I find it very odd that GOP strategist Frank Luntz goes
on the air and tells his party what words to use during
their campaigns. It's a bit like a football coach sending
a play into the game and then advising a sideline reporter
what it's going to be.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/11/402342/gop-strategist-frank-luntz-conservatives-should-not-be-defending-capitalism/
22 comments:
I just made a post on the same topic. Truthfully, this is not a surprise. Conservatives have shown over the last three years that they are willing to say anything, literally, in order to gain power. They'll even disavow their own ideas if they think it will gain electoral advantage. Conservatism, by its very nature, does not produce leaders. It is a philosophy of following and doing what you're told. If they have to wage a "war on capitalism" in order to win in 2012, the rest of the right will follow right along like the good lapdogs they are.
Boy, no kidding. I've been amazed by some of the statements made so far in the GOP primaries. There doesn't seem to be a bottom in their barrel.
Conservatives have shown over the last three years that they are willing to say anything, literally, in order to gain power.
Well lets be honest here, we're talking about certain Conservatives. There is a civil war inside the GOP right now. The Tea Party vs the Establishment. Sad to say it, the Establishment is winning hands down. Those are the guys without an ounce of integrity. Those are the people like Newt and Santorum preaching the class warfare. It's frankly disgusting.
I think Newt is showing us what Obama has in store for him once Romney wins he nomination - obviously Democrats will use the same attacks and sound at least consistent when they do it. If Romney can't stand up to it coming from Newt, Obama will cream him with it... which is what I've said all along from the start. Romney can't beat Obama.
The problem is the Establishment Republicans were so desperate to make sure the Tea Party didn't control this election (as it did the last one) they have managed to get a front runner who A) Can't beat Obama and B) Wouldn't do a much better or even a little better job of running the country.
In short, the Republican Party is fucked and it deserves it.
I think Frank Luntz is setting a trap. George Lakoff was saying this in an article several weeks ago.
When Luntz says "don't use these words, use this word instead," he's hoping that liberals will start using the words he's telling Republicans not to use. When liberal pundits use these "don't say this!" words, they're reinforcing the Republicans' "framing" of the issue.
That's Lakoff's theory anyway. Makes sense to me.
So what's next Mom is a floozy and apple pie is a communist plot?
I agree with a fair amount of what Free says in his comment. There's definitely a power struggle going on. I'm not so sure Obama will necessarily cream Romney on certain things, because I think Romney will sew things up fairly soon and then much of the right will gradually line up behind him (some grudgingly, but if it means beating Obama he will get support, and he does have that GOP establishment behind him too... which will be served by the usual trickster types like Luntz, Rove, etc.) And I agree with Tom... the Dems better be mindful of Luntz because he is a master of manipulation. The left would be wise to listen to Lakoff.
because I think Romney will sew things up fairly soon and then much of the right will gradually line up behind him (some grudgingly
Just like you guys did with John Kerry. We're reliving your history.
Jim, if most of the voting public were paying close attention to what Luntz says and to who's following his advice, it would be odd. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people who should be paying close attention won't until the last two to four weeks before the election. By that time, Luntz's mantras will have become, by osmosis, popular wisdom.
This chronic and recurring situation helps explain millions of really lousy voting decisions and the consequences resulting from those lousy voting decisions.
The Kerry analogy is correct. In '04, Dems just wanted to beat Bush. That was it. So, we went with the "most electable" model, Kerry. It almost worked, but the problem was that no one was really "for Kerry" they were just against Bush. Being anti-something rarely gets more votes than being pro-something.
I see the same model in 2012 with the Republicans. Every single potential nominee is flawed almost to the point of being unelectable. So, the GOP is calculating who to support based on the perception of electability. The right is anti-Obama, but not pro-anyone. And they won't end up pro-Romney, either.
The results should be the same as in '04. A narrow victory for the incumbent. Works for me.
Good point, SW. I forget sometimes that we bloggers tend to follow this stuff a lot more closely than the populace in general. It's maddening but it's also just a fact of life.
Gotta say Splash's assessment is 100% dead on accurate.
Dave Splash wrote, "Being anti-something rarely gets more votes than being pro-something."
There's loads of historical evidence to the contrary. Anger, resentment and axiety motivates many voting choices. Many a vote for Reagan in 1980 was really a vote against Jimmy Carter. And many an independent who might not have voted at all that year did vote to register dissatisfaction with Carter.
FWIW, I was definitely for Kerry. He's a very good senator and would've made a very good president.
If you still doubt the power of "againster" voting, check out what happened to former California Gov. Gray Davis and former Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. However, Barak Obama makes a pretty good Jimmy Carter.
S.W. - My analysis was more about the presidential contests than all elections in general.
As for free, you are right that Romney is no Reagan. He's worse. But the Obama/Carter analogy is flawed. Many don't remember that Carter was actually considered too conservative for the Democratic Party (true fact). He was primary challenged from the left by Ted Kennedy. That challenge deeply divided the party. Add to the mix a liberal ex-Republican named John Anderson running independent, and you see why Carter was not re-elected. It was not that Reagan was so strong in 1980, it was that the Dems were divided. Reagan's big election was 84.
The Dems are not divided now, and with the most recent polling on enthusiasm -- it is dropping fast on the right, and increasing on the left. This year will not be a repeat of 1980. The metrics are all off.
I say a win is a win is a win and Reagan won handily in 80, divided opponent or not. An Carter did divide your party by sucking as President so bad, the Democrats knew he had no prayer. The smartest move they could have made back then was not give him back the nomination and had they run Kennedy they might have had a chance... a slim one but a chance. Instead they stuck with the incumbent and Reagan defeated him. When Carter's VP ran four years later Reagan obliterated him.
As for Romney being worse than Reagan, can't argue that ;)
The Republicans will never have "another Reagan" because the George Bush wing of the party is still firmly in control, and they don't like competition from people not interested in government pork.
And as for Carter being like Obama or whatever, they have one thing in common... they suck as President. However this time around, Democrats aren't making the mistake of dividing themselves with a primary challenge and the Republicans don't have a R.
W. Reagan in their pocket.
Too many typos... third time's the charm? 8-)
Reagan favored keeping church and state separate. That was one of his best qualities. Nowadays, most of the GOP candidates and wannabes have infused so much religion into their party that it has basically become a religious party, and they all favor adding as much church to state as possible... they're working their hardest to erode what separation there is. I'm not sure Reagan would appreciate it if he was alive to see it today.
Reagan is the White Knight or third party candidate a lot of right wingers are hoping for, and they just don't have anyone like him at this point. Even then, if they were to study Reagan more closely I'm pretty sure a lot of today's conservatives would think Reagan was "not conservative enough".
"Nowadays, most of the GOP candidates and wannabes have infused so much religion into their party that it has basically become a religious party."
Snave, not exactly a religious party. It's not quite as bad as the left likes to portray... there are no secret plans for theocracy. And there's a growing secular conservative movement starting to have an impact.
Well, one of the few good things I can say about Ayn Rand is that she was a non-believer. Her philosophy seems to be what is driving the right a good deal nowadays, for better or for worse (and it's the latter, in my opinion).
Without truly marginalizing the religious faction in the GOP (which is huge), I think the Republicans need to tone down the religious rhetoric a bit. It's a way of catering to their religious voters, but people like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are Dominionists, plain and simple. If the GOP is not hitching its wagon to people like them, so much the better.
I am very pleased with the unpopularity of those two, and the way they have failed to gain traction could well be an indicator that what you say about a secular movement gaining ground is likely true. Whatever happens, I'd love to see the GOP focus on the nation's major issues, not focus on the family.
Of course if the GOP was to de-emphasize the religiosity, it would alienate a lot of fundamentalist Christian voters. That is something I would like to see, naturally, because it could split the GOP into two parties, one of fiscal conservatives, one of religious conservatives. With the latter probably always able to get anywhere from 5% to 20% of the popular vote, it could make things more interesting.
Rewriting History
The real religious fanatics are the ones whose religion is radical environmentalism and global warming. That's the theocracy of the left, and far more dangerous than Jerry Fallwel.
Hmmm, reading your Ann Coulter, I see. 8-)
Post a Comment