How should we "frame" the neo-con agenda?

[kentuck]

Or should we? It seems to me that the neo-cons are in the process of dividing the Republican Party. The worse the deficits become and the more deaths in Iraq, the worse it will look for the architects. There will be some moderate Republicans that will come forward to oppose these policies, simply in an attempt to rescue their Party, in my opinion.

The Democrats should start defining the neo-cons right now. We should not wait for the elections in 2006 or 2008. We should assist the Republicans in their upcoming divisions. How do we do that?

First, we should point out the contradictions and lies in their economic assumptions. For example, the oil in Iraq was going to pay for rebuilding the infrastructure and for the costs of the ongoing war. We know that was a lie of immense proportion. Also, we should point out these costs are adding to our already record deficit - even though they are trying to conceal it and keep it off the records.

Secondly, there is no reason to anticipate a peaceful revolution taking place in the Middle East. This is another example of neo-con dreaming. As the NYTimes pointed out this morning, the changes in Palestine are mostly happening because of the death of Yasir Arafat and the changes going on in Lebanon are directly related to the assassination of Hariri, the former leader, rather than anything that George W Bush or Condi Rice have done.

Thirdly, we should portray them as out of touch with America and the rest of the world. They have damaged our credibility for years to come. And their radical policies are going to affect negatively every man , woman and child in America, in one way or another. No matter if it might be the cost of their healthcare, veterans or otherwise, or education, or their general attitudes of intolerance. They are not good for America.

[ck4829]

1. They are Chickenhawks who believe our soldiers are Pawns

How's that?

[kentuck]

2. That's a good start !

:)

[indigonation]

3. Really good thinking

A divided Republican party along the NeoCon and Libertarian flavors is exactly what America needs, not just Democrats. The more they push along this radical agenda, the more moderates they alienate. They may have voted for Shrub in the last election, but they are not in lockstep with the jaw-dropping assault on all the things we value. It gets harder and harder for the W-supporters to keep a rational argument going.

We are the wedge. That is our role, and we do this with our message. We get them to agree or disagree with us, to take sides not with us, but against each other.

[Stephanie]

4. the Radical Right has taken control of the White House

And they're enacting radical plans that have been rejected by every previous administration as un-American, interventionist and imperialistic. The "spreading democracy" story is just as big a fable as the "WMD" story was. This is a risky, radical scheme that will keep us on a war footing for the next 50 years if we don't throw the Radical Right out of the White House.

___________________

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html


The Thirty-Year Itch
Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.

By Robert Dreyfuss

March/April 2003 Issue

If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.

But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that. <more>

[auburngrad82]

7. I've always been partial to Radical Right

Especially since David Horowitz was a left-wing radical in the 60s-70s and now he's one of the Right's gurus on how to dismantle a government.

Another of their gurus is George Olney, who coined the phrase "compassionate conservative." He was a card carrying member of the American Communist Party in the early 70s. Now he's a man the Right looks up to when trying to find ways to turn America into a police state.

[alfredo]

5. Domestic agenda= neo fuedalism, corporate control,

elitist, corporatism,

I have a website where I am trying to reframe, brand, or fence bush. See my signature below.

[nickgutierrez]

6. The word extremist fits them well.

Chickenhawks will stick if used frequently enough, and defined.

[kodi]

8. guys, calling other people liars doesn't work, there's a better way

what you need to do is show that their judgement is not sound.

in a simple exercise, i assume we all understand on a level of personal experience that it is harder to get someone to agree that a third party is a liar than who is someone whose judgement is simply not sound.

normally, we don't feel comfortable calling people liars, but as the judgementally and egotistically species we are, we easily think that "I know better than the next guy" when it comes to "judgement."

it plays to the most base of emotions, ego, and actually is true.

each of us does think we know better than the next guy.

the neocons exhibit bad juju whaen it comes to making decisions that demand high levels of intellectual competence.

I would counter Neocon bluster with a Carvillian repost...."Its the mistakes in judgement, stupid!"

[Hidden Stillness]

9. Don't "Frame"--Just Referring to the Facts Will Do It

I think the strongest point that we can make about this issue is that you don't know who these people are--we should emphasize that. These are names we've never heard of, this is the most secretive Administration in history (and the worst), they are all from a very few, related, corporations and run the Federal Government like a steamrolling "hostile takeover." Things are not being legislated by public servants in the open anymore, but by secret cabals of shady, criminal capitalists--to what ends? Who are these people, where did they come from, who controls them? No group like this has ever executed such a frightening coup and stolen or sabotaged so much of our previous democracy. What single thing has George Bush done to solve one single domestic problem during all these years? What are these people doing; why? I would make strong points over and over, that these are not merely Republicans, but neocons and libertarians, who have never had such unopposed power, and they really are worse than your wildest dreams. Emphasize the alien nature of this group; that it was a small fringe group, a cult, that has never been a part of American government before. Fear it.

Their whole approach to life and the world is, "I want to own it," and for every act, they have a spin that makes it appear all right--unemployment is them "cutting down on expenses," capturing the resources of other countries is them "nation-building," them ramming things down Democrats' throats and making us submit is "bi-partisanship," etc. They are always up to something secret, then cover it up with some phrase that shoves it back in our faces as if we were either the beneficiaries or the cause. They are always operating: Step one: The original concealed, criminal act; Step two: They invent a phrase that attacks us for asking, and leaves the crime untouched, and still ongoing. Eventually, people will react against being manipulated by slogans, and will demand answers to questions. Make the point that everything about these people has the air of crimes concealed, lying, manipulation, bullying, rich capitalists working the system, etc. There is no truth to these people, only advertising.

Describe their cold, heartless traits, with examples, quotes, etc. Their undercutting of every protection citizens need against rich corporations, downsizing and outsourcing of jobs, concern for nothing but the stock market and lowering their own taxes, the fact that they would lie to anyone about anything just to win, cutting funding to government programs people need, because of their extremist, radical opinion that there should be no government, only capitalism. Refer to the heartlessness of those who knowingly lie to get people to support a scheme to abolish Social Security, when doing so would cut them off of everything and leave them destitute, as the rich pimp profited.

Describe also how creepy the fantasy world thinking of these people is, and the real world consequences of it. The invasion of Iraq alone provides countless examples: from the lies told to advance it, to the total delusion of what they believed the outcome would be--"easy," "popular," "supported," "pay for itself"--this is a bizarre cult unlike anything actually political, and they deluded themselves by their isolation. Not only creepy, but frighteningly incompetant: aftermath of Iraq invasion, the Federal and trade budgets, etc. No sympathy for others, no solutions for anything, they actually managed to destroy utterly the sympathy for us around the world, after we were attacked on September 11th--who even remembers it now? They created their own fantasy world and inflicted it on us, by way of lying media propaganda and censorship unheard of in this country. Emphasize how rich these people are, the top levels of corporate executives, how they think, and how they do not give a rat's ass about the problems of the people of this country.

Not only delusional and stupid but dangerous, (multiple examples, destroying our whole position in the world). We are told we have to immediately remove Saddam Hussein the horrible threat, (who was not connected to Sept. 11th, the continuing lie), because of Hussein's weapons, sold to Iraq by,...earlier neocon corporate Republicans Reagan and Rumsfeld during the '80s! The threat is, them! You trust these people? Keep making the point, easy to do now, of how America has totally, tragically veered off course, is not like America anymore, how this group is like some alien force superimposed on the real America, trying to kill it, and so totally unlike us. With some of the most shocking attempts to destroy longstanding government programs that have helped people for generations, and only stopped by others--where would we be if this group had won everything it has tried for?...--it is like they are on a "search and destroy mission" against US. How totally divisive and hateful the country has become: give examples of criminal Republican legislating, with no check and balance now, of Democrats shut out of committee meetings and other outrages, lobbyists writing bills that become law, one fake war after another, purges, slanders, on and on. A country at war with itself, and not even over a real issue, but only one fabricated non-crisis and trumped-up non-reason to invade a country, after another. Is the whole thing a diversionary tactic, that they would kill us all, to proceed with their real intent? We are cut out of our own process, our own country. When you describe how we will ever repair all the damage done, that there is damage we may never find or fix, tell it as if "waking up from a nightmare" when these people are gone. "How will we ever get back on track, and be ourselves, as we want this country again?" Who are these people; why did they do this?

Describe things clearly so that the implication was clear--whether it was "criminal," or "liar," or "destroyed the economy perhaps permanently"--but don't necessarily call them the name, which only gave them an easy, pseudo-outraged routine to reply with. Instead describe it, and people will think of the fact themselves. Emphasize, I think above all, the totally alien nature of this sub-group, and how nothing they do has anything to do with us, but only advances their own weird, offensive ends, against whatever we want. Even their use of "framing" itself should be an attack against them: they will use any lie--"moral values," "more money in your pocket," "spreading democracy," "clean water"--to trick you, then impose their real agenda, which they never even hinted at. Eventually, even their "successful" public acts can be turned against them by an educated people, as you listen to smiley, waving, flag-waving sloganeering, and think, "God, these people are nothing but practiced, polished lies. They will say and do anything; you can never trust them--everything is a set-up. What are they setting us up for now?" There is no truth to these people. You don't know them.

[meow2u3]

10. One word: VICIOUS!

[Al-CIAda]

11. We know....

http://www.911weknow.com/

-----