Here is a response ad to McCain's 'pack of wolves' ad. This is one way parry this to his advantage. A little Jujutsu if you will.

<blockquote>McCain the "Consumate Washington Insider" has a cadre of lobbyist running his campaign. They are ready to pounce on any attempt by Democrats to get your government to work for you Enter a pack of wolves (lobbyist) ready to pounce. </blockquote>

You have to package the truth that Obama is trying to run on with and emotional message. That how you reframe the McCain smear.

What do Values, Authenticity; Communication and Connection, Trust, and Identity have to do with voter's decisions. According to George Lakoff, everything.

History says negative campaigning works. The press, commentators, pundits and the like have discussed ad infinitum how democrats do not know how to fight back and lose elections because of it. That is when democrats get attacked, they
1) take the high road and not respond
2) whine about their republican opponents not fighting fair
3) try to use logic and truth to rebut the attacks
4)wait too long to respond, or respond with nuanced explanations.

The attacks late in a presidential campaigns can be likened to a schoolyard fight. The kid who get punched in the face needs to fight back. If he doesn't fight back he gets labeled a sissy. Barack needs to fight back. <b>The public wants a champion. The public needs to know whether Obama can defend himself before they will consider if he can be their champion. </b>

Of course, there are different ways of fighting back, the point being to define or redefine your opponent. McCain's way of fighting has been to blatantly lie in order to gain the upper hand. This is the way (lies) he has chosen to define himself, Palin and Obama.

I mentioned earlier this week that IMO, republican operatives would be using racially coded language to stir up and influence the minority of voters who could be swayed by race-baiting. At that time I questioned  "... which serves the race- baiter's interest more -- the original statement or the indignation and backlash that typically follows? " IMO, the resistance put up against "uppity" helps to amplify the statement and focuses the publics attention on whether Obama is uppity. A better response would be to change the focus of the discussion.

An article written today by George Lakoff provides some support for this idea. In it he states,

Four years ago, I wrote a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant!." The title made a basic point: Negating a frame activates that frame. If you activate the other side's frame, you just help the other side, as Nixon found out when he said, "I am not a crook," which made people think of him as a crook.

The Obama campaign just put out an ad called "No Maverick". The basic idea was right. The Maverick Frame is central to the McCain campaign and, as the ad points out, it's a lie. But negating the Maverick Frame just activates that frame and helps McCain. You have to substitute a different frame that characterizes McCain as he really is.

You can see this concept deployed by the McCain campaign in response to Obama's attempt to discuss education. Instead of engaging Obama in a substantive discussion on education (amplifying Obama's discussion) he changed the subject by smearing Obama as a 'sex pervert' wanting to EDUCATE young children about sex. He replaced Obama's EDUCATION 'frame' with his own EDUCATION frame that was smear. Will it work? It depends upon how Obama fights back.  But responding to McCain with "I'm NOT a sex ..." won't work. It will only amplify McCain's assertion. 

Next, when Obama mentioned "Lipstick on a Pig" McCain turned the statement against Obama. Pundits suggest that McCain simply wanted to twist Obama's comment to keep Obama off message for another day. IMO, there's a second reason that McCain pounced. "Lipstick on a pig" is a great sound bite. Labeling the McCain/Palin ticket "Lipstick on a pig" is an effective and potentially defining sound bite. It does a much better job then the 'No Maverick' ad in conveying the message the McCain (pig) with Palin (lipstick) is just 'more of the same.' If McCain succeeds at turning Obama's "lipstick on a pig' into an Obama slur against Palin, he neuters an effective sound bite against himself. That would be brilliant if he succeeds. 

Lakoff goes on to discuss what voters base their decisions on.

In 1980, Richard Wirthlin - Ronald Reagan's chief strategist - made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that <b>voters vote for a president not primarily on the issues, but on five other "character" factors; values; authenticity; communication and connection; trust; and identity.</b> In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors.

It certainly looks like this is from the republican play book doesn't it? <b>Didn't republicans just had a convention where the issues WERE NOT discussed but PERSONALITIES were?</b> Do they know something that Democrats don't?

Josh commented this morning on how Obama hasn't been seen in front of a large crowd since the convention. Well last night he did at Colubia U. and he did well doing it. He feeds off that energy and does well in that arena. <b>Obama needs to go out and do the large venues that have help create the Obama phenomenon. It has been a hallmark of his success.</b> He needs to have the press oohing over him again. There is value in the small venues for Obama to connect with white working class voters who need quality time with him. But he shouldn't abandon what made him a star. 

Finally consider how the volumes of negative commentary on McCain's frames on blogs including here on TPM helps to reinforce and amplify McCain's negative 'frames' of Obama?'

Please recommend if you think is worth discussing.

Testing if the servers are doing any better.

McCain blast Palin's bridge to nowhere days after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and about a month before she nixed it. Palin's action put Palin on McCain's radar.

Link.

McCain blast Palin's bridge to nowhere days after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and about a month before she nixed it. Palin's action put Palin on McCain's radar.

McCain blast Palin's bridge to nowhere days after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and about a month before she nixed it. Palin's action put Palin on McCain's radar.

McCain blast Palin's bridge to nowhere days after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and about a month before she nixed it. Palin's action put Palin on McCain's radar.

McCain blast Palin's bridge to nowhere days after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and about a month before she nixed it. Palin's action put Palin on McCain's radar.

http://www.youtube.com/v/dMpbaApaBNg

http://www.236.com/news/2008/09/10/236_agrees_obama_it_is_time_fo_8850.php

Enjoy!

This is a battle to define Palin the media icon. She has taken to out and out lying in order to win the her rollout. Either she gets defined as the lightweight liar that she is or she gets to define herself as the virtuous mother heroine.

Normally we get many months to look at a candidate and decide whether we do or don't like them. We have just of few weeks to decide who she is. McCain is doing all he can to get the virtuous mother heroine firmly embedded into the public consciousness. Palin the lying Pig works for me.

Obama knew what he was doing.

In talking about McCain's 'change' policies' with a laugh, Obama added: "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it's still going to stink after eight years."

The NY Times is wrong if they think that Obama didn't know how the lipstick comment was going to be taken. Like the uppity comments that the 2 southern Republicans have taken to repeating recently, Obama used the expression to maximum effect and Palin set herself up for it, with her cutesy comment last week. I suspect that there will be more to come.

The "You can put lipstick on a pig" was followed by audience roaring a long pause by Obama. It look like he was milking it.

In any event I am encourage by Obama's comeback.

Obama knew what he was doing.

In talking about McCain's 'change' policies' with a laugh, Obama added: "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it's still going to stink after eight years."

The NY Times is wrong if they think that Obama didn't know how the lipstick comment was going to be taken. Like the uppity comments that the 2 southern Republicans have taken to repeating recently, Obama used the expression to maximum effect and Palin set herself up for it, with her cutesy comment last week. I suspect that there will be more to come.

In any event I am encourage by Obama's comeback.

I thought taxes was a no no for conservatives and mavericks? Palin taxed the oil companies 1.5 billion dollars. The conservative mantra is that higher taxes reduces investment, and/or increase the cost of products to consumers. That would make Palin responsible for increasing the price of Alaskan oil.

She proposed to send 1.2 billion back to consumers in order to help offset Alaskans energy bills. That sounds like welfare to me?

As its practiced, is there any integrity in conservatism.

November 2005: Congress decided to cancel funding for the Ketchikan "Bridge to nowhere." Congress had appropriated 223 million for the project. The bridge language was removed but the money still went to Alaska.

October 21, 2006: Alaska gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin supported continued funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” She campaigned on a "build the bridge" platform.

September 2007: McCain slammed the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” project for diverting money away from dangerous bridges like the Interstate 35W bridge that in collapsed in Minneapolis. The bridge collapsed on Aug 1, 2007.

October, 2007: Palin cancels the project effectively canceling the project due to a lack of financial support from congress.

Contrast this with her recent statement “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”

The truth is Congress and the lower 48’s told her, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” Canceling the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project got national press, and McCain and Palin have spun congress’ rejection off the project in her favor, making it seem as she was a Maverick rejecting a pork barrel project, when in fact she had spend over a year publicly supporting it.

Governor Palin has a long history of aggressively lobbying for earmarks from Washington. While she was the mayor of Wasilla she made yearly trips to Washington in search of earmarks for her city, mainly from Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. She had Wasilla employ Washington lobbyist to press for federal funds for her town. She obtained 27 million dollars while she was mayor of Wasilla or over $4,500 per resident, more money than just about any city in the country.

One point. Earmarks have a special place in Alaskan politics. In a September 1, 2008 article in the International Journal the importance of earmarks to Alaska is discussed.

Earmarks are close to sacrosanct in Alaska, which routinely reaps more money per resident for such projects than any other state because of the seniority and aggressiveness of Stevens and Young.

Governor Palin has a long history of aggressively lobbying for earmarks from Washington. While she was the mayor of Wasilla she made yearly trips to Washington in search of earmarks for her city, mainly from mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. She boasted to The Anchorage Daily News in 2006, of having face to face meetings with those responsible for writing the budget and bringing more money home for her community. She had Wasilla employ Washington lobbyist to press for federal funds for her town. She obtained 27 million dollars while she was mayor of Wasilla or over $4,000 per resident.

As the new mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000, Palin initiated a tradition of making annual trips to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens, both Republicans.

She directed Wasilla to employ Washington lobbyists to press for U.S. funds for the town, helping to obtain more than $8 million in earmarks for projects ranging from waterworks to a shelter.

I think that spelling out the bridge story help to put things into perspective.

November 2005: Congress decided to cancel funding for two Alaskan bridges that were both considered examples of pork. Those projects were principally cancelled because it was significantly damaging the Republicans reputation as fiscal conservatives. The cost of the Ketchikan “Bridge to Nowhere” was 398 million and congress had appropriated 223 million for the project. This bridge was going to be similar in size to the golden gate bridge, and would serviced about 350,000 passengers per year. For comparison, the Golden Gate Bridge carried more than 43,000,000 vehicles in 2006. The bridge language was removed but the money still went to Alaska.

October 21, 2006: Alaska gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin supported continued funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere” saying during a televised debate,

 "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," and later that month during an interview, "the window is now, while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,"

essentially looking to congress to provide funds for the bridge. She ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform and said that she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere." according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was part of her campaign.

September 2007: McCain slammed the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” project for diverting money away from dangerous bridges like one that collapsed in Minnesota.

October, 2007: Palin cancels the project stating

“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

effectively canceling the project due to a lack of financial support from congress.

Contrast this with her recent statement “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”

The truth is Congress and the lower 48’s told her, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” Canceling the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project got national press, and McCain and Palin have spun congress’ rejection off the project in her favor, making it seem as she was a Maverick rejecting a pork barrel project, when in fact she had spend over a year publicly supporting it.

We need to make it clear that Palin didn’t reject the pork barrel spending but spent most of her politically life aggressively lobbying for it. She actively sought money from congress to complete the project. Congress said no in 2005 and finally closed the door in 2007 after the Minnesota bridge collapse.

Earmarks have a special place in Alaskan politics. In a September 1, 2008 article in the International Journal the importance of earmarks to Alaska is discussed. <blockquote>Earmarks are close to sacrosanct in Alaska, which routinely reaps more money per resident for such projects than any other state because of the seniority and aggressiveness of Stevens and Young.</blockquote>

Governor Palin has a long history of aggressively lobbying for earmarks from Washington. While she was the mayor of Wasilla she made yearly trips to Washington in search of earmarks for her city, mainly from mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. She boasted to The Anchorage Daily News in 2006, of having face to face meetings with those responsible for writing the budget and bringing more money home for her community. She had Wasilla employ Washington lobbyist to press for federal funds for her town. She obtained 27 million dollars while she was mayor of Wasilla or over $4,000 per resident.

As the new mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000, Palin initiated a tradition of making annual trips to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens, both Republicans.

She directed Wasilla to employ Washington lobbyists to press for U.S. funds for the town, helping to obtain more than $8 million in earmarks for projects ranging from waterworks to a shelter.

I think that spelling out the bridge story help to put things into perspective.

November 2005: Congress decided to cancel funding for two Alaskan bridges that were both considered examples of pork. Those projects were principally cancelled because it was significantly damaging the Republicans reputation as fiscal conservatives. The cost of the Ketchikan “Bridge to Nowhere” was 398 million and congress had appropriated 223 million for the project. This bridge was going to be similar in size to the golden gate bridge, and would serviced about 350,000 passengers per year. For comparison, the Golden Gate Bridge carried more than 43,000,000 vehicles in 2006. The bridge language was removed but the money still went to Alaska.

October 21, 2006: Alaska gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin supported continued funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere” saying during a televised debate, <blockquote> "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," and later that month during an interview, "the window is now, while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,"</blockquote>  essentially looking to congress to provide funds for the bridge. She ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform and said that she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere." according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was part of her campaign.

September 2007: McCain slammed the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” project for diverting money away from dangerous bridges like one that collapsed in Minnesota.

October, 2007: Palin cancels the project stating <blockquote> “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” </blockquote> effectively canceling the project due to a lack of financial support from congress.

Contrast this with her recent statement “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”

The truth is Congress and the lower 48’s told her, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” Canceling the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project got national press, and McCain and Palin have spun congress’ rejection off the project in her favor, making it seem as she was a Maverick rejecting a pork barrel project, when in fact she had spend over a year publicly supporting it.

We need to make it clear that Palin didn’t reject the pork barrel spending but spent most of her politically life aggressively lobbying for it. She actively sought money from congress to complete the project. Congress said no in 2005 and finally closed the door in 2007 after the Minnesota bridge collapse.

Earmarks have a special place in Alaskan politics. In a September 1, 2008 article in the International Journal the importance of earmarks to Alaska is discussed. <blockquote>Earmarks are close to sacrosanct in Alaska, which routinely reaps more money per resident for such projects than any other state because of the seniority and aggressiveness of Stevens and Young.</blockquote>

Governor Palin has a long history of aggressively lobbying for earmarks from Washington. While she was the mayor of Wasilla she made yearly trips to Washington in search of earmarks for her city, mainly from mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. She boasted to The Anchorage Daily News in 2006, of having face to face meetings with those responsible for writing the budget and bringing more money home for her community. She had Wasilla employ Washington lobbyist to press for federal funds for her town. She obtained 27 million dollars while she was mayor of Wasilla or over $4,000 per resident.

As the new mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000, Palin initiated a tradition of making annual trips to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state's congressional delegation, mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens, both Republicans.

She directed Wasilla to employ Washington lobbyists to press for U.S. funds for the town, helping to obtain more than $8 million in earmarks for projects ranging from waterworks to a shelter.

I think that spelling out the bridge story help to put things into perspective.

November 2005: Congress decided to cancel funding for two Alaskan bridges that were both considered examples of pork. Those projects were principally cancelled because it was significantly damaging the Republicans reputation as fiscal conservatives. The cost of the Ketchikan “Bridge to Nowhere” was 398 million and congress had appropriated 223 million for the project. This bridge was going to be similar in size to the golden gate bridge, and would serviced about 350,000 passengers per year. For comparison, the Golden Gate Bridge carried more than 43,000,000 vehicles in 2006. The bridge language was removed but the money still went to Alaska.

October 21, 2006: Alaska gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin supported continued funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere” saying during a televised debate, <blockquote> "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," and later that month during an interview, "the window is now, while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,"</blockquote>  essentially looking to congress to provide funds for the bridge. She ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform and said that she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere." according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was part of her campaign.

September 2007: McCain slammed the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere” project for diverting money away from dangerous bridges like one that collapsed in Minnesota.

October, 2007: Palin cancels the project stating <blockquote> “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” </blockquote> effectively canceling the project due to a lack of financial support from congress.

Contrast this with her recent statement “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere”

The truth is Congress and the lower 48’s told her, “thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.” Canceling the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project got national press, and McCain and Palin have spun congress’ rejection off the project in her favor, making it seem as she was a Maverick rejecting a pork barrel project, when in fact she had spend over a year publicly supporting it.

One more point. Earmarks have a special place in Alaskan politics. In a September 1, 2008 article in the International Journal the importance of earmarks to Alaska is discussed. <blockquote>Earmarks are close to sacrosanct in Alaska, which routinely reaps more money per resident for such projects than any other state because of the seniority and aggressiveness of Stevens and Young.</blockquote>

We need to make it clear that Palin didn’t reject the pork barrel spending but spent most of her politically life aggressively lobbying for it. She actively sought money from congress to complete the project. Congress said no in 2005 and finally closed the door in 2007 after the Minnesota bridge collapse.