[Ninong]

This is not a joke post.

This is just one brief chart from a 160-page guide for Republican politicians by Republican political consultant Frank Luntz that I thought was quite revealing. George Orwell would be proud that DoubleSpeak is alive and well in the 21st. century.

You may be surprised to learn just how stupid the GOP thinks you really are.



APPENDIX: THE FOURTEEN WORDS NEVER TO USE

Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don’t say. Other times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people.

So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, these are the words never to say again.

1. NEVER SAY Government
INSTEAD SAY: Washington

The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington’s responsibility to fix it. “If we expect to succeed, we must look to ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and improve our day-to-day lives.” If you must talk about government, use the context defined by President Bush: “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.”


2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts
INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts

Many more Americans would “personalize” Social Security than “privatize” it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security while only one-third would privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.

3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification

While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was simplified—in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, something should be done to simplify the tax code.

4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax
INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax

While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, fully 78% think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death tax.

5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism
INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy

More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, something distant and something foreign. It’s the same reason why Americans like their local government but dislike Washington—the closer you are, the more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of globalization, instead emphasize “the value and benefits of a free market economy.” Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed.

6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing
INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation, Innovation, Education

When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the “root cause” why any company would not want to hire “the best workers in the world.” And the answer: “over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education.” Because it rhymes, it will be remembered.

7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers
INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens

The Dems have adopted the phrase “undocumented worker” but you shouldn’t. Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing “immigration reform,” which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about “border security” issues. Securing our borders and our people has universal support.

8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade
INSTEAD SAY: International Trade

For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word “foreign” conjures up negative images. Americans simply don’t like “foreign oil,” or “foreign products” or “foreign nationals.” International is a more positive concept than either foreign or global.

9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil
INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy

It’s the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our cars. When you talk about energy, use words like “responsible” and “balanced” and always address your concern for the environment.

10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform

The term “tort” has very little meaning to the average American, and at best reminds one of a French pastry. “Lawsuit Abuse” is something most Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add the word “frivolous.”

11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer
INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer

It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to get the full bang for the buck, call them “predatory personal injury lawyers.”

12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency
INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability

I constantly hear the need for “transparency” coming from members of the financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can’t even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy … and the government.

13. NEVER SAY School Choice
INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education

Americans are still evenly split over whether they support “school choice” in America’s schools. But they are heavily in favor of “giving parents the right to choose the schools that are right for their children,” and there is almost universal support for “equal opportunity in education.” So frame the issue right and you get the support you need.

14. NEVER SAY Health care “Choice”
INSTEAD SAY: “The Right to Choose”

This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost all Americans want “the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them,” but far fewer Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too many senior citizens.

[Reefland]

Where was this at? Is this in the "Government for Dummies" book that's given to all new Republican members?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Reefland

Where was this at? Is this in the "Government for Dummies" book that's given to all new Republican members?

It's a handbook for Republican politicians and their wives to teach them which catch words and phrases to use and which to avoid. Go to www.amazon.com (I think you're familiar with that site ) and do a search using Frank Luntz as the author and you will find other similar works. The particular 180-page booklet I took the above chart from is not available to the general public but it's probably similar to an earlier 80-page booklet by Dr. Luntz entitled "Conservatively Speaking." Amazon.com lists four books by this author but all of them are showing as out of print.

Here's a good example: If you can't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no problem. Just switch the debate to freedom and democracy in Iraq. Let's see the Democrats argue against that! During the President's State of the Union address, he used the words freedom or democracy a total of 42 times. He used the word Iraq a total of zero times. Norman Vincent Peale used to call that "the power of positive thinking."

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the administration's policies, you have to admit that Karl Rove has been quite adept at guiding the debate through the careful use of language. This is not something that is the exclusive domain of either political party, the pollsters have been doing exactly the same thing for decades. Change a word or two in your question and you can change the results dramatically. If that's the purpose of your poll, it called push polling. For example, one of the telephone questions asked of prospective white voters in South Carolina just a few days before the Republican primary in 2000 was "Would it change your opinion of Senator McCain if you knew that he had fathered an illigitimate black child?" This was a rather underhanded question since the truth is that Senator McCain and his wife have an adopted daughter who was an orphan in Bangladesh and yes, her skin is very dark: http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Bio.Home

More recently we have the example of former White House correspondent James D. Guckert (aka "Jeff Gannon") taking credit for getting Senator Harry Reid his promotion to Minority Leader. This is a reference to the push polling and other campaign services that Jim/"Jeff" performed for the Republican candidate and newly elected senator, John Thune, during his campaign against Tom Daschle. Jim/"Jeff" managed to somehow make room in his busy schedule for campaign assistance to John Thune in his successful race against Tom Daschle, while at the same time acting as the Washington Bureau Chief for the recently unplugged Talon News Service -- they are "reevaluating operations."

[Ninong]

Perhaps it's time for Dr. Luntz to write a companion book for Republicans with tips on how to dress for the occasion?

The recent holocaust memorial service in Poland was attended by representatives from governments around the world. One of those representatives seems to have thought he was going on a hunting trip.

[SPasse]

Ninong,

I may have to become active on this board again, just to post to your political threads.

Regards,

Scott

[NoSump]

Ninong:

Do you believe for a second that the DNC does not also engage in organized efforts to "control the party message"?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by NoSump

Ninong:

Do you believe for a second that the DNC does not also engage in organized efforts to "control the party message"?

Maybe the DNC needs to find the equivalent of a Roger Ailes to start up their own television news channel?

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Maybe the DNC needs to find the equivalent of a Roger Ailes to start up their own television news channel?

The DNC does have their news channels - there called NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC......

Roger Ailes is a master at the art of communication, but no matter how good he is, if there wasn't an audience for "Fair and Balanced" news, FOX NEWS would not be be such a success.

Chuck

[cofstl411]

Ninong,


Interesting post. Unfortunately, a large portion of the american public is stupid. They believe most of what they hear on the television instead of investigating the topic for themselves through other sources that are not skewed to the left. I am happy to see the trend is changing which is evident by the latest election results.

If you look at the terms listed in your post you will notice that these are tough topics to tackle and to say the Dems don't have their own vocabulary is ridiculous. C'mon, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". They have even redefined sexual relations. I guess he meant penetration. Sounds like double speak to me. Anyway, the topics listed in your post are tough topics of which the Dems never come up with a decent idea. They mostly wait for the republicans to come up with an idea and then say it disproportionately hurts the children, poor, disabled, and the elderly.

Gotta go remove an arrow crab!! Thanks for the political advice but I think I will stick to listening to your reefing advice which is pretty sound!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by cofstl411

Thanks for the political advice but I think I will stick to listening to your reefing advice which is pretty sound!

I didn't offer any political advice in this particular thread. I simply copied and pasted something from an official Republican Party guide.

[fishgeeksrus]

<Republicans here> {Practicing Republican vocabulary}

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by cofstl411

Ninong,


Interesting post. Unfortunately, a large portion of the american public is stupid. They believe most of what they hear on the television instead of investigating the topic for themselves through other sources that are not skewed to the left. I am happy to see the trend is changing which is evident by the latest election results.

If you look at the terms listed in your post you will notice that these are tough topics to tackle and to say the Dems don't have their own vocabulary is ridiculous. C'mon, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". They have even redefined sexual relations. I guess he meant penetration. Sounds like double speak to me. Anyway, the topics listed in your post are tough topics of which the Dems never come up with a decent idea. They mostly wait for the republicans to come up with an idea and then say it disproportionately hurts the children, poor, disabled, and the elderly.

Gotta go remove an arrow crab!! Thanks for the political advice but I think I will stick to listening to your reefing advice which is pretty sound!

Clinton must be the most powerful image ever seared into the Republican mindset, he even eclipses the Gipper.
Most Republicans cannot answer criticism on any topic without mentioning him.

Powerful, powerful stuff.
Clinton the eternal boogyman.

Anyway...
Why put forth any legislative effort when the Republicans are more than willing to do the heavy lifting and drop the boulder squarely on their own heads? It's counter productive.

The Fox News account of yesterdays vote on a resolution that all Republicans voted against (with the exception of like...3) stating that "Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt" says a lot.

Karen Hughes couldn't have arrived sooner.
The clown prince is well on his way to blowing two house majorities...

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by schrocat

The clown prince is well on his way to blowing two house majorities...

That's exactly what we want Dems to keep thinking - continue to stick with center/left policies (even though the country is obviously center/right), abuse the historic aplication of "advise and consent" in regard to judicial nominations, criticize every Republicn iniative without offering constructive alternatives, and look to international bodies such as the UN and EU for validation. Oh, and one more thing, continue to put "statesmen" like Ted "hic" Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd front and center with thier "measured and thoughtful" political rhetoric.

The Dems should keep doing exactly what they are doing, Why change what you're doing when it has been so successful!


Chuck

[schrocat]

Methinks somebody listens to Oxycontin boy too much.
Last time I checked, 10 nominees from coke head were contested.
Whereas 60 were contested from "I never inhaled" dude.

Remember the outrage?
No?
Neither do I.

...and that DeLay boy is a real charmer. A good, righteous man. Granted, he's about to implode in a few weeks under a deluge of indictments but at least he tried to change the ethics rules beforehand.
That shows...vision.

The only fiscal conservative left in the whole rotten barrel is McCain.
and again...I wonder when the first stone pings off his head, and who throws it. The only thing I can be sure of is the offenders party affiliation.

"Democrats waste taxpayers money and create huge budget deficits."
Remember that one?


Pendulum!
Duck!

[schrocat]

Fox
we distort, you comply...

from Media Matters.

"In advocating the so-called "nuclear option" to bar Senate filibusters against judicial nominees, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke gave misleading accounts of historical efforts to block nominees. On the March 15 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity declared that "this is the first time in history that this has been used against nominees that would be confirmed." The same day on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Kondracke said that "there's never been a judicial nomination that actually went to a filibuster, and the Democrats have filibustered a number of President Bush's nominees." In fact, Republicans filibustered several of then-President Clinton's ambassadorial and Justice Department appointments in the 1990s and attempted to filibuster Clinton's judicial nominees. Moreover, after the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 1995, they blocked approximately 60 Clinton judicial nominees, denying them votes on the Senate floor and denying most even a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In addition to the approximately 60 judicial nominees that the Republican-led Senate blocked without resorting to a filibuster, several Republican senators, including current Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), unsuccessfully attempted to filibuster other Clinton judicial nominees. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 13, 2003: "As recently as March 2000, several Republicans voted to filibuster two Californians whom President Clinton had named to the 9th Circuit appellate court: Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon. ... Ultimately, the Republican stalling tactics failed, and both jurists now sit on the appellate court." The Washington Post documented a third attempted filibuster of a Clinton judicial nominee on October 5, 1994: The Senate "voted 85 to 12 to cut off a filibuster against confirmation of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin as a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But Republicans continued to talk into the evening against Sarokin, whom they condemned as a 'liberal' and 'judicial activist.' "

As Judd Legum and Christy Harvey of the American Progress Action Fund noted in the March 3 issue of The Nation, Frist distorted the facts to defend his participation in the filibuster of the Paez nomination:

When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.

In the first several years of Clinton's presidency, Republicans in the Senate also used the filibuster to block several non-judicial nominees. The New York Times reported on October 8, 1993, that "[Sen. Jesse] Helms [R-NC] tied up the Senate for much of the day in a filibuster that he began Wednesday evening over the nomination of Mr. [Walter E.] Dellinger to become Assistant Attorney General for the office of legal counsel." Similarly, the Washington Post reported on May 25, 1994, that the Senate "failed by six votes to break a GOP-led filibuster against the ambassadorial nomination of one-time anti-Vietnam War activist Sam Brown."

Finally, Republicans did sustain a filibuster against the promotion of a Democratic president's judicial appointee in 1968. The Washington Post reported on December 13, 2004: "In 1968, Republicans filibustered President Lyndon B. Johnson's choice of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice, but Johnson withdrew the nomination in the face of Fortas's likely rejection by the Senate."

meeeemories...

[NoSump]

I guess that's the beauty of political dialog in this country - that both sides have plenty of ammunition from which to select to justify their positions.

I could easily point to CBS's use of forged documents and Moore's jokeumentary as a counter to the left's preoccupation with the "bias" of FOX News.

I could also attempt to explain to you that our legal system is based on legal precedents (stare decisis), and when new precedents are to be established they are to be done so only within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. The battle that has been waged for several years in regard to judicial appointments has to do with the Repulican preference for stict constructionist judges (those that render decisions based on constitutional constructs and not personal opionions and biases). On the other hand the Democrat's have attempted to skew the checks and balances that exist between our three branches of government by appointing "activist" judges that take on the role intended for the Legisislative branch by creating new laws through overreaching legal opinions (such as using the "establishment" clause in ways that it is clear that the original framers never intended). Frankly, Democrats view the manipulation of the courts as a means of conteracting the power that they have lost in the Legistlative and Executive branches. That is what this battle over judicial appointments is (and has been) all about.

The final issue that I always find incredibly hypocritical is when Democrats, who like to portray themselves as 'kinder gentler" and more "compasionate" people, take such obvious pleasure in things such as Rush Limbaugh's problems with abuse of prescription drugs, Ronald Reagan's altzimers disease, and Bill Bennet's gambling problem. I guess if you can get away with portraying Republicans as mean spirited racists, even though it was the Republicans that pushed through the landmark 1969 Voting Rights Act, and have appointed black American's to the top posts of our government (that's right, Repuplian minorities are not "real minorities") as a party, you come to believe that you can sell any hypocrocy.

The bottom line is that I am not going to change your opinion (nor are you going to change mine) one iota. We're a couple of fish geeks, pontificating about politics when we would probably have much more fun (and agreement) talking about skimmers, and snails.

Chuck

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by NoSump

...even though it was the Republicans that pushed through the landmark 1969 Voting Rights Act...

You probably mean the 1965 Voting Rights Act that Lyndon Johnson signed in August 1965. Yes, Southern Democrats opposed that law. Yes, the Rupublicans gained strength in the South after Johnson signed that law. A funny thing happened following 1965. Many of the "conservative" Southern Democracts switched parties and became Republicans. People like Billy Tauzin who would have been a Dixiecrat if Strom Thurmond had been elected, switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. People like Trent Lott, who worked for a Democratic congressman, decided to run as a Republican instead of a Democrat. For whatever reasons, many of the old line southern Democrats are more comfortable in the new Republican Party.

It is a fact of life that politics in the Deep South is polarized along racial lines and has been for the past thirty or forty years. There are precincts in certain areas of New Orleans that voted 98-99% Democratic in the last election. The precinct I live in (well outside N.O.) voted 86% Republican in the last election.

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by Ninong

There are precincts in certain areas of New Orleans that voted 98-99% Democratic in the last election. The precinct I live in (well outside N.O.) voted 86% Republican in the last election.

Ninong:

Thank you, I did mean the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Good old Huey Long country - LA must have some of the most colorful political characters in the country. You must feel as much out of place politically in your county, as I did for the 15 years that I lived in Northern California!

I live in a "blue state" now as well, but it's different. Voting preference in Delaware is more a funtion of family history (and Union or Non-Union membership) than of any meaningful analysis of candidates and issues.

There is no doubt that the electorate is highly polarized along racial and economic lines - In my opinion, unions and the civil rights "industry" have played a major role in that polarization.

In terms of vote count, I find it interesting that it's always the Democratic precints where higher vote turnouts than the number of registered voters occurs - I guess when you die, you become a Democrat. I'm surprised that Sen. Clinton did not include the diseased in her election reform recommendations to extend voting rights to convicted felons.

Chuck

[schrocat]

Your "attempt to explain to me" didn't work...sorry.

An "activist judge" is meerly a jurist who's opinion isn't liked.
Nothing more.

If a strict constitutionalist upheld Roe v Wade...he would then be tada "the newest activist judge".

"Privacy Rights" per say are on shaky ground anyway, so unfortunately I feel a little nervous letting a symanticly narrow minded individual scale back anything to appeal to a rabid 10% of the Republican party.

I just want my party back that's all.
Kick out the Taliban.
McCain 2008

P.S. Yes Rush is deservedly void of pity.
But give me a break...at 1,600mg a day it's not like he's feeling any pain over it.
Having to resort to having the ACLU bail him out, though embarrasing, isn't the justice he's spoken of in the past for people like himself.
I just want Rush to get some of the compassionate justice he has blustered about in some of his comments regard drug abusers.
Need a link?

[NoSump]

Originally Posted by schrocat

I feel a little nervous letting a symanticly narrow minded individual scale back anything to appeal to a rabid 10% of the Republican party.

The former President of the United States never recieved over 48% of the votes cast in either presidential election. When you don't agree with a party or an individual it's comforting to try and paint supporters as "out of the mainstream". Bush won a clear majority of the vote. If only a "rabid 10%" of the Republican party supported him and his policies he would be mending fences on his ranch today.

Originally Posted by schrocat

I just want my party back that's all.
Kick out the Taliban.

I assume that you are trying to alude that you are a former Republican - no offense, but B.S. You are as much of a Republican as I am a Sandinista! No Republican would compare members of his own party with whom he had an honest disagreement to a terrorist organization (that type of hyperbole is pure Democratic demagoguery).

In terms of McCain, his appeal to the left is directly proportional to the degree that he is percieved to be in conflict with Republican party policies. The truth is that if he ever became the nominee of the Republican party, your "unabiased" media, and leftist supporters would turn on him even quicker than they turned on Lieberman. Only the terminally naive would believe that McCain is fundamentally out of sync with the values of the Republican party. Despite his open disagreements with GW, he shares the core values of the Republican Party. If you believe any differently, you probably believe Hillary Clinton's recent move to the center is sincere.

As a final point, I don't quite get the conection between ones net financial worth/medication strength and entitlement to sympathy/compassion/understanding. To assume that ones wealth mitigates personal problems is decidely pedestrian.

As I said, it is doubtful that you and I can agree on anything political. In my profession, I know when I have an opportunity to change minds and influence opinions, and when I don't. In this case, it's obvious that I'm not going to change your opinion about anything, so what type of soft corals do you have?

Chuck