On frame selection

The issue of framing political discussion has received loads of the border, with an increased Canadian presence since the Cons proudly displayed their adherence to Frank Luntz' right-wing framing philosophy. Today, Murray Dobbin weighs in with his take on a few phrases progressives should use to help turn the tide:

Never say "Medicare crisis." Say the "corporate threat to Medicare." Why? Because the privateers want people to think there's a crisis so they will acquiesce to a radical solution: privatization.

Never say "private care." Instead say "for-profit care."

Never say "defence spending." Say "war spending." Because the huge increases in that department are exclusively for making war.

Don't say "child care." Instead say "early childhood learning." Because the right tries to frame daycare as undermining the family, and warehousing children.

Never refer to the Clean Air Act. Call it what it is, the Dirty Oil Act.

Never, ever say "free trade agreement." Instead, say "investors' rights agreement."

Never say Tories. Say "the Harper Conservatives." Because the former reminds people of the politically moderate Red Tories who are long gone.

Similarly, never say "the Conservative government." Say "the Harper government."

Never say "decentralization." Instead, say "the erosion of universal social programs."

Two can play the framing game. It's about time those who care about the country got serious about winning.

I'll note briefly that I wholly agree with a few of Dobbin's suggestions, and completely disagree with at least one. And I'll discuss those in more detail later.

For now, though, I'm curious as to what other progressives think about Dobbin's examples. Are these the phrases we need to be most concerned about shifting? What other frames should we be looking to create?

And perhaps most interestingly in differentiating Canada from the U.S., how does the framing battle change when voters aren't limited to two political choices?