Manipulative words

How the candidates did at Saddleback. It should be a news story, not a disguised editorial on page one of the Washington Post. (Although I believe the biggest gain was for Rick Warren who has firmly placed himself on the political stage, and because he is Jesus-lite, no other Christian pastor could do this.) Take a look at the word choices for the WaPo account by Jonathan Weisman, August 20, 2008; Page A01. Positive phrases in green, negative in red. Then count them.

Sen. Barack Obama was the abortion-rights candidate who was reaching out to foes, seeking common ground and making inroads. Sen. John McCain was the abortion opponent whose reticence about faith and whose battles on campaign finance laws drew suspect glances from would-be supporters.

We all know that "abortion-rights" does not leave the same emotional image as "abortion opponent." In my opinion, you are pro-life or pro-choice. Start with that and then add in your exceptions if you have them. You are assigning value to two lives, and you've chosen for one to die. Not one or the other, but one. Then you'll add your qualifying points--he'll be retarded; he'll ruin her life; our family won't accept a biracial baby; she already has too many children and this one will be a burden to society (i.e., I'll be paying); we really wanted a boy; her boyfriend's walked out on her; etc. The same person willing to see her grandchildren aborted in one breath, will want to save the planet for them in the next by not drilling for oil. It baffles me, but on to the other words.

Weisman knows his audience--and it isn't conservative Nobamas like me who know what he's doing. The far left Democrats are getting angry and nervous (see Michael Moore's latest tirade), the middle is still solidly behind their candidate. So he goes for the Obamacons, fence sitters and RINOS who may need to be reminded of McCain's past failures (let me count the ways!). Weisman didn't become a staff writer at WaPo by not understanding the impact of word choices. Let's look at them--out of context.

reaching out to foes
seeking common ground
making in roads.

reticence
battles
suspect glances
would-be supporters.

The reporter then goes on to say the born alive issue is an “obscure law” when virtually every other legislator, in Illinois and Washington, didn’t find it difficult or thorny. They seemed to grasp the concept of life after birth, even those who don’t catch the meaning of “before birth.” Yes, to his credit, as he winds his way to the bottom of the article he finally gets to the difficult truth--the truth of why he so desperately makes his case in the first paragraph (most people don't read much further and writers know this). In a race this close, abortion matters a lot. Eighteen percent of Democrats consider this issue critical. What if they just don't vote? Can he win without them?

Abortion remains an important issue to a large portion of the electorate, but it is not the biggest. An early August poll for Time magazine found that one in five likely voters would not consider voting for a candidate who did not share their views on abortion. Twenty-six percent of Republicans saw the issue as decisive, compared with 18 percent of Democrats.