Newt's 1996 Memo Says to Call Dems Traitors

[stewert]

On the July 12 edition of the factor O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich discussed the liberal insults of Bush at the celeb fundraiser for Kerry.

Newt Gingrich was O'Reilly's first guest & both of them were acting shocked at the "level of invective" directed against a "sitting President". They sat there wide-eyed, pretending to have no idea what could have spawned such noxious behavior. They claimed it was unprecedented. They claimed it was appalling. They claimed it was unparallelled, extraordinary, unheard-of, something completely new in American politics. Newt, of course, claimed it was a mode of behavior originating with "liberals". Bill, of course, agreed & further elaborated that Fox is also a target of "leftist propaganda".

If you didn't know what lying hypocrites they both are, it was a masterful performance. It would also help if you were born yesterday or had absolutely no memory of the vile invective spewed by radical right-wing psychopatriots & their propaganda outlets during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration.

Here is a copy of a memo Newt sent out to all the republicans in 1996 while Clinton was president. And this was during an election year. He has a list of positive words for republicans to use, and a negative list for republicans to use.

------------

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo

As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

Full Memo Here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm

Notice the word "traitors" and "cheaters" and "pathetic" and "incompetent" anti-flag, family, child, jobs, etc. Those are strong words. Here we have Newt in 1996 telling all the republicans to call democrats traitors, anti-flag, etc. Yet O'Reilly and Newt said they were outraged over the liberals calling Bush names. And they said the republicans never did anything like what we see being done today.

Hey O'Reilly, what about the GOPAC memo ?

[wtmusic]

1. Excellent!

Gotta keep hammering on that hypocrisy :thumbsup:

[calimary]

2. It is CRITICALLY important that we TAKE BACK the language.

These words that newt listed - let's all thank him for compiling them, so we can REVERSE their direction. ALL THE NEGATIVE WORDS apply to republi-CONS. All positive words apply to LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS.

Here's a little note I wrote while brainstorming with Class Warrior -DU's MEME MEMO point-person:

I posted this awhile back, but will happily revisit it for the benefit of those who are newer here.

There is a DUer known as Class Warrior, who from time to time posts a thread called a MEME MEMO - where we can come and post and discuss and kick around language concepts to REFRAME the debate, and REFRAME the agenda.

This all started, at least for the bad guys, with dear darling newt gangrene - OOPS, I mean gingrich - and his little GOPAC scheme. Along with his (unfortunately) effective organizing efforts and his obnoxious "backbench bomb-thrower" boasts, he also put out this little guidebook to all his minions about how to take over everything. Among his strategies: a vocabulary list - actually two - one of positive words and phrases to use whenever referring to republi-CONS and/or conservatives, and another of negative words and phrases to use whenever referring to Democrats and/or liberals.

His idea was to reframe the debate, in strategic manipulation of the language that would VERY subtly put a positive aroma on all things republi-CON, and a big, bad stench on anything Democrat.

For example: "Tax reform." It's a buzzphrase, or code, for tax cuts mainly for them and theirs. And nothing, ever, is mentioned about WHAT THOSE TAXES ACTUALLY GO TOWARD - THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT, especially to those in need, and things that just basically keep our country going. So, they have fostered a MOST ignorant and ill-informed disconnect, as well as a prejudice against all things TAX. WHEREAS, it should be pointed out that there is a LOT about living in America, and participating in all the wonderful freedoms and other things America offers, that costs money. Like getting your roads paved. Like funding research into conquering AIDS. Like making sure the air traffic controllers are on duty so planes don't fly into each other. Like patrolling our borders. Like funding our national defense. Like PAYING THE SALARIES of all those senators and congresspeople THEY THEMSELVES LIKE, AND their staffs and their drivers and their insurance and their perks and their postage and blah-blah-blah. Some of that tax money (dreadfully, I know) goes toward paying the salaries of their precious bush and cheney and the rest of the cabal. Even THEY would have to admit not all taxes are therefore evil. And even Grover Norquist would yell and scream and stomp his little feet if his garbage wasn't picked up regularly every week! But it's a lot easier to just furnish a lot of easy-to-plug-in words and buzz-phrases to oversimplify things. And it's an easy device for the lemmings out there to pick up and use.

They now issue wholesale talking points in the same way.

SO: I submit we need to do the same thing, but go it one better (because OURS is the truly correct side).

So let's start with the idea of "republi-CON." I submitted this concept as a way to refer to that group of opponents as "republi-CONS" as in CON-JOBS. "republi-CON JOBS" and "republi-CON GAMES" are good as a noun to describe what they do and what they're up to. "republi-CONMEN" and "republi-CONWOMEN" and "republi-CON-ARTISTS" are good descriptive wordings to describe EXACTLY what these people are.

Another way I've submitted for referring to the opponents is to call them the "IGMFU party." "IGMFU" (pronounced IGGum-foo) is an anagram for "I Got Mine, F-U." Because that, in my opinion, superbly and succinctly sums up what the republi-CONS are all about. Even better, there's a touch of humor to it. A point is ALWAYS most effectively delivered when there's a little humor wrapped around it. It's more memorable, pleases the listener because it gives them a chuckle, and leaves a favorable impression, the added benefit of which makes you look clever as hell.

Which brings me to possibly even a more lethal buzzphrase: "The Party of Cain." This is an exquisitely good one to use when fending off religious-right, fundamentalist whacko attack. They know the Bible, correct? (I try NEVER EVER EVER EVER to use the word "right" for ANY reason - it's been totally co-opted, tarnished, twisted, and bastardized.) Let's all remember one of the earliest stories in that beloved Bible of theirs (and many of ours, too, for that matter): that of Cain and Abel. We all know what happened and how it ended. And we all know how Cain responded when God came looking for the suspiciously missing Abel (him, really): "am I my brother's keeper?" My premise here is: if a Democrat were asked that, the answer would be some form of "yes, certainly! We all have to look out for one another, don't we?" If you ask a republi-CON that question, you know what the answer is: "HELL NO! FUCK (or in this day and age, CHENEY) my brother! I've got mine and I'm KEEPING IT! Let him go get his OWN!" Hence: "The Party of Cain."

Because they ARE.

REPETITION IS KEY, though.

This, or other strategic wording, should be used EACH AND EVERY TIME you refer to that party, or the people in it. Enough people doing that, and doing so often enough, will provide the same kind of effective repetition that the limbots and other rush-wannabes of the world push, incessantly, on their dittoheads. After awhile, it can't help but sink in. You may have heard the old adage about how repetition is everything. You repeat something often enough, and it becomes fact. Or truth. Or widely-acknowledged as fitting and proper and relevant. Whether it's good or not. Whether it's true or not. Whether it makes sense or not.

So we need to do that same thing. Eventually OUR memes will sink in and become accepted, systemically, as fact.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY URGENT/ESSENTIAL that we take back our country from these bastards. To do that, we have to take back the agenda. To do THAT, we have to take back the language, and reshape the way that agenda is perceived and understood. Proper, strategic use of language can help promote good vibes and positive reaction and a positive flavor to our viewpoints, ideals, and projects/programs, AND wrap the enemy, and everything they're about, in a nice, subtle stench of negativity. Once you start making all that rush-promotion and Pox "News" crap take on a negative aura, the point's been made, and delivered, right down into the bone marrow. It's unconscious, and subliminal. And it takes root, deep down. THAT'S how we get 'em.

I am so sorry this is long. But there's a lot to share. I know this stuff works. "IGMFU" was an idea my dad came up with, in his heyday as a very successful and clever sales/ad executive. This stuff works. All you have to do is try it, repeat it, and come up with your own versions to try and repeat. And repeat again. If you keep hammering it home, it will BECOME hammered home.

Thank you! LET'S LET 'EM HAVE IT!!! Time for a taste of their own medicine.

[digno dave]

3. forward/mention to mediamatters.org

[stewert]

4. Done........

I sent it to Brock at MMFA.

[Morning Dew]

5. If I recall correctly, Brock mentioned this in Blinded By the Right.

so that's a good place to bring it up again.