Language and Framing

James Fallows at The Atlantic:

The audience that matters [for a debate] is people who start out undecided or uncertain — and finally are looking for emotional reassurance about who they can imagine as president for the next four years. In general, such viewers are only now starting to pay serious attention to the campaign — in contrast to people already committed to helping (or stopping) one of the candidates.

[...] Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. [...] The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more "likeable," the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. [...]

For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points — that is, tactics — but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it.

And more polls are coming in: LA Times/Bloomberg found that undecideds thought Obama looked more presidential by 44%–16%, while Gallup found that independents thought Obama won the debate by 43%–33%.

There is now real evidence showing that refuting Conservatives' beliefs with factual evidence backfires - they believe even more strongly AFTER hearing the refutation. And no, liberals do not show the same "backfire" effect. Dan Sweeney in HuffPo:

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.

Read the rest of this entry...

A quick illustration of the candidates' assets (click for full size) (Daily Kos):

I agree with Maha. What does it say about McCain that he continues to lie about Obama's visit to wounded troops in Afghanistan, lie about Obama's tax plan, and lie about Palin's support for the Bridge to Nowhere?

Honorable men don't lie. McCain's behavior is a disgrace. Obama needs to call McCain dishonorable and his behavior shameful. An attack like that would hit McCain squarely in both his image and his ego. Plus, it has the virtue of being true.

Update: Michael Kinsley in the WaPo:

Sure, if [McCain] loses [because of his lying], it will be his fault. Sure, he and everybody ought to know that the Republicans play this game for keeps. But that shouldn't let John McCain off the hook. He says he'd rather lose the election than lose the war. But it seems he'd rather lose that honor he's always going on about than lose the election.

Washington Post:

Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000. [...]

For now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.

And later in the piece we get a crystal-clear explanation of the GOP's time-tested strategy:

John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

Sadly, it's true. Every minute Obama spends saying "But my plan wouldn't raise your taxes!" is a minute he's not defining John McCain.

One of my co-workers, who watched last night's Republican convention against his better judgment, was baffled by the constant jabs at Obama for being a "community organizer." (My co-worker remarked, "Wasn't Jesus Christ sort of a community organizer?") But, as we all know by now, if the Republicans seem inordinately fond of a certain phrase, there's a reason for it. And it won't be a nice reason.

A commenter at Daily Kos has found the explanation, and not surprisingly, it involves Rush Limbaugh:

I had the misfortunate to sit in a cab recently with Rush blaring on radio. I told driver switch the station or lose your tip after hearing Rush going off the wall screetch about community organizer = radicals.

They are reframing community organizing as VERY LEFT WING, filled with -gasp- RADICALS.

It's part of their "Obama's too radically liberal for [the] country" meme.

Billmon adds:

The pieces start to fit together a bit: Rush blasts out the message in its raw form to the true believers, and then they dog whistle back to it at the convention. Classic.

The two theories (race or radicalism?) aren't incompatible, of course: It looks like the game plan is to keep trying to paint Obama as the scary black radical[.]

Update: For the record, Paul Waldman (and others) predicted the GOP's Scary Radical Black Man strategy back in March.

Has someone been reading Paul Waldman? Here's Obama's statement yesterday on the 73-year anniversary of Social Security (barackobama.com):

The Bush privatization plan that Senator McCain now embraces would tell millions of elderly Americans that they're on their own, putting them at risk of falling into poverty. That's not what this country is about.

It's time to reclaim the idea that in this country, we're all in it together. That is America's very promise — and Social Security's very guarantee. And it requires a President who will change the ways of Washington, protect the people's interests, and bring Americans together to meet the great challenges of our time. That is exactly the sort of leadership I intend to offer.

Why is McCain still pushing the tire-gauge attack, even though Obama's right that inflating our tires properly will prevent the need for offshore drilling? Paul Waldman has a theory:

Though there was no particular evidence that the tire-gauge attack was having an effect, the McCain campaign's glee was evident. Just days before, they had alleged that Obama's criticisms of their tactics constituted "fussiness and hysteria," and now here they were brandishing small, phallic objects bearing their opponent's name.

Meanwhile, McCain himself was sent out to pose in front of working oil rigs, to testify to his thirst for pulling more black gold from the earth. The message couldn't be plainer: See that itty-bitty, little tire gauge? If you vote for Obama, that's how big your penis is. If you vote for McCain, on the other hand, your penis is as big as this rig, thrusting its gigantic shaft in and out of the ground! [...]

At 72, John McCain is himself not exactly a simmering pot of heterosexual energy, causing women to swoon at the first whiff of his man-musk. [...] So something tells me this won't be the last time we'll see the McCain campaign calling Barack Obama "fussy," or sending their candidate out to stand in front of big, manly machines. After all this time, it would be far more surprising if they didn't.

We all know that conservation is for wimps — real men drill.

Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress explains why responding to political attacks is such a tricky business (Huffington Post):

While Obama is a terrific rhetorician, he and his ad team don't understand a core principle of rhetoric. Never repeat the word your opponent is trying to push. That is not just a basic tenet of the 25-century-old art of persuasion, but a well-demonstrated principle of modern psychology.

Never say things like, "They're going to say I'm a risky guy. What they're going to argue is I'm too risky." All that does is plant in the listener's mind the word "risky" associated directly with Obama. It's like saying, "I'm not a crook." [...]

This is not just a long-standing principle of rhetoric, but something demonstrated by numerous recent psychological studies. In one 1990 study, undergraduate students observed sugar from a labeled commercial container as it was poured into two bottles. They then labeled one bottle "sugar" and the other "Not Sodium Cyanide." Students avoided eating sugar from the second bottle even though they had watched it being poured and "even though they had arbitrarily placed that label on it" and knew the label was accurate — that it was not sodium cyanide. Such is the power of words or, rather, the insidious lack of power of the word 'not.'

George W. Bush has never ridden a horse in his life. His activities at his Crawford "ranch" consist of wrangling brush, fishing, and riding his bike. Yet the "liberal media" have always played along with Bush's faux cowboy persona.

Now McCain's doing it too, and once again the major news outlets are being good little enablers (The Washington Independent):

For months, the media has been reporting that Sen. John McCain spends weekends at his "Arizona ranch," where he can be with his family, visit with close friends or occasionally entertain possible vice presidential contenders.

The steady reference to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee's "Arizona ranch" projects a powerful image of the American cowboy that has long played an important role in presidential politics. The description of McCain's sliver of Arizona's outback as a "ranch," however, is misleading at best. And, perhaps inadvertently, it allows McCain to obscure his carpetbagger role in Arizona politics with a veneer of American mythology. [...]

The property is located in a "subdivision" where there is no cattle roping, branding or herding of heifers. Far from a ranch, McCain's getaway is really nothing more than a retreat. But the retired Navy captain and surge advocate certainly doesn't want the media stating that McCain went to his "Arizona retreat" for the weekend, lest that conjure up images of French cowardice.

It's a $1.7-million house surrounded by 20 acres of land. I think that's called an "estate."