Branding Republicans

Democrats,

Usually, I spend my spare time worrying about how you brand yourselves. And, why shouldn't I? Your brand stinks. When people think "Democrat," they think of Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and John Kerry. In other words, propagandists, opportunists, heretics, and flip-floppers, in that order.

But, as Republicans have learned through experience, it's easier to re-brand your foe than yourself in politics. And, what better time to start some baseline Republican re-branding just before the races heat up for the 2006 congressional elections? Let's keep it simple and give the public a bunch of easy one-liners to digest for the first 3 months. Once this base branding has been applied, we can flesh out the popular one-liners and expand in greater detail.

So, let the branding begin:

Republicans -- they spend our savings and tax your children
Republicans -- they think they know foreign policy... but do you
                               think it's working?
Republicans -- they'll bug your phone and track your web
                               searches... feel safe now?
Republicans -- they're not Big Government... they're Huge,
                               Corrupt, In Your Face Government
Republicans -- if they're pro-life, why are they pro-death penalty?
Republicans -- if they're so good at war, why are our troops dying                                every week?
Republicans -- bringing America down, one blunder at a time
Republicans -- the party that was determined to keep Terri
                               Schiavo alive
Republicans -- we gave them all the control, and look what they                                did with it
Republicans -- just when you thought that one party was good
                               enough for America
Republicans -- they need Democrats to keep them in line
Republicans -- over 5,000 American dead on their watch... and
                               counting
Republicans -- they're sure they're right, even when they're dead
                               wrong
Republicans -- five years in control, and there is still no oil-free
                               energy plan?
Republicans -- my tax cut was nice, but it's all going to heat my
                               home and fill up my car
Republicans -- sponsored in part by Abramoff, the corrupt
                               lobbyist
Republicans -- absolute power corrupts absolutely
Republicans -- the party of self destruction in search of weapons of                                mass destruction

Take your pick, mash'em up, or come up with your own. I don't care. But start "beta testing" some one-liners and see what sticks. There is so much crap going on under Republican watch that it's just a matter of coordinated effort to find out what message is going to "click."

Go to it.

A Real State of the Union Response

President Bush's State of the Union Address was actually not so bad as Bush speeches go. He was as patronizing as ever on foreign policy, yet fairly blunt and visionary on domestic initiatives. The overall flavor was definitely conciliatory, designed specifically to appeal to voters who have switched off this administration as an ideological bully, out of control.

Democrats need to blunt this instrument of moderation, quickly. It's not enough to simply follow the polls and say "hey, the speech really didn't give him a significant bump," and just move on. The speech needs to be debunked, point by point, over and over. Why? Because Democrats need to nationalize the 2006 elections if you have any chance of winning back majority status.

On being isolationists:

"The only thing that is isolated here is the President of the United States. He has isolated America in our war on terror because of his Iraq Mistake."

On Iraq:

"Republicans have somehow turned the War on Terror into a Civil War in Iraq. Can we really trust this party to lead us to victory, when they have not yet caught Bin Laden, and instead are getting our men and women killed in an insurgency in Iraq? Iraqi insurgents can't attack America -- but we know Bin Laden can."

On Iran:

"This administration has let the real dangers -- Iran and North Korea -- get out of hand, while getting caught up in a Civil War in Iraq, which had no ability to harm us. This administration is responsible for the priorities they set, and they are to be held to account for their wrong-headed decisions."

On Russia:

"This administration has let Iraq distract America from serious security concerns, including nuclear weapons in Russia, combined with allowing Russia to turn their backs on democracy. How can this President talk about democracy around the world and let one of our allies fall back into a dictatorship?"

On the economy:

"The President talks about all the great jobs he's created. Have you seen them? The only jobs I see growing are low paying jobs. Republicans have let China invade our economy and strengthened our reliance on China for our economy."

On American innovation:

"We completely agree with the President on innovation being the cornerstone of the American economy and American dream. The difference here is that Democrats have a history of strategically using tax dollars to foster new ideas and innovations that have led to economic breakthroughs over the past century. The Republicans on the other hand, are more focused on sending the nation into debt so that we end up spending our money on interest payments instead of the Next Big Thing that will keep America's economy strong."

On oil:

"Democrats have seen the so-called oil addiction problem decades ago, and we have consistently implemented policies to reduce our reliance on foreign energy. Put Democrats back in the majority, and you can be assured that this promise is not just lip-service, but acted on."

On Social Security:

"We applauded the President's failure to destroy Social Security because it's clear that Americans want Social Security. You know and trust that Democrats will fix Social Security and not destroy it. We like personal accounts, but we like them like we like 401ks. 401ks didn't destroy Social Security, and neither should personal spending accounts."

On marriage:

"As you know, Democrats differ from Republicans in that we want to maximize individual freedoms. Republicans seem interested in limiting all kinds of freedoms, including who you can marry, and even when Terri Schiavo could die. We believe that Americans are moral, good people, and we see no need to legislate personal freedoms."

On spreading democracy abroad:

"We agree with the President that democracy and freedom is a human right that all people deserve. Where we don't agree with the President is how to attain and grow democracies. We just don't agree that bombing and killing thousands of innocent Iraqi bystanders is the right way to sway them into a democracy. We do not believe that telling all moderate Iranians to stay home on election day is the right way grow democracies. And we do not believe that watching Russia shut down its democratic systems is a way of growing democracies. So, while we agree with the President that democracy is good, all we see is failures in his ability to execute on this worthwhile goal."

Attacking the "Privacy-Gate" Road Show

Democrats,

The President, in trademark Rovian fashion, is taking an issue he's weak on and going on the attack to defend it. The thinking is (as it has for the past 5 years): turn any weakness into a strength by believing that your weakness is indeed a strength.

Don't let this tactic work again. Don't react in the traditional way, because this entire strategy is based on a traditional response. And, need I remind you... it has not worked.

After Bush starts giving his speeches across the nation, explaining how he is just doing what he needs to do to protect us from terrorists, you need to come out strong, loud, and untraditionally:

"The President is spending a week of his time trying to sell America on the fact that he needs to protect us. I can't think of a bigger waste of time for a President who is overseeing a long-term, costly war and picking up the pieces after his Katrina fiasco. Why? Because every American already agrees that we need the government to use the tools it has at its disposal to protect Americans from future terror attacks. Mr. President, you can go home now and work on the war and Katrina fiasco... we all agree with you. What Americans are concerned about, Mr. President, is that you have apparently decided that you are allowed to act like King George, not President Bush, because Kings don't need no stinkin' courts -- they just rule. Americans have given you a lot of slack in the war on terror, but no American wants a King, Mr. President. So, if you want to talk about changing your Constitutional role in our government, be my guest. Let's debate that this week."

"The President is obviously, once again, confused and in a bubble: the debate isn't about whether or not to use our intelligence tools to outmaneuver terrorists, the problem is that Americans expect our Presidents to follow the law, or challenge congress to change the law if the laws aren't good enough. Isn't that what the PATRIOT ACT was all about? If the President doesn't need to follow the law or the constitution, then why even bother renewing the PATRIOT ACT next month? Legal scholars from all parties agree that this President has overreached in his executive power, and it's time for him to stand down and promise court reviews of federal eavesdropping. Remember: this is about the President not even wanting to tell the courts after he eavesdrops."

"The President is trying to make this a choice for Americans: either he is above the law or you are not safe. This is utter crap. Americans deserve better than this so-called "choice." If we're not going to follow our Constitution, why should Iraqi leaders follow theirs? If we're going to hand over our democracy because of fear of terrorists, then have they already won? We must not let the terrorist win. Therefore, we must keep to our Democratic values and require court oversight for every eavesdropping initiative, as it is stated in our laws. If the laws need adjusting, then adjust them, Mr. President. Why aren't they in the PATRIOT ACT anyway, Mr. President? What laws are you bound by, Mr. President?"

Debating "Privacy-Gate"

Democrats,

You're letting the Republicans, once again, define and debate the "Privacy-Gate" scandal on the White House's terms. Stop it. This administration liberally interprets the U.S. Constitution to suit their unbridled expansion of executive power, and lies to the American people saying that they don't wiretap without court approval. There is no parsing of this that doesn't implicate this administration of abusing power to the point of Constitutional Corruption.

The Democrats I've heard trotted out to fight this battle have been pretty lame -- they are being sucked into the debate of "what would you do to protect Americans from terrorists, hmm?" This is not the debate. The debate is whether Americans will or will not trade in our Democracy to overcome our enemies. Don't get caught up in the Republican-devised faux-debate. Ignore their attempts, and re-focus on the matter at hand.

Some talking points to roll out:

• This President says he's spying on you to protect you. Just let that sink in.
• The President says he knows he's acting within the laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this President has said something that is patently false.
• If spying on Americans without due process is part of this administration's strategy to win the war on terror, then we clearly need a new strategy and new leadership, because now it sounds like we're losing.
• This administration has now admitted that they are, in fact, losing the war on terror. Democrats believe winning the war on terror means more than just being at war forever -- we're only winning if we're not trading in our standard of living and democratic values.
• Spying on Americans without due process is about as un-American as it gets.
• If the President of the United States doesn't respect our system of government enough to follow the laws, then he should resign.
• How many impeachable offenses and abuses of power are we going to stand by and watch until we decide enough is enough with this President?

Notice how none of these talking points dive down into the nitty gritty details of what is -- and what is not -- legal, constitutional, moral, and the like. This is by design, and is a contextual augment. If you want to create a groundswell of support for your position, best not to get mired in the details. Keep it at an executive, contextual level, with your integrity and moral indignation as the topic.

Don't get me wrong - you definitely need to know the details to give you the authority and integrity to justify your moral indignation. But just because you know the details doesn't mean you need to communicate them to the general public as part of your message.

Facts are much less important until they have proper context, so focus on how low this administration is willing to go in order to "win" - and portray it as a sign of weakness. After all, everyone knows that if you're willing to give up your values in a fight, you've already lost.

Democrats: Put Up a Gate, Quick

Democratic Leadership,

Timing is critical here: Bush has just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar: He has apparently been giving the NSA (and FBI) permission to spy on American citizens in his quest for dictator-like powers of the presidency. Russ Feingold did a brilliant job on the immediate smack down. It helped set the tone for the first day’s debate, but you need a more powerful follow-up strategy before you lose traction.

First, you have to turn this into a "gate." Americans have been conditioned to only think of a political crisis when there's a “gate” attached to the allegations. Don’t worry about being seen as petty using this approach, the Republicans created a "gate" for Clinton's haircuts, for crying out loud. The fact that I remember this almost 10 years later tells you how effective "gate"ing can be.

Some ideas for naming your gate:

• Spy-Gate
• NSA-Gate
• Emperor-Gate
• Privacy-Gate

Privacy-Gate is my favorite of the bunch (thanks to Orin for that one). It is crucial that we get this "gate" thing into the national dialog quickly. In fact, if you don’t "gate" this one, then you're really not doing all you can do to involve the public in this critical debate over Americans' fundamental right to privacy from their government.

Second, you need to try Bush in the Court of Public Opinion. You won’t even get a trial covered by the media unless it's a "gate," but once you're there, you need to win.

Some talking points in making the case against Bush:

• This isn't Big Government, this is Intrusive Government. If you thought the Republican Party was about getting the government out of your hair, you might want to reconsider the party you support. This Republican administration has decided that it has every right to learn everything it can about any American, at any time.
• These aren't the actions of an American President, these are the actions of a Dictator. Dictators do as they want and as they say, with no oversight, always in the name of national defense and keeping the country safe.
• With all this talk about Bush's judicial appointees being strict constitutional constructionists, how is it that Bush all of a sudden wants to conveniently interpret the executive power given to the office of the President?
• How sad it is for this administration that we are now left to compare President Bush with President Nixon. Both Presidents similarly abused the benefit of the doubt – and the deep trust – that Americans give our Presidents. Our trust has been abused and misused.
• This is not just about civil liberties – this is about an administration that is just out of control with its power. I think President Bush has overreached for the last time.

Once you've "gated" the crisis, and sold your perspective on it to the media and he public, you have then set the stage to start calling for impeachment.

Warning: Do not overreach! Do not add in accusations that may or may not be illegal, and do not pepper your accusations with partisan or philosophical banter. This is clean and simple, and impeachment is about specifics, not general admonishment:

If the man broke the law, then he is impeachable based on the law he broke.

Now, if there is a list of impeachable offenses (like Representative John Conyers has compiled) that are simple and clear as that of Privacy-Gate, then by all means, pile 'em on. But, please, please do not add any color or opinion to your call for impeachment. Keep it very simple:

"If President Bush is found to have abused his office by secretly spying on American citizens, then he should be impeached. We will find out the facts, and we will determine next steps when the facts have been reviewed."

If you can't find the venom in you right now, try recalling how Republicans spent all of their time in the 1990's trying to undermine the Clinton presidency with "Whitewater-gate."

Democrats: Take Responsibility for Bush Improvements

Democrats,

Bush recently gave a speech about the war in Iraq that was well-toned, contrite and more honest than ever before. In fact, Harry Reid said "The president has reached out and spoken more directly than ever before about how we went to war and why it is important to achieve victory, a goal we all share."

Unfortunately, you missed a key Rovian strategy in your response to this good speech by the President. When the opposition does something good (or at least, better), you need to simultaneously praise them (because something good from either party is good for the country) and take credit for it.

In this particular example, let's do a before-and-after with Reid's message. After the above quote, he said this:

"While I appreciate the president's increased candor, too much of the substance remains the same and the American people have still not heard what benchmarks we must meet along the way to know that progress is being made and that our brave troops can begin to come home."

This is weak and whiney. Benchmarks shmenchmarks -- the Iraqis just voted in their first democratic government! I'm sorry, is that not a benchmark? Don't use outdated messaging when it doesn't apply, please. That's just thoughtless rhetoric.

However, if we apply the above Rovian spin to this, it transforms into:

"I appreciate the president's increased candor, and I think the American people can clearly see the difference in our President after the Democrats successfully led a campaign to force this administration to be more forthright, direct, and frankly, honest with the American people. Americans are now able to see that Democrats in congress can really make a difference -- and can even help turn this secretive administration, once pressued and cornered, into an administration that can level with the American people."

You could go on to rhetorically ask Americans to count the number of speeches the President made about Iraq before and after Democrats led a revolt. You could go on to ask Americans to recall when this President finally took responsibility (hint: after the Democratic revolt). You could go on to tell Americans that if Democrats take back the Senate and/or House leadership next year, they can expect more honesty out of this administration, quicker.

The whole idea here is to take anything and everything that happens, and tie it into "why to vote Dem" in the 2006 congressional races. And as the above talking point shows, even a rather good speech by the President can be great fodder for boosting your pro-Democratic message.

The Iraq War = The Corrupt War

Democratic Leadership,

You have a problem with details --- you're mired in them. When you go into details, you create the opportunity for everyone to have a problem with something.

Why do you go into details so readily? Because you're currently the party of tactics, not strategy and vision. You're like the plumbers of government, trying to explain to Americans about all the crap you see every day. Meanwhile, the Republicans look like white-collar executives, setting strategy, taking risks, and marketing their offerings like executives do to Wall Street in Corporate America.

While it would be foolish to think that the entire party can transform itself into an executive-style organization in under a year, it's not foolish to think that carefully crafted talking points can jump-start America's belief that you are, even if you are not quite there yet.

Let's start with some high-level attacks on the Iraq war. Have you noticed what happens when you say things like "withdrawal time lines" and "withdrawal immediately"? Your ideas get instantly scrambled and distorted by the Bush Administration into "cut and run" and "defeatist" messages. In other words, you lose this battle because Americans want to believe and follow the lead of the executives, not the plumbers. We're all conditioned to think this way through our working environments.

Since you cannot instantly transform into executives, start sounding like a management consultant instead of a plumber. Provide professional, high-level assessments that talk to the problems you see in our strategic and tactical approach, and provide alternative, break-through solutions that are designed to impress.

As management consultants, it is quite fair and effective to characterize the Iraq War as a Corrupt War that needs to be stopped immediately as it is designed today, and a new initiative immediately started to replace what we have today.

As consultants, you will raise the following reasons for this war effort being corrupt:

• The intelligence was faulty, and the government knew it before we went into war (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408, http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5161)
• Our claims of Saddam being evil for torturing and killing his own people is undermined by America's torturing and killing Iraqis as a part of the war effort
• Abu Gharib
• Summarily ignoring Joe Wilson's findings in Niger re: aluminum tubes due to politics
• Scooter Libby, an Iraq War architect, indicted for lying under oath
• Rumsfeld did not provide the amount of troops required to maintain order
• American troops didn't have the armor they needed for their protection
• The war has created new recruiting tools for terrorist organizations, escalating the war on terror
• We are paying off the Iraqi free press to run American propaganda in their newspapers
• No-bid contracts given exclusively to American firms to rebuild Iraq
• Destroyed decades of good will America has earned around the world since World War II
• Hurt domestic morale so severely that we are no longer able to recruit enough people capable of maintaining adequate levels of military readiness.

When something is corrupt -- be it in your personal computer or an organization like Enron -- you fully remove the corruption immediately so it cannot further infect. We must take the same approach to this war:

• Immediately end the Corrupt War in Iraq as it is defined today to instantly destroy the corruption that the Bush Administration has allowed to occur.
• Immediately begin two new initiatives that replace the Corrupt War:

1. Launch "Operation New Iraq" - an initiative that is divorced from all of the corrupt reasons and rationales for going to war, divorced from confusing Iraq with 9/11, and divorced from the word "war" itself. Instead, this operation focuses solely on rebuilding the nation that needs to be reconfigured to survive without a dictatorship. America no longer occupies -- it assists Iraq as a support force. If this is done convincingly, we might just get our European allies to help out as well.
2. Re-launch "The War on Global Terrorist Groups" - an initiative that is tied to the "War on Terror" but looks at dangerous extremist organizations, no matter where they are in the world, including Iraq.

By instantly dissolving the current war, we dissolve the corruption that this administration has let infect the war effort. That does not at all mean that this administration is off the hook. In fact, by stating this approach, you are firmly placing the word "corrupt" on this administration as a de facto descriptor. It's an implicit attack, which is much more powerful than a direct attack.

Rewriting Bush

Democratic Leadership,

President Bush's latest talking point is that you are rewriting history because you now critique his Mafia-inspired run up to war.

This is the perfect opportunity to practice the deflect and divert strategy that Republicans are so good at. Instead of defending your vote and your decision to critique the administration, rewrite his message to benefit you:

"Democrats are not rewriting history. We're trying to rewrite the future, because the future this President has led us toward looks terrible. We need to rewrite the future because what they promised America is not what they're delivering:

• They promised "freedom on the march," but instead we get "terrorism on the march" around the world.
• They promised oil would pay for the Iraq war, but instead we get high energy costs for Americans and a war that will tax us, our children, and grandchildren.
• They promised "homeland security," but instead they got "Katrina'd."
• They promised Social Security reform, but instead they want to destroy it.
• They promised they'd get Bin Laden "dead or alive," but instead Bin Laden is still alive and al-Zarqawi is growing the terror network in Iraq.
• They promised "honor and integrity," but instead we get criminal indictments inside the White House.
• They promised discipline, but instead we get massive debt that will eventually raise our taxes.
• They promised "compassion," but now they are trying to cut school lunch funds and Medicaid to help pay for the massive debt they've given us.

See the pattern here? This administration has a bad habit of saying the right thing and doing the wrong thing. Democrats are sick of it, and it's high time we start rewriting the future of this country. It's time for Democrats to be back in the majority in Congress so we can begin leading this country back in the right direction.

So, remember, if you want things fixed, vote for a Democrat in 2006."

Conjunction Junction, What's Your Function?

Democratic Leadership,

Well, the Republicans have answered this time-tested question - the function of the conjunction junction is to merge multiple ideas into a single, misleading one. The conjunction of ideas has been at the backbone of the modern Republican party communications strategy.

Even though they're low in the polls right now, that doesn't mean that their communication strategy doesn't matter. It does. Here are some functions of their conjunction junctions:

• + Over 30,000 Iraqi deaths
  + Over 2,000 American deaths
  + Drawing the ire of the world
  + Bin Laden is still out there
  + al Q'aida is growing and expanding
  = The World is Better Without Saddam

• + Democrats voted for the war resolution
  + Saddam had WMDs a decade ago
  + Saddam was Evil
  = Don't Blame Us for the Iraq War Fiasco

• + Democrats saw the same bad intelligence
  + France had same bad intelligence
  + Only the U.S. interpreted this intel - good or bad - as an
      imminent threat
  + Cheney lying on Meet the Press about not knowing about
      Joe Wilson
  + White House smearing any intel challenging the imminent
      threat assessment
  = Don't Accuse Us of Manipulating Pre-War
      Intelligence

• + We didn't give the weapon inspectors enough time
  + Misleading Americans about links between Iraq and 9/11
  + Creating mass mistrust and fear in the world through
      abusing power
  = The Lesson We Learned from 9/11 is to Strike
      Before We're Attacked

[Feel free to add your own conjunction functions in the comments section below.]

Using conjunctions like these, the Republicans are able to deflect and redirect almost any conversation. Their trick: when approached with a fact (the facts are before the "="), they can land on a catchphrase (after the "=") that alludes to the facts in that function, but sums up exactly none of the facts in that function. (You might want to read that last sentence again)

You need to start getting better at deconstructing these conjunctions instead of leaving debates flabbergasted. If you don't expose this trickery, you are doing the American people a disservice -- if Americans are misled by the manipulation through conjunction functions, they'll unknowingly be supporting hidden agendas.

Start deconstructing these conjunctions that the Republicans unleash regularly. Some examples to get the juices flowing:

The World is Better Without Saddam:
That's like saying the world would be better if we eradicated near-sightedness when we have more important problems like cancer to deal with. Would the world be better off without near-sightedness? Of course. But, how much better off, and at what price? If we eradicated near-sightedness but let over 2,000 Americans and our allies die of cancer as a result of that singular focus on near-sightedness, would it be the right decision? Would it be the right priority? Would it be worth losing our own citizens and alienating our allies in cancer-fighting to eliminate the "near-sighted" threat? Most reasonable people would question this type of decision making. And these same people are questioning the leadership of our President for going after the "near-sightedness" of American enemies instead of focusing on the real, serious security threats that we face. The "cancer" of our enemies is al Q'aida, not Saddam.

Don't Blame Us for the Iraq War Fiasco:
It doesn't matter who else voted for the resolution, nor does it matter which foreign country agreed with your pre-war intelligence. The decision to go to war with Iraq was the calculated decision of the President of the United States. That's his job alone - in war, the buck stops with the Commander-in-Chief. He utilized the anger and fear generated by 9/11 to go after an old enemy, and he manipulated his case and facts to fit his pre-determined military goal. Democrats are not rewriting history - Democrats are just coming to understand that they were intentionally misled by an administration in a time of war in a matter of national security, which is treasonous.

Don't Accuse Us of Manipulating Pre-War Intelligence:
If Democrats saw what this administration did with the intelligence to sell it, not only would they have not supported the war resolution, but they would have called for investigations immediately on the abuse of executive power. Let's also keep in mind that even if everyone had the "same bad intelligence" (including France and Germany), only one administration determined that the threat was imminent, and manipulated the intelligence to make it seem that the threat was imminent. This is about priorities, and this administration was unique in the world in its prioritization of Saddam over al Q'aida.

The Lesson We Learned from 9/11 is to Strike Before We're Attacked:
Oh yes, the Bush Doctrine, which states that American must preemptively strike back at old enemies after new, more dangerous enemies attack us first. That's not only reactive, it's also a petty - and quite frankly, pathetic - foreign policy for our great nation. A real 9/11 doctrine would guide us through this new world of global warfare: explaining that war has evolved beyond country-to-country battles and has given way to loosely-connected networks of enraged extremists around the world. This new wave of warfare needs to be dealt with by joining forces with our allies that share our values around the world. It would go on to explain that together, this global alliance would have the military, intelligence, and moral force to stamp out extremism wherever in the world it creeps up.

Courting Supreme Nominees

Democratic Leadership,

In observing Senator Kennedy stumble through his rationales around Supreme Court nominee Alito on Meet the Press, it was clear that Democrats are in a rut on the thinking and rhetoric around this process. It was underwhelming to see the bobs and weaves he needed to perform to rationalize his past and current statements. But it's not Kennedy himself that's frustrating -- it's the entire discourse around judicial nominees these days. It's like a broken record...

"What's his judicial philosophy?"
"Will he overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"Will his ideology affect his ability to judge?"
"It's not about abortion, it's about privacy."
"Judges should not legislate from the bench."

Your terminology and approach to this debate is mundane, technical, and wonkish. We keep on hearing the same things, over and over. As a result, they don't mean much to people anymore. If you care at all about breaking through the noise and leading the debate, you need to discuss this in terms of judicial character, values, and the law.

When asked about strict constructionists or legislating from the bench, move the conversation toward your concern over a "pre-set agenda" instead:

"This debate should be less about looking back in history to see where we've gone right and wrong, and more about enforcing the laws of the land, and how we continue to form a more perfect union. Americans demand justices that respect their rights as free citizens of this country, and any judicial nominee that comes with a pre-set agenda to change the laws of this great nation -- whether it be civil rights, Roe v. Wade, or other established laws -- is suspicious and probably not suited for the job. Qualified justices of good character look at the facts of each case independently, and do not tailor outcomes according to a pre-set agenda."

When asked about judicial activism, your response should break new ground (based on moral principles) and stop blindly playing into the Republican paradigm that activism in and of itself is bad:

"Judicial activism is entirely appropriate when we're not adhering to the spirit of the Constitution, and entirely inappropriate when we are. For instance, if a justice reads that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, and he or she looks around and sees that certain types of people can't vote, this is a just and moral cause for judicial activism. However, if a justice reads that "all men are created equal," and he or she looks around and determines that some people don't have the right to, for instance, have a marriage recognized by the state because they're "not equal" in some way, this is also judicial activism that goes clearly against our nation's values. So, in the end, this is not about activism, this is about understanding the letter and the spirit of the Constitution... and adhering to it."

When asked about ideology versus judicial philosophy, your response should focus around the ideas of "sound judgements" and decrying "pre-set agendas":

"Judicial philosophy is very different from ideology. Judicial philosophy is an approach to the role of a judge is in our government. This is the core issue we try to understand during the judicial nominiee hearings. A personal ideology - or a pre-set agenda - has no room in a justice's mind when reviewing a case on the merits and the law. As a result, personal ideologies are not part of the judicial assessment unless, of course, ideology affects a justice's ability to look at facts, interpret law, and make sound judgements. A justice's inability to make sound judgements because he or she bases them on pre-set agendas developed from a personal ideology disqualifies a justice from the Supreme Court in my opinion."

When asked about Roe v. Wade and the pro-choice and pro-life movements, your response should be inspired by pro-life Republican Senator Coburn, and separate the morals of abortion policy from the job of a Supreme Court justice:

"Nobody likes abortions. Not Democrats, Republicans, or Independents... no one wants to see abortions performed left and right. Roe v. Wade didn't create abortions, and reversing Roe v. Wade won't end abortions. Roe v. Wade is a legal and political issue, not a moral or human issue. The moral and human issue is in the hearts and minds of people who choose to have abortions. The only way to stop abortions is to convince individuals throughout our country -- and the world -- that abortion is not the right solution to their specific problem. The only way to end abortions is to ensure that in each case where a woman is up against this situation, there are options that are more beneficial to the woman than abortion. If we really want to slow or stop abortions in this country, we need to focus on providing support systems and options to women to make non-abortive options more compelling than abortive options. I see Roe v. Wade as a red herring debate - a legal issue being used as a surrogate for a debate around religious and personal values."

Only after you establish the baseline parameters for what you consider to be a qualified justice can you then begin outlining why you will -- or will not -- support Alito for Supreme Court.

Last, but not least, take the opportunity during these interviews to slip a zinger into the discourse of judicial nominees:

"Of course, a Supreme Court Justice needs to be sufficiently politically independent to fairly judge and rule in a case that might involve members of their own party in the White House."