HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bernardo de La Paz » Journal
Page: 1

Bernardo de La Paz

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jul 16, 2004, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 35,193

About Me

Canadian who lived for many years in Northern California and left a bit of my heart there.

Journal Archives

Media conveyor belt for propaganda: not "GOP victory office", but "GOP campaign office". Wakeup!

Wakeup media! Just because you are on the Intarwebz is no reason to be a slacker.

When you (media) report using the carefully chosen framing of the parties, you are using their language to accomplish their goals.

It's not a "victory office", unless you are on their side. It's a campaign office.
Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Wed Oct 31, 2012, 09:43 AM (1 replies)

The pieces were planned and rehearsed. Obama put them together.

It's like a chef competition. You've filleted a salmon for roasting with a raspberry sauce a dozen times in practice sessions. You show up and they put down in front of you a trout and ingredients for a lime sauce. You deal, even though you've never roasted trout with lime sauce. You beat the other chef, who is still rattling the lock on the fridge trying to get the salmon out.

They probably stopped Obama at several points in mock debates and said "Here's a great place to ease back and say 'Go right ahead'" or 'Carry on' or 'Feel free, governor'. About other issues and points.

They may have helped Obama recognize Mitt body language and mannerisms and tells.

Earlier in the exchange, Romney answering the question first, used the phrase "terrorist attack". Then when Obama responds directly to Romney, he uses the phrase "act of terror", which has a subtly different connotation, but is in fact the actual phrase Obama used in the Rose Garden press conference. Then Romney, incredulous, unconsciously and carelessly uses Obama's phrase, thinking the first phrase, and adding you said it was "not a spontaneous demonstration" (rhetorically with an implied question mark), to distinguish it from "terrorist attack", which is what he is thinking.

Obama, cool as a cucumber, remembers that he didn't deny it being a spontaneous demonstration because he didn't address the film or the demonstration in his statement that day. But more importantly, he also sees that Romney is using Obama's phrase.

So he instantly recognizes that Romney is getting caught up in half-remembered phrases and is like a quarterback with his shoe laces untied. Thus he has the presence of mind to say "Proceed".

That's what we want from a Commander-in-Chief: [font size="+1"]Presence of mind.[/font]

And then Obama stays cool and lands a precise jab to Romney with "Get the transcript". Followed by the knockout punch by joking after Crowley's fact check: "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" This plays on the audio problems that started the debate and is evidence of extremely quick thinking by Obama.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I I certainly do. I certainly do. I I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

MR. ROMNEY: I I I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.

MS. CROWLEY: It he did in fact, sir.

So let me let me call it an act of terrorism (inaudible) --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)

MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

Crowley vindicates Obama, while giving Romney a point about the riot. But too late for Romney, the damage is done by Obama's three hammer blows one after the other: "Proceed", "Get the transcript", and "Can you say that a little louder, Candy?"

Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Thu Oct 18, 2012, 10:07 PM (0 replies)

Actually no and yes.

Yes to positive metaphors.

But you can mention negative imagery if you tie it to the opposition. Thus you don't say "we aren't the party of throat-cutters". You say "The Republicans showcase violence like throat cutting at their convention". It's not high road versus low road; it's calling a scoundrel a scoundrel, "reality therapy". Too much high road, pure and clean looks weak and meek.

It's the same way Republicans mention "taxes". They call themselves the "tax relievers" and call us the "tax-and-spenders". The antidote is call them the "borrow-and-spend" party, and call us the "job creators", the "builders of infrastructure", the "educators for our future", etc.

Turn their phrasing around. So where they call themselves "tax cutters", say the "Republicans will cut the middle class to shreds" or "in ribbons" or "to pieces". That way when voters start to hear "cut" they start to feel they are being cut by Republicans. Say things like "The Republicans would make the middle class die by a thousand cuts."

"War on women" is a successful meme, especially when it is tied to the party as in "Republican war on women". It's negative, it's not high-roading, and it's not meek to bring the battle to the Republicans by making voters associate belligerent, violent, destructive imagery with them. They've been doing it to the Democratic Party for decades, because it is effective. We need to be even more effective.

You are right about terms like "gun-justice". That frames the debate as "guns = justice", which is nuts of course. So, taking the cue from Lakoff, talk about "relief from gun violence" and "peace and safety".

The modern world is more visual than ever. So bring it to the Republicans visually, audibly, and verbally by framing our policies and successes with positives visually, audibly, and verbally and framing their policies and failures with negatives visually, audibly, and verbally.
Posted by Bernardo de La Paz | Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:49 PM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1