Early yesterday, most news organizations were still framing the $700,000,000,000 Wall Street and banking bailout as just that - a bailout. But the jargon creep had started.

While the news anchors were still using the term “bailout”, those they were interviewing (congressional leaders and financial experts) were starting to use “rescue”. By the end of the day, even the news anchors were reading the word “rescue” off of their teleprompters.

The bailout was dead.

Long live the bailout.

This morning, as word of the Senate bill filtered into the mainstream conciousness, the transition is complete. The bill is no longer Paulson’s three page coup-by-fiat, but a 450 page, economic land mine laden financial rescue of the American way of life.

It might seem like I’m splitting hairs, but I don’t think so. As I noticed this clear shift in framing with Pelosi’s words on Monday, and the media transition afterwards, I asked myself, “why?”. Did Pelosi engage Frank Luntz to hold a 2AM focus group on Sunday night before the vote in the House? Someone did. And right after Pelosi’s remarks on Monday afternoon, even before she removed the shiv that Boehner and Blunt had shoved into her back, there’s little question in my mind that the talking points faxes had started humming:

RESCUE, RESCUE, RESCUE

Why is this important?

I wrote earlier that I had contacted all of my congressional representatives, and that constituent sentiment was overwhelmingly - election crushingly so - against the bailout. I’ve heard figures like 50:1 and 100:1 being thrown about. The bailout was clearly not a good thing, in the mind of most people. House representatives, particularly in the GOP, were understandably spooked.

The argument in favor of the unprecedented heist of the U.S. treasury clearly had to be reframed.

“RESCUE” is intended to play to our base emotions and better angels. Everyone wants to rescue the little boy who inadvertently falls into an open well because of someone else’s negligence. It’s a very easy sell.

“BAILOUT” has a much more negative connotation, implying someone is in trouble of their own creation (and, in my opinion, more accurately reflects the situation at hand).

As you discuss the Senate bill that’s being considered today, I would invite you to think about which word that you believe more accurately reflects where we, as taxpayers and Americans, are right now with this abominable situation. We are being manipulated, once again, to believe that what’s being proposed is going to benefit (or at least trickle down) to our own wallets, in some measure or another.

I’m old enough that I’ve seen tough national economic times in the U.S. (my very first mortgage in 1981 carried a 14% interest rate, and I had decent credit), and I’ve experienced tough, personal economic times. Those things are, by their very nature, somewhat transitory. What the government is asking me is that I should believe them this time, when they say that economic Armageddon is pending if this treasury heist is not approved. Sorry, Lucy, you’ve yanked that particular football away from me on too many occasions in the past. I’m trusting my own instincts this time.

What is being proposed today does bail out the fat cats and well-to-do, even if there might be some marginal benefit to me and you in swallowing the bitter pill. That still doesn’t make it a RESCUE.

And it doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow.