recommend on a newly elected Democratic President to act on BushCo’s crimes?

I read that about Teddy being PO’d about Billary’s comments about LBJ, and while I believe it’s possible/probable, don’t think it accounts for the level or intensity of his participation in this campaign. He’s pulled out all the stops – I think he really believes in Obama, and is putting his own legacy at risk (or reward) by putting all his chips on this one candidate.

Kestrel – I share your gratitude for Thom’s work on ADD – so important.

Along with the political uses of Cracking the Code, the tools Thom discusses have real value on personal levels and I loved the discussion of how that works in his marriage – and I know that Thom’s use of shifting frames made a very big impact on my family when he wrote in new ways about ADD. My son’s outlook changed a lot when he saw himself as hunter in a farmer world (as did my own self image) rather than “problem.”

Thom – since we have several good psychotherapists on the FDL team, could you say a bit more about NLP and what you’ve drawn from your work with kids into your work in radio and the progressive movement?

Well, that’s the basis of the book, Siun. Kinda hard to condense into a post, other than to say that the book is mostly a toolkit for communications. Other books out there dissect positions or politicians or whatever – I just wanted to give people a toolkit. There are some bows and ribbons, some examples, and all that, but mostly just nuts, bolts, screwdrivers, pliers, etc.

Thom;

Your execellently crafted statements regarding ‘World Views,’ conservative and liberal, delineate the fun-da-mental (with emphasis on the last sylable) choice confronting humanity, today.

Only one leads to the future. But both need daily exposure for those who do not, as ‘yet,’ understand that the choice is necessary and must be deliberate; it is not merely necessary, but inevitable, and, if avoided, the results will be grim.

I don’t see how we can better communicate to the world and to ourselves that we recognize the criminality of BushCo than by bringing them to justice in our own court system

It’s the only way that we will be able to restore not only the trust of other countries, but also the trust of our own citizens in our own system of justice.

Just bought a copy.

Just bought a copy.

you won’t regret it

That’s a wonderful distinction, Thom, and I think you’re spot on.

I listen to the show everyday and think you’re the smartest guy on the radio.

Amen again, sangemon

Ah, the hunter-farmer continuum, it sure helped be come to a better understanding of who I was.

I’d add that I consider NLP to be the most powerful of all psychotherapeutic tools that involve talking. EEG neurofeedback, and bilateral therapies are equally powerful in different ways (see my book “Walking Your Blues Away”). Anybody doing therapy for a living who hasn’t been trained in NLP and high levels is trying to run a BMW on watered-down gasoline. (Sorry for the lousy metaphor – you get the point.)

I really loved the story of the German solar panels.

Agreed.

“at high levels”

What is NLP?

Thanks so much for being here today Thom! Any plans for a book tour on the west coast?

I love your work Thom, I also notice that you are a proud and successful capitalist, do you envision a day when humankind will get beyond it.

Yes, Teddy – it illustrates a really good use of government. People will collectively do the right thing more often than not, even when individually they may do the wrong thing.

Hockey players, for example, when asked if they’d like to wear a facemask and head protective gear, will always say “no” because it slightly disadvantages them by limiting their range of vision and motion. But when you ask them if everybody – including themselves – should be mandated to wear such gear, they will say yes. We understand the concept of the collective good – it’s the basis of family, for example – but cons don’t seem to get it.

Hi Thom, great to get to ask you questions here. And I hadn’t realized that you’d also written about ADD. I’m so getting that book this weekend. Anyway …

Republicans incorporate a lot of dogwhistle terms, like Huckabee’s ‘verticality’, or structural themes into their speech that identify with the cultural mindset of their target audience, or at the least, a mindset that audience has come to grips with. The Democrats have a problem in this because they’re trying to reach all the ‘other’ audiences, people who don’t necessarily have much in common with each other culturally and who may be far more in tune with pop culture than a traditional one.

Do you think there are particular culture wells that Democrats could be drawing from more effectively to communicate their values?

NLP is NeuroLinguistic Programming. Google it – lots of really rich material out there for free.

Did the west coast book tour in November…

Evolute – beyond capitalism? I hope so. I’m an opponent of unfettered or unrestrained capitalism, but recognize the potential and real benefits of highly regulated capitalism. And we need to be promoting more collectivism, too.

Neuro linguistic programming = framing

Yes. Like the Repubs, Dems should be working to and for their base, and dragging the middle in with them. It’s always been this way (FDR did it brilliantly), but I think that since Newt the Dems have had collective PTSD. Somebody needs to do an intervention with them, and it may be we the voters this November…

Thanks!

Framing is one of perhaps 100 to 200 different tools/systems within the toolbox of NLP, fyi. It’s just the most well known right now, probably because of Feldman and Lakoff’s great work.

Natasha … great to have you join us today. You’ll love the work on ADD!

Somebody needs to do an intervention with them, and it may be we the voters this November

And by that I hope you mean by giving them a PTSD-proof majority!

Thom;

I suspect you may be loathe to do this, but might you speculate on just how ‘bad’ you think the economic realities will become?

What suggestions have you regarding solutions, noting your comment about ‘highly regulated’ capitalism and the need for more ‘collectivism’?

What might this combo look like?

I knew I was being over simplistic ;-)

Two best of my ADHD books are “ADD:ADP” and “Edison Gene”. “Healing ADD” is about ADD and NLP, fyi. Good, too. For adults, the success book is good…

Ooooh, well I guess we DO have to go there, don’t we?

Yes, that’s what I meant. We need to re-empower them. I think there are too many of us following them around and shouting at them as it is. We need to say more “we’ve got your back; be brave!” and less “How dare you wimp out again?!?”

Although both messages are important. It’s just that I think most elected dems are getting them at a ratio of 1:50 and it should be 50:50

I think they’ll be able to keep their fingers in the dikes until November, but the price we’ll pay will be terrible. They’re inflating our currency like crazy to prevent a re-normalization of our economic house, which means in 2009 we’ll probably have a major crash and something that looks like the Great Depression. And they’re hoping that there’s a Dem in the WH to blame it on, the way people blamed the Republican Great Depression on Hoover and the Repubs, losing them power for a generation or more.

Having spent two hours with other FDLers in Dianne Feinstein’s SF office in April 2006 saying to her staff, “Tell her we’ve got her back, she can be brave and bring conservative members of the caucus with her!” on issues like war with Iran, spying on Americans, and BushCo crimes, I am not sure that strategy works.

To many of them, having their back means they can take us for granted. I’m not sure there’s a message they want to hear that’s about taking bold stands. With notable exceptions such as Dodd.

Thom,
You talk about the different modalities. When doing GOTV and going door to door, what is the best way to approach and what modalities work best on Republicans?

Any chance you might be doing a book tour here in your native state, Thom?

It does require some finesse, and must be mixed with a threat. I talk about this in the chapter in the book on motivation strategies – moving toward pleasure or away from pain. And one day’s work is a blip – we need a movement.

And good on you for showing up at her office!!!!

That would be much better than pushing the ‘excuse’ that the dems are being blackmailed or otherwise threatened. It would be helpful to our ’side’of the equation, were the Dems to say to us ‘we’ve got YOUR back, help us, join us in this epic struggle.’

Well, that begs the question, “Why are we fighting so hard? Why don’t we just let them have their mess and get it cleaned up for good after the crash in 2012?”

I know, that’s crazy-talk, but it’s the first thing that came to mind.

Best is to be multi-modal, odd. Listen to Edwards’ farewell speech – in nearly every sentence he’d evoke vision, story, and feeling. Brilliant!

What is the best way to project the future and get a progressive point across?

I did a book tour in Grand Rapids and Lansing before Christmas, if that’s what you mean. Won’t be hitting the road much for book tour stuff until CTC comes out in paperback this summer.

In March, I’m going to Darfur. And CPAC next week in WDC. That’s about it for travel, I hope…

Thom … what are you working on in Darfur?

I’ve read both “ADD: A Different Perspective – Hunter in a Farmer’s World” and “The Edison Gene” – I’d highly recommend them for anyone who has is or is close to an intelligent, creative person who struggles.

And it’s also good for the poor “farmers” out there who live with us “hunters”, and who are driven CRAZY by behavior and habits they (and often, we) just don’t understand.

on the flyby–will need to be back later to read thru comments–but chiming in a hearty Thank You to Siun and Tom. Will get this book for me and for the local libarary.

First, define the future you want. Then develop a story of/for it that is dramatic and resonant (and, hopefully, archtypal). Then share that story with highly visual imagery and a lot of anchors for feelings.

When you read the book all this jargon will make sense, but I’m guessing you’re getting it, seeing it, and hearing it right now…?

Will you be broadcasting again from CPAC, Thom? That sure sounded like fun.

Let that be todays lesson. Don’t let this criminal regime take over your story. Tell a story of hope, a feeling of respect and a vision for an American revolution.

That would be me. I am so happy to find this book.

I’m going with Ellen Ratner and a couple of conservative talk show hosts to highlight the situation and try to raise some money for an NGO that’s feeding people there. March 10-18; I’ll be doing the show live from Darfur the Friday of that week via Sat Phone, if we can make it all work.

Speaking of John Edwards, do you think Sen. Clinton and/or Sen. Obama would tap Edwards for VP and would he accept?

Looks that way to me, Thom. And given this likely scenario, are the potential dem Whitehouse/holders up to the task? Not only of ’solving’ the dilemma, but of NOT being Hooverated? That is my question, and I, personally am a wee tad bit ‘anxious’ about it. I think Edwards or Kucinich would have been more likely to take the ‘bold’ steps. Hope I’m wrong and that O or C will rise to the ‘occassion’, on both ‘fronts’.

Yes – leaving tomorrow morning for NYC, there Mon-Wed, then Th/Fr at CPAC in WDC. I’m looking forward to it!

Thom

Do you see a relationship between the Oxytocin-Testotorone and hunter farmer frameworks?

Hello Thom. I am a little late to the lake.

Words matter. Thanks for reminding us that change comes from the bottom up. Living language comes from the bottom up. It is interesting to see how a group of ideologues think they can reverse the natural evolution of language. Can modern media tools allow them to be successful?

Recently, Human Rights Watch gave its 2008 World Report before the press. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, doesn’t mince words. He tells you the stark painful truth. Our country isn’t very pretty. Our current debasement of the concept of democracy has degenerated the meaning of our own democracy and allows any tin dictator to call his country a democracy or “emerging” democracy.

Do you think we can ever get back the true meaning of our democracy after this administration? And, how?

I share your concerns. It’s why I talk about economics on the show so much – we need to get people up to speed on the issues. Why I wrote “Screwed,” too.

That should be the plan, but we are not ‘there’ ‘yet’.

To assert that FDR was far less progressive than HRC or Obama in my view only, is nonsense. And which of his three elective platforms are we talking about?

I think Edwards would make a great VP for Obama. Hillary’s best VP would probably be Obama or Richardson. Just politically speaking – which ticket will sell best in the general.

Personally, I’d like Edwards as prez, but that’s gone. I think he’d make a hell of an attorney general, too – he’s a lawyer, and could take apart some of these criminal corporations and their Bush crony buddies…

How soon is yet? I’ve been feeling it big time since the end of 2005!

Brancaccio’s “NOW” this week shows a chilling portrait of loyal middle-class Bushies in Illinois in the process of getting foreclosed… there does seem to be a distinct lack of consciousness in the heartland, of “how bad we’ve been had”.

My local tavern’s owner has Dubya’s portrait behind the bar, is losing his shirt, and takes his frustration out on the employees. It’s a mindset thing, I guess.

John Edwards should be a Supreme Court Justice

I was talking about his ‘32 campaign. His ‘36 campaign was a barn-burner. But I have right in front of me right now an original copy of the Saturday Evening Post from September ‘32 in which his VP took the entire cover and 3 pages to lay out his platform and how he was going to “save” us from the Republican Great Depression. It mostly boils down to carefully adjusting/recalibrating Smoot Hawley. NO mention of WPA, CCC, Soc Sec, Unemployment insurance, right to unionize, etc., etc.

Amen!

kiddo, that was not what Thom said. What he said, and it is true, is that when FDR first took the Whitehouse, his expressed views were not as ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ as they were to become. Now, my friend, there is no fundamental argument between you and Thom, just some slight misunderstanding. Trust me, on this kiddo.

I’d add that FDR’s ‘36 campaign was SO brilliant and important that I reprinted in its entirety – unedited – his July ‘36 speech to the DNC in Philly in my book “Screwed.”

how would you spruce the framing of the telcom immunity and prepare for a battle that holds the House of Reps to their current bill?

Now that is a good question!

Oh, I’d say for about the last forty years, at least that is as long, almost, as I’ve thought that we needed to compile ‘compelling narratives which would allow people to glimpse and then embrace a better, more humane, and more just and equitable future.

Dems should stop referring to it as FISA or the Protect America Act and start calling it “The Presidential Amnesty Act” or “Amnesty for Bush and Corporate Cronies Act.” They need to start hitting hard on the “amnesty” part of it. Since immigration came up, Republican voters shudder at the word.

Well… I’m real pleased you cleared that up. “….WPA, CCC, Soc Sec, Unemployment insurance, right to unionize, etc., etc.” All creations of the FDR administration. Yes or no?

Marcy calls it the Dick Cheney Amnesty Bill.

I’m already putting together the dream team for the next Dem prez and I agree John Edwards would be a terrific AG. My next choice for him would be on the Supreme Court. Maybe he can go from one to the other. We need to consolidate our strong people so the force of their cummulative talent will restore the Constitution, government, Congress and the confidence of the people.

Get out of jail card for ATT

Thom, I’m grateful for your work and your book.

The issue closest to me is our environment – and making sure our grandkids inherit a better one. I ‘ve worked from perspectives as diverse as EarthFirst! and Physicians For Social Responsibility – often concurrently.

Your conceptualization of “chunking” enviro issues really helps.

What suggestioons might you have about the emotional valence of global climate change, GMO mutants, industrial chemistry, and other lethal issues?

Solutions exist for all these dangers – but how to describe the danger strognly enough to be noticed, but not so straongly as to cause avoidance and or despair?

Thom again I want to thank you for your ongoing support for DFA.

As the Vice Chair of our county group, we use this book and Jeffery Feldman’s book in training sessions so that our grassroot members can do their persuasions using the best method and stop them from using “their”(repug) words.

Yes, absolutely. But FDR ran on *none* of them in the election of ‘32. He was more middle-of-the-road in that campaign than Hillary, and more vague than Obama.

I believe that demonstrates the power of a president to rise to an occasion (he was a conservative rich white former do-little governor) when We The People both raise hell and give him the support he needs.

Good heavens!

You are advocating that we take back the mother tongue.

Hear! Hear!

Hey MaryM

You still here? Sending an email to your mac account (can’t find your new one right now) There are going to be two special guests at our March Meetup – one who was a former FDL book salon guest

Gotta run …

I’ve gotta buy this book.

Thanks Tom Hartmann, for all you do. I learn so much from you everytime I can hear you, or read what you write

I know your time here is ending soon, hurry back Thom, we love you!!

man, I didn’t remember thom was going to be here and this is one of the greatest pleasures I have had

thom, I know what you mean by “cracking the code”, the republicans have mastered marketing their message with phrases that usually indicate the oposite of their intentions

one of my favorite points of discussion is the fact that WE have to frame the debate and we cannot allow them to force the disucssion along the lines they want force

for instance when they are talking about ‘warrantless wire tapping”, they try to claim

“if you aren’t doing anything wrong we have nothing to hide”

this is part of their code and it’s simple to point out, we don’t need privacy protection to hide what we are embarrassed, we need privacy protection to sheild what we are proud.

our inventions, our manuscripts, our discoveries, the whereabouts of our children…these are the things we want to sheild

an “official” can use the cover of office to discover information he is not entitled and play the stock market, influencing prices and taking advantage of others with the data they collect

there is no reason on the planet the administration does not want to show someone they aren’t abusing their power unless they are

all a warrant does is force an official to demonstrate that they aren’t using private information for their personal or illegal gain, that they aren’t influencing the markets, our lawmakers or gathering information to hold over someone’s head

that’s all a warrant does and that is how we need to frame the discussion

I also would like to hear a discussion of how we get out ahead of the bush family values of pardoning themselves and their cronies when they leave office.
We ought to start framing against that one BEFORE it takes place. Cause you know his pardon list is going to surpass his dad’s get out of jail passes for the Iraq/Contra criminals–the ones who didnt get off on a whimpy legal technicality like Ollie and Poindexter–Weinberger, Richardson et al.

This would be a companion piece to insisting Dems dont drop the investigations of Bushco criminality after 2008.

That statement by Mister Hartmann in my view, appeared to be somewhat misleading.

Thank you Thom.

Please come and visit us often.

Most enjoyable and very ‘real’!

jeebus – apologies for my typos, Thom

Heh heh…

Dems should stop referring to it as FISA or the Protect America Act and start calling it “The Presidential Amnesty Act” or “Amnesty for Bush and Corporate Cronies Act.”

that’s a lot of “should” from a party disinclined to do that type of thing. problem with Dems is that we never do the politically savvy thing, instead preferring “comity” and “congeniality”.

also, the corporate media would be unwilling to utilize that frame, that terminology, and for something to take hold, it has to be spread within the media.

Which statement, kiddo?

Thanks! WRT the environment, we need to be relentless. Drip, drip, drip. Constantly pointing it out, telling the story, sharing the gut-wrench of flooding and species loss and the like. (My houseboat here in the Willamette River in Portland is now facing the possibility of a devastating flood this year!)

WRT DFA, it’s always near and dear to me. Jim Dean is a hero!

Thom -

I’ve got to move along. It’s been an honor and a real pleasure to converse with you today.

Keep up the GREAT work!

I would also like to create our ownn “code”

wnen the republicans say “the democrats are going to raise taxes” I want the democrats to say

“we are NOT going to rasie taxes, we are going to reclaim the asserts that were taken from the middle class and deposited into accounts they do not belong”

you see, we aren’t raising taxes at all, we are replacing what was taken from us

You mean kind of like ‘fertilizer’?

LOL!!

You mean kind of like ‘fertilizer’?

well, except that it’s not the implied bullsh*t…!

yep. We are investing in the nation and our future. Taxes are the price of admission to a civilized society.

Thanks, everybody, for showing up today. I’ve had a great time, and special and profuse thanks to the folks at FDL for putting this together!

As we wind down Book Salon, I wanted to thank Thom for his time today and for this great book. Sharing your tool box with us is generous and so helpful to our work.

Thanks for all you do!

An honor and a pleasure, Siun. Thanks for inviting me.

My phrase is “Investing in America for Americans”

my comment to Arizona Repugs…… Don’t you want to invest in Arizona for you and your children?

thanks again for all you do, Thom. may we all look back on this someday from a far more progressive future, and shake our heads in wonder…

Thank you, Thom, for writing this book, chatting with us today, and attending carefully to our questions. I really appreciate having this time with you. Thanks to FDL for hosting today, and to Siun for a wonderful chat.

Thom, thank you for joining us – and good luck to you and your houseboat.

Thanks also for giving me one more reason to love Portland.

Thank you Thom. It was kind of you to spend time with us.

Great weekend, everybody! Tag – you’re it!!

that is a good way to put it, katymine at 162

Thank you Thom and Siun, the discussion was informative and enjoyable

“FDR ran on a platform far less progressive than Hillary or Obama. We must keep reminding ourselves of that…”

So can I go OT?
French President married his firlfriend today. He divorced his wife in October 07.

democrats should also stop referring to corporations as if they are people, as if they deserve the same rights as people

you yourself thom are somewhatn guilty of this trap when you have a corporatist on your show

you allow them to use terms such as;

‘the government taxing corporations is immoral”

it’s not possible for any action in regards to a corporation to be “immoral”, just as it’s impossible to be immoral to my car or my house, the term is reserved for the living, not for things

whenever a corporatist is on your show they try to weaken the power of words by using the first, they are very good at that and you sort of let them get away with it

The thought arises that if we apply this logic to McCain, Sen. McCain could turn out to be the greatest maker of peace ever.

you yourself thom are somewhatn guilty of this trap when you have a corporatist on your show

So are we all, perris. How many times have we referred to what’s going on in Iraq as a “war?”
And endlessly challenging the speech of guests is no way to have a show. He would spend half his time arguing syntax.
Thom is forgiven in my book.

Kiddo, in 1932 that was true.

My grandparents, all of whom supported FDR told me many times that their real respect for him came as he changed and grew to understand more deeply the suffering and despair which gripped this nation.

FDR is in no way diminsihed by the truth, but only enhanced.

He was a human being who grew in stature because he heeded the needs of people and learned that far more than he first imagined would be necessary to affect the ‘change’ required.

Kudos Siun and Thom for a brilliant and oh so essential and timely FDL Book Salon today!

kiddo, did you say ‘piece’? McPain would make pieces of as much as he could manage. You wouldn’t be being deliberately obtuse, would you, kiddo.
(Understand, I am grinning very solemnly now, Kiddo)

Thanks gang for joining in …. that was a really fun discussion.

thom is a great man by every measure I can think of

sorry if you took my post to be anything but endorsing and adding to what he says himself

Not at all. I mis-frame constantly.
*hits self upside head*

Way late to reading comments — Siun, reiterating my deep appreciation for this Book Salon topic and guest Thom Hartmann. These are invaluable conversations in real time and for readers coming in late after. Much to mull over. And read more. And carry the learning into action. Thank you.

I was away… Siun… great book salon!

Shopping Amazon, just added this book to my shopping basket, along with a book my son wants. Order will be placed tonight.

Thanks y’all!

Thom is going to be here in Reno in a couple of weeks for a book signing. I can’t wait to meet him!

FDR might as well have been a Whig in politics, just like Abraham Lincoln.

Henry Clay would have been proud: internal improvements, a central bank, protectionist tarrifs. And repudiate gold …