corrente

So Lambert says Google News isn't working, and I hit it just to check, and lo and behold, what do I find but a WaPo item I never noticed all day mentioned on their front webpage.

Apparently a column called "Inside the A Section" by John Harris and Brian Faler, it has a number of insider-type items, headed by this little number:

With voter anxieties about Iraq shadowing this year's campaign, pollster Frank Luntz has some advice for fellow Republicans: Mind your language.

Luntz, according to a strategy paper that fell into the hands of Democrats, says minor changes in language used by politicians can lead to major differences in voter perceptions -- turning a potential liability into an asset.

Among his suggested talking points, in the nine-page section on Iraq and terrorism:

• It's not the war in Iraq -- it's the war on terror. "You will not find any instance in which we suggest that you use the actual word 'preemption' or the phrase 'the War in Iraq' to communicate your policies to the American public. To do so is to undermine your message from the start," it said. "Your efforts are about 'the principles of prevention and protection' in the greater 'War on Terror.' "

• Remember: better there than here. " 'Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad' is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration," it said. " 'It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington.' "

• Don't forget the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. " '9/11 changed everything' is the context by which everything follows. No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11."

• Don't forget Saddam Hussein. " 'The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.' Enough said."

• And don't forget the troops. "Nothing matters more than Americans in the line of fire," it said. "Never, ever, EVER give a speech or issue a press release that makes no mention of our troops."

In an e-mailed response, phrasemaker Luntz declined to comment on his paper.

*Snort, snark* Why does that last line fail to provoke astonishment?

Anyway, here's my thought. We here at Corrente are unrelenting in ferreting out truth, justice and restoration of the American Way, activities which by definition require the ouster of Bush. But we are not into nuts-and-bolts politics as such, the sort which is the lifeblood of a place like dKos.

But here's our opportunity to let slip the dogs of democracy. With the above examples from the Dark Side, what can we come up with as Talking Points for the forces of Justice and Light?

I'll throw out the blatantly obvious to get you started: "We support our troops in Iraq so much that we want to give them their dearest wish, transport home by the fastest means possible. We also support our troops fighting the true War on Terror in Afghanistan, who need a lot more help than they're getting from the current administration."

He who controls the discourse wins the argument. The points above show where they KNOW they're weak. If lies repeated often enough start to be believed, just imagine how constant reiterations of TRUTH can really kick ass.

Hit that comment button! Words you might want to think about include "Haliburton," "contractors," "impeachment," "national debt," "my grandchildren," "energy independence," "treason," "Osama bin Forgotten," and "quagmire." I'm sure you'll come up with more.