I'd like to talk about the Palin thing from a Lakoff "frame" perspective for a minute.

[Jackpine Radical]

The whole Palin foofaraw caught me in the midst of reading Lakoff's recent book, The Political Mind, in which he talks about how the Republicans build frames and narratives around their people. Shrub's magical ride to power on a carpet of redemption after his earlier life as a wastrel is a classic example. Thus he not only neutralized the DUI's, the drinking history, the failed businesses, skipping out on Vietnam, etc., but, by claiming to have arisen from his shameful past, turned them into positives, at least in the eyes of traditional Christians.

Lakoff did a whole, very enlightening, chapter on Anna Nicole and the competing narrative frames at play in the background that accounted for how she captivated the public imagination and what different people saw in her, thus accounting for the huge splash her story made in the public awareness.

I think that anybody with an interest in changing political opinion needs to pay attention to Lakoff's insights on the workings of consciousness and the emotional underpinnings of our supposedly rational decision-making process. God knows, the conservatives are already there.

At this juncture, a lot of people on the left are hailing the Palin pick as a disastrous move on the part of the McNutso crowd. Don't bet on it. I suspect that there is some very Roveian thinking, if not the hand of Karl Beelzebub himself, behind this move.

After my morning dose of Lakoff, I've been thinking about the Palin thing in the context of narrative frames (hell, call them archetypes if you're an old Jungian like one unnamed, decrepit shrink on this board). The issue is not going to boil down to the truth about McBoobs. It's gonna sink or swim on the basis of the narrative they spin around her, and I expect that they already have that one ready. It'll be something like

1. Submissive helper role (Good Stepford Wife, a woman the Fundies can approve of)

2. Religious fanatic/Good Girl

3. McBimbo/MILF (Gad, the bad things I learn hanging out on this board)--sublimated, subliminal sexuality slyly supporting Stupid's studliness (Like Bush & his codpiece-enhanced flyboy suit)

etc.

They're selling a script, a story. Our reality-based nitpicking about qualifications doesn't matter. If we want to win, we need to fight this with our own coherent, archetypally-rooted counter-story about McNutso & McBoobs. People will ignore or minimize isolated, troubling facts that don't fit their models. If you want to fight effectively, you need to "connect the dots--" i.e., weave your collection fo disquieting information into a more compelling counter-narrative.

At this point I don't know exactly what form the counter-narrative should take, but I do know that the Obama forces need to get one out there soon if they wish to keep their game going.

[H2O Man]

1. The Jung and Restless

The republican soap opera.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Oy.

[No Elephants]

4. LOL

[KittyWampus]

3. Many DU'ers are making Palin sympathetic.

[Demeter]

5. This Pilot Will Never Make It as a Series

and the world will be saved thereby.

Who writes this tripe anyway? Kkkarl could do better in his sleep.

I don't mean you, J-P. I mean the GOP "brain" behind the nomination and marketing plan.

[arendt]

6. I've got a frame: Clarence Thomas with a uterus...

Like Thomas, she is:
- totally underqualified
- embroiled in petty scandals
- willing to play the outrage card for her "minority", while openly opposing every policy that minority wants
.....i.e., another stealth candidate
- even before appointment, she is under the direction of a Scalia-like fundie (her husband)

Joe Biden ran the Thomas hearings. Joe Biden must be aching to smack down another bullshit appointee. If Hillary doesn't demolish her, Biden will.

arendt

[KoKo]

13. bringing Clarence Thomas into it kind of throws it off because he is an

African American. So that would work against us. I've seen some pundits putting that out...but it struck me as sort of "straw man" to compare her to him. Dan Quayle in a dress...kind of sticks better. Just my opinion. Since the Repugs are already trying to say she's a new "Annie Oakley" this morning on the shows...maybe there's some way we can go at the way they are framing that visual.

[arendt]

14. She's a stealth candidate and a minority-group pander, just like Thomas...

Qualye was just a pander to women. He was too stupid and too rich to be a stealth anything.

This woman may be nuts, but she is not stupid. She's dangerous. We need to attack McCain for letting this Dominionist nutcase onto the ticket. Dominionists invented stealth candidacies and campaigns when they started taking over rural politics and Southern churches.

Nobody gets SCARED when you say "Quayle". People need to be scared about this nutcase. Fear motivates people.

I am afraid of this person. I will not allow her to become established, ala C. Thomas, with this "you can't touch me because I'm a minority" shtick. And Dan Qualye just isn't a strong enough meme to stop her.

This women is as dangerous as Clarence Thomas. Thomas is no red herring. He is a canary in a coal mine, and the big explosion is coming.

arendt

[KoKo]

15. I just don't see the "framing" that most Americans could equate Palin with Thomas

it seems to be a view that doesn't work. Just saying... :shrug:

[No Elephants]

7. Female Falwell

[No Elephants]

8. Qualified to run for Student Council president, except for high school enrollment

[Armstead]

9. It's also The City Versus The Heartland

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Oh, yes--definitely.

Gun-totin' bimbo with a trailer-trash flavor. Every Righteous Redneck's wet dream.

[Not the Only One]

11. Michael Moore said the same thing on Leno in 2004

"The Republicans - I'll give them this - they had a story to tell. The Democrats, oftentimes, aren't very good at telling a story. And the story was: Out of the ashes of September 11 rose one man. And he stood on the rubble of lower Manhattan with a bullhorn and he said, 'I will protect you.' And he did. And we were never attacked again."

Ronald Reagan was the master storyteller and was able get away with so much because of it.

For Democrats, their idea of a story is telling about some person's sob story. It's not very compelling or captivating from a media perspective. It has a "not this shit again" vibe to it. I don't know why that is. They always come off as nerdy or pompous bureaucrats. Liberals can tell stories. Garrison Keillor does it every week. I've just never seen a liberal politician do it well. And this just isn't limited to actual story telling, but to composing a narrative for a candidate's campaign. The Obama campaign let their narrative grow organically and that's how it was possible for all of this Muslim shit to be weaved into it. McCain's campaign has been fiercely defending its narrative of McCain after creating it-- the maverick prisoner of war who wants to shake up the establishment of corrupt politicians and lobbyists and return government to the people. The Obama campaign hasn't done that at all. There's not been the kind of message discipline. Hell, the Obama campaign had two opposite reactions to Palin being chosen on Friday. I haven't been impressed with many things about how Obama's campaign has been run. It's ridiculous that McCain is as close as he is to Obama after the last 8 years.

[KoKo]

12. Palin is a "bad mother." unless she isn't the mother...

dragging around a four month old infant just to show she can "multi-task" is not an example many folks will see in a favorable light. And that should be a "minor framing" that can cut through the "rootin tootin maverick Annie Oakley" frame that the Repugs are starting to spin.