Remember Frank Luntz? The Dark Lord of Semantics? ... he'd likely appreciate that title.
Very smart man; focuses on the inherent emotion of words with little regard to their information content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
(nice discussion about Orwell in that article, actually)


I was actually thinkings about similar things earlier this week; what do you think about this...

Q. Why can't liberals sell ideas as well as conservatives right now?

A. Smarter liberals oppose or are critical of using deceptive, emotionally manipulating words to sell their ideas, and don't as often fall in line with talking points that use this tactic. This is possibly due to a recognition that transparency is required when you want government influencing society. OR may simply be due to liberalism being tied to empathy.
Smarter conservatives are not as concerned about transparency or educating people on the issue; they have re-learned that directing the power of emotion is much more efficient and effective, and can be essentially mined from focus groups and applied broadly.


Q. What should liberals do to better sell their ideas?

A. Seek professional help; be concise, and go with humor and sincerity 9 times out of 10 (think John Stewart, but rapid online focus-grouping things for lameness). And once there is a message convince other liberal leaders of the value of that message with your survey/focus-group data and just REPEAT IT, don't expound on things and go all John Kerry, just FOCUS ON THE MESSAGE. Don't make bumper stickers; keep cool and stay classy.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, fox, news, polling, questions, election' to 'ron paul, fox, news, polling, questions, election, frank luntz' - edited by MrFisk

I've told you many times that your ideology is too corruptible to ever work in practice. I've also provided you with evidence that both your ideology and party have been heavily influenced by corporations. In the current election, corporations used your ideology -and heaps of cash- to buy a sizable chunk of the United States government. Grasping at straws my ass. I nailed it to the wall.

1 and 3. Taxes are a rudimentary part of all modern civilizations. Find me an example of a modern civilization that doesn't tax and then maybe, MAYBE, you will have the beginnings of an argument.

2. By living in a country, you tacitly agree to its laws. This is called a social contract. You don't sign a social contract. If you did, it would become a regular contract.

I think your arguments would have more traction if they didn't contain so many disingenuous emotional buzzwords: STATIST! TYRANNY! COERCION! THEFT! COMPULSORY! VIOLENCE! BUTT OF A GUN! Having to use forced and phony words to make a point is a telltale sign of a weak argument.

Do you know what corporate backed, free market loving party prints up lists of disingenuous emotional buzzwords for their foot soldiers to use?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/23/luntz

Just sayin'...

Because I don't need to. I know what the bill is designed to do, the information on the health care reform need has been circulating around for the last 30 or so years. I have outlined countless times that I don't agree with the Obama plan, but i understand its need to work with the insurance industry that is there and is actively lobbying for support in Washington. Because they don't want to cease to exist overnight. Am not the one trusting clearly what is a email circulation designed to undermine any rational discussion of health care reform. It's not the words. It's what people hear.

The opposition to health care from the right wing and republicans is so predictable, Frank Luntz warned the GOP back in May that health care reform is a issue that is gathering massive public support and outlined the exact kind of opposition that is seen now. With various foot soldiers taking far more extreme positions.

Because any one can see that if Obama's plan succeeds it would solidify a democratic majority for the next decade. The GOP are trying to mount an opposition that is only there to make sure they do not lose more political relevance. They won't succeed, but what they will do is muddle the argument enough that any success or credible path of change is nullified. So they can stay in the game.

Americans are buying it, forgetting the amount of no bidding government contracts that the GOP gave out during the Iraq war. Not really free market non government interventionist of them.

Fiscal conservatism is dead.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Frank Luntz / Arianna Huffington / Bill Maher. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'presidential, debate, obama, mccain, john, barack, president, election, 2008' to 'presidential, debate, obama, mccain, president, election08, frank luntz, f u frank' - edited by joedirt

I'm upvoting despite the title. Something like "Frank Luntz Talks With Focus Group After 1st Debate" would be better.

I think the most factually incorrect bit about this is that Luntz at the end said they wanted more details from Obama. Didn't everyone say he gave the most specifics, and that McCain only gave stories?

That's counter to the Fox/GOP storyline, but what they showed of the conversation with the focus group blew holes in it.

^ Can't get more biased than a Frank Luntz focus group -- and despite that, they said Obama won.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Palin, McCaing, RNC, Focus Group' to 'Palin, McCaing, RNC, Focus Group, frank luntz, F U FRANK' - edited by joedirt

^ Frank Luntz does this in a televised format all the time. I often wonder if he ever does them off-air.

Did the full segement explain the composition of the group? Were they Republican-leaning undecideds?

He does look a little worried by the end doesn't he?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'canadian, oil, tobacco, pr, fifth estate, cbc' to 'canadian, oil, tobacco, pr, fifth estate, cbc, spin, bias, frank luntz' - edited by fissionchips

I agree... They never mention Clinton or Obama, but they do mention Rudy, Mitt, and McCain. And Frank Luntz is important as well. Moreover, this is from Penn and Teller's BullShit.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ron Paul, Hillary, Clinton, Obama, Election08, Penn and Teller, Bullshit' to 'Ron Paul, Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Election08, Penn, Teller, Bullshit, Frank Luntz' - edited by MycroftHomlz

So why are Clinton and Obama tags on this post? I would think Frank Luntz, Penn, Teller, Polling would be better tags.

Luntz is just a corporate whore, he doesn't seem to care about the American people/way of life as long as he gets paid.