Democrats have a serious problem "framing" the issues....

[kentuck]

unfortunately, the Repubs are much better at defining their positions than are the Democrats. There is no reason in the world the Democrats should not be able to "frame" the Social Security issue in a winning manner. The problem is not with Social Security, the problem is with Bush's taxcuts and his recklesss spending. It would be worse if not for Social Security.

There is no reason the Democrats should not be able to "frame" the war in Iraq in a different and winning way. We are there because we were lied to. Our troops continue to die because of those lies. The question is not whether Iraq is better or worse off, the question is whether or not America is better or worse off.

There is no reason the "abortion" issue should be a loser issue for the Democrats. We are not pro-abortion. We are pro-women. We are pro-equal rights. We think abortions should be rare as possible. In fact, there were less abortions under Clinton than under Bush, just as there was less crime under Clinton than under Bush in the same time frame. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

Issue after issue, the Democrats fail to define or "frame" in a proper or winning way. They fail to communicate. That is a weakness in our Party.

[dogday]

1. I don't know that is always the case with Democrats.

I believe we have framed the SS issue pretty good and the majority of people are behind us with this. I also believed we have framed the "Filibuster" option as well as the polls show the public is in favor of keeping this tradition. I do believe we have backed off certain issues that I wished we would of stood our ground on, I will say that....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Even more than that, they need to define some non-negotiable issues

to give lie to the notion that "Democrats don't stand for anything."

Preferably, the non-negotiable issues should be economic and political--universal health care, fair elections, etc.

[iamjoy]

3. Read Geroge Lakoff, eh?

What about Bill Bradley, referring to the Democratic Party structure as an inverted pyramid?

[ewagner]

4. Yes, it's true

we (Democrats) have allowed the Republican to "frame" the issues and as a result, they have beaten us every way they could. But I am moving beyond "framing" in my thinking these days. We have a local group on "framing" that is running independently of the Democratic party and I consider this to be a problem because they are focusing on the technique of framing and not the big picture.

IMO framing is what you use to articulate your initiatives . The problem, you see, isn't framing, but taking the initiative in issues that Americans really care about. For instance, if w (again Democrats) had a solid plan for Universal Health Care, and presented it to the American people in the right "frame", the Repubs would be on the defensive and forced to defend their lack of a plan.

In short, my good friend, I think the real issue is initiative and framing is only a tool.

[kentuck]

5. It is more difficult to take the "initiative" when in the minority...

I think. But I agree we should take the intiative to explain what we stand for and present it to the people in a plain and simple and honest manner. For example, I think they should come out and say outright that the problem is not with Social Security, the problem is with Bush's taxcuts and his huge deficits as far as the eye can see. That is what Mr. Bush and the Repubs are concerned about - their huge debt which will have to be paid down the road. They should be thankful they have Social Security as a crutch, otherwise they would have the nation in even more dire straits.

[erichzann]

6. No, that is not the weakness of the party

At least, it is not the root weakness of the party.

The root weakness of the party is that they play for the same team as the republican party. They don't fail to "frame" the war in a winning way because they are stupid - they willfully choose not to, because it is not in their interests. They don't fail to "frame" social security as a winner - they don't have the courage to attack tax cuts and spending because they are spineless and afraid to be unpopular.

The problem isn't that the democratic part is too stupid or ignorant to know how to frame things in an appropriate way. The problem is that this is what you get when too much of your national party wants to play for the other team - or wants to play as closely as possible along side the other team so that the public has trouble distinguishing who is who.

That's what you have to understand. The part on the whole - at least in national politics - willfully chooses not to frame things in the proper way. Why? Because they don't have an principled agenda. They simply want a seat at the master's table - a piece of the pie. They have a "please don't hurt me, I just want a little piece" attitude.

That's the problem.