First off, I want to congratulate all the people that fought to GOTV, raise $$$, get the message out.  This race wouldn't have been one without us.

I also want to make a plea to all the people who feel bitter about this election.  The worst thing we can do is succumb to bitterness.  What we accomplished this year was to bring many new people into the process, and develop strong connections to build on in the future.

I feel that Kerry, Dean, and the other Democrats, ran essentially good, strong campaigns in 2003-4.  They did many things wrong, but they also did many things right.

But K/E '04 did a good job and they ran the best campaign they knew how.

Now lets Move On.  More below.

Kerry has three points to make on the economy that I think he hinted at last night but didn't drive home:

1. Bush's "Free Lunch" Tax giveaways rob America of its future, since as the debt increases, so does the burden on our children.  This means Bush is literally stealing from the future to payoff corporations in the present.  And what do we have to show for it?  How many Jobs have really been created?  Segueway to:

2.  The real job creation situation.  Bush has told us that tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% will create jobs.  Has this happened?  Can we rely on dividend tax cuts and corporate tax cuts to create jobs here at home?  Explain the fallacy of this logic.  Also how the jobs Bush created have not kept pace with growth in the workforce--the jobs Bush claims he created are gross, not net, and set off a negative baseline.

2. Address the "tax and spend" charge with this:  Tax revenue allow the government the means to make wise investments in the country's future growth, i.e. the highway system (50's/60's) and internet (90's).  Mention these, and make the point that without both of these government projects the booms of the 60's and 90's would not have occurred.  Talk about the Apollo Alliance as a similar strategic initiative in the same spirit as the internet and highway system.  How it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, and be good for the environment.  That's the vision thing, and he needs to lay it on the line with the same clear, forthright manner he showed in the last two debates.

He hinted at all of these but didn't nail them home--here's hoping he does it next time.

Several people interested in Lakoff's influence (or lack thereof) in the Kerry campaign have noted this quote from today's NYT:

"This president has relieved America of the homeland security it deserves," Mr. Kerry said. "And we're going to change that on Nov. 2."

- Kerry, Oct 1, 2004, NYT

* Note, Lakovian analysis, proceed with grain of salt firmly in cheek **

Although it does destabilize one of the Right's most powerful frames, the "tax relief" frame, this technically isn't a reframing because it only hints at an alternate narrative, it doesn't propose one. The essence of the Repub "tax relief" frame is to set Bush up as a hero who will "relieve" us from the unjust burden of "taxation". Instead, although Kerry's quote does weaken Bush's frame, it still keeps Bush in the role of the "hero" who, instead of saving a victim, is ironically relieving the U.S. of something good, and is therefore, by implication, doing evil. Yes, its irony, but its not an effective reframe.

"Bush relieves" is still the noun-verb pair, the only difference is that there's an different object phrase attached.

He needs something else--something clearer and less reliant on irony, something with a different noun-verb pair altogether.

"The president has neglected America, denying it of the homeland security it deserves ... "

"The president's irresponsible tax cuts on the elite have squandered the trust of the American people, and denied us the homeland security we deserve."

or even..

"The president's irresponsible tax giveaways have robbed America of the homeland security it deserves, and we're going to change that on Nov. 2"

Although not necessarily effective, these are true reframes because they change the story being told and more clearly define Bush as a "deceiver" and a "thief".