by Paul Rosenberg, Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 10:57:43 AM EDT
Here's some framing for you!Crossposted from Patterns That Connect
This is, of course, the $64 billion question for a supposedly faith-based administration, supported by the self-annointed "religious" right:
Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Why is it that supposedly religious people, supposed followers of Christ, whose words I just quoted, are those most willing, even eager to torture people?
by Arshad Hasan, Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:04:46 AM EDT
DFA Night School is back, baby! The fall semester will teach you the advanced skills you need in order to get voters to the polls this November. Participating is easy, fun, and free!
We have a very special guest for the first lesson, which we'll hold on Tuesday, Sept. 19 at 8:30 PM Eastern. I'm sure many of you know UC-Berkeley professor George Lakoff, author of "Don't Think of an Elephant" and more recently "Whose Freedom?". When you're standing at a voter's doorstep, or you're phonebanking voters through a call list, how do you really persuade them to get out and vote for your candidate? We'll answer that and teach you how to develop a message that will sway voters at the deepest levels. RSVP to the live, toll-free conference call right now:http://www.dfalink.com/...
by Rockridge, Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:56:15 AM EDT
In the last 10 days Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative John Murtha have introduced resolutions in the Senate and House calling upon President Bush to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Though many on the left have greeted these resolutions with hosannas, they nonetheless fail to advance a progressive position and they send a counterproductive message. They fail to pin the blame where it belongs--on the President and his policies. Instead, we propose a resolution demanding a detailed exit strategy for the occupation of Iraq.
by David Kowalski, Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:39:48 AM EDT
One of the truly clear lessons from elections past, is that the Party that controls the White House will lose 20 or more seats in the House in the next election. It worked consistently for every war since the War of 1812 producing an average gain of 34 seats for the party not controlling the White House. In contrast, a crisis is generally good for the party in charge although the gains have been far stronger on public opinion polls than at the next election.
Framing of the "issue" shows not only in past election results but in current polling results as well. Democrats win if the issue is framed as "Iraq" (a genuine war). Republicans win if the issue is phrased as "the war on terror", "terrorism", or the "global war on terror."
Let's look at the results from elections past below the fold:
by skeptic06, Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 09:53:43 AM EDT
I wonder whether Dems seeking to garner support for healthcare reform emphasize too much expanding coverage to the uninsured.
The period of sustained liberal reforms were the New Deal years: every family was liable to suffer from the Depression - it wasn't just the feckless, the colored, the other - so a base for across-the-board programs (like social security) was there.
There hasn't been a similar period since - excepting the post-assassination years in the mid-60s, something of a New Deal dead cat bounce.
With healthcare reform today, the problem is that most Americans are covered by some kind of health insurance; to that majority, the uninsured are them. And any expansion of coverage would be an act of charity on the part of the insured.