Posted on 07/15/2005 3:15:09 PM PDT by John Robertson
"NEW YORK The cover story by Matt Bai in the upcoming Sunday issue of The New York Times Magazine profiles the man some liberals allegedly consider a possible new “messiah” for the Democratic party, George Lakoff. An adviser to the party on “framing” issues, he wrote “Don't Think of an Elephant”-- a book about politics and language based on his own linguistic theories."
Also from the article:
"With the debate over social security, Democrats explained that Bush was going to privatize it, which frightened the public. To represent this idea, Democrats portrayed the president as "an old-fashioned traveling salesman, with a cart full of magic elixirs and cure-all tonics."
“[The approval rating] is down to, like, 29 percent or something,” Representative Nancy Pelosi, minority leader in the House, tells Bai about Bush's social security plan. “At the beginning of the debate, voters were saying that the president was a president who had new ideas. Now he's a guy who wants to cut my benefits.”
But Luntz tells Bai that the problem with Lakoff's ideology is that if an idea is bad, no language can make it sellable.
“He's one of the very few guys who understands the limits of liberal language,” Luntz says . “What he doesn't understand is that there are also limits on liberal philosophy. They think that if they change all the words, it'll make a difference. Won't happen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at editorandpublisher.com ...
Trope exhibitionism is very amusing. Why, just last week, I accidentally reduced myself to giggling uncontrollably, merely by visualizing Al Gore shreiking "Fiesta Fiesta Fiesta!!!" in conjunction with his oddly robotic Macarena. But, the presumed phallocentrism of potential Gore voters among the readership of "Rolling Stone" magazine still baffles me.
Just another nutty professor with a Soros-funded think tank.
Lackoff, rhymes with___________. (credit to El Rushbo)
here are some words dims already use...........[pro-choice] to make america whiter...[living wage] to make EVERYONE poor......[moral standards] one for dims,another one for everyone else..[christianity]to be one with the pro homosexual,minority killing,religious hating God,who loves it when we break his commandments and the dims FAVORITE saying'But,my intentions were good".........
Right on.
How about "a woman's right to choose" for "murdering babies."
Lackoff . . . as Rush says, "rhymes with."
Speaking of which, did you check what Larry Sabato did in his 2004 predictions? He was LOUSY. I had it nearly perfect (I missed the pres electoral votes by about 1 state---PA) and the only senate race I missed was CO. Do you think the media will have me on?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Sure. You know how to play this game, don't you? I'd offer to be your publicist but I don't know how long I'd last having to deal with these people.
Find someone good, master the soundbite, and you'll be in business.
Yah, I know. It also helps to be in a major media market (NY, WA) and I think 90% of the guests on these shows are on simply because they are convenient. I've done remote feed-ins, and it isn't easy.
SSDD.
But its not a bad idea to get a reputation as *the* go-to guy in a minor market. Get a regular slot as a commentator on a widely watched show in Ohio.
Charlottesville isnt exactly walking distance from DC. Nor does Sabato have any particular flair for the tube. His selling point is objectivity, which you can match. (I actually think the objectivity became debatable when he let his attitude about the swiftees become obvious.)
Well, I certainly don't find Sabato all that "objective." He has consistently under-rated Republicans, whether in the Senate or presidency, and overrated Dems. I thought the voting registration analysis by Jay Cost far exceeded any thing Sabato did in the last election . . . and was about 95% accurate (I think Cost had Bush winning Wisconsin).
What I meant was that he uses his academic credentials to present himself as a neutral party. For crying out loud, the press treats Doug Brinkley as if he is some kind of academic observer rather than a fierce partisan. I guess the moral of the story is that a Democrat with an academic affiliation is a dispassionate observer.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Jay Cost. He plans to stay in the academy, but since he has made no pretenses about his Republican sympathies, some will write him off as a partisan hack. However, it only takes one producer needing with a slot to fill with a "Republican voice" to bring him in. He will go far if he so chooses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.