Frank Luntz Teaches GOP Governors How to Lie More Effectively

Pure cynicism

PoliticsDecember 2011 • Views: 22,627

Just when you think you’ve seen the utter depths of Republican cynicism, along comes a right wing flack like Frank Luntz to take it even lower: How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street.

Luntz is now advising the Republican Governors Association on how to properly lie to the American public about Occupy Wall Street, and how to keep the working class in their places.

ORLANDO, Fla. — The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about “income inequality” and “paying your fair share.”

The dishonesty is stunning — or it would be if I were still capable of being stunned by right wing dishonesty. Get a load of this piece of advice from Luntz:

Don’t say ‘bonus!’

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.’”

Jump to bottom

109 comments

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 9:53:53am

Don’t say ‘bonus!’
Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.’”

The kind of employees who receive bonuses will get them even if their performance sucks.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 9:55:52am

I wonder if his advice got him a bonus.

reidr Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:02:47am

Can we start referring to him as wormtongue? This whole art of manipulation is pretty disgusting, especially when applied to politics.

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:03:00am

Frank Luntz doesn't actually think that giving out bonuses will make people angry. That's BS. The point is to eliminate the idea of generosity, and tie any "bonuses" to "performance."

Producing good little worker bees trying their best to work ever harder for the boss.

dragonfire1981 Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:04:37am

It's not "pay for performance", it's "pay for just showing and up and knowing the right people/and or kissing the right persons butt."

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:05:21am

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

You should be scared you pig. Occupy is going to help take capitalism back from greedy assholes just like you.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:05:43am

Performance. As in losing millions and ruining the economy?

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:06:02am

re: #4 Charles

Frank Luntz doesn't actually think that giving out bonuses will make people angry. That's BS. The point is to eliminate the idea of generosity, and tie any "bonuses" to "performance."

Producing good little worker bees trying their best to work ever harder for the boss.

But bonuses are not tied to performance, not really. How else do you explain the BP executives demanding their "bonus" after the worst fuck-up the Gulf of Mexico ever experienced--which was entirely caused by those very same executives cutting corners on safety regulations.

Varek Raith Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:08:38am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

You should be scared you pig. Occupy is going to help take capitalism back from greedy assholes just like you.

Damn!

Varek Raith Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:09:06am

re: #8 Alouette

But bonuses are not tied to performance, not really. How else do you explain the BP executives demanding their "bonus" after the worst fuck-up the Gulf of Mexico ever experienced--which was entirely caused by those very same executives cutting corners on safety regulations.

Weren't they the ones that got 'safety bonuses'?

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:09:56am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,”

I can just hear him saying that in a 7th-gradey, girlie voice. Eww, eww!

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:02am

Luntz is seeing himself as the Right's Alinsky?

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:15am

I've received bonuses from musical tours I've done, and I never once got angry about them.

Who the hell does Luntz think is going to get "angry" about being paid extra money? That is so wacky it makes my head hurt.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:15am

re: #8 Alouette

We've all seen CEO's who get big fat severance checks after poor performances.

It's almost as if at that level, huge payouts are considered normal, not exceptional.

Not sure how to fix that, because forcibly taking money from the rich has never historically produced prosperity for the lower classes. Still, that level of greed appalls me.

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:19am

re: #10 Varek Raith

Weren't they the ones that got 'safety bonuses'?

That was referring to their own personal financial safety net, not the livelihoods and environmental impact to millions.

Simply Sarah Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:26am

re: #4 Charles

Frank Luntz doesn't actually think that giving out bonuses will make people angry. That's BS. The point is to eliminate the idea of generosity, and tie any "bonuses" to "performance."

Producing good little worker bees trying their best to work ever harder for the boss.

Well, it could be used in two ways, both which are aimed at screwing over the average worker. That's what makes it so diabolically brilliant.

In reference to the kinds of bonuses that everyone at a company gets (And are often fixed amounts or ratios based on pay) and tend to be expected as extra money, then it can be used to try and move employees away from feeling entitled to share in the success of the company.

On the other hand, you could also use the exact same phrase to try and explain away why executives and the like get 6+ figure bonuses while the average employee gets little or nothing.

makeitstop Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:11:41am

Luntz instructed attendees to tell protesters that they “get it”: “First off, here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ … ‘I get that you’re. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.”

I submit that neither Luntz nor the liars he's giving lying instructions to will ever 'get it.'

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:12:01am

Luntz isn't talking about CEO bonuses, folks -- he's talking about employee bonuses.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:12:58am

re: #13 Charles

I've received bonuses from musical tours I've done, and I never once got angry about them.

Who the hell does Luntz think is going to get "angry" about being paid extra money? That is so wacky it makes my head hurt.

I think he thinks that we look at the bonuses of executives in businesses that aren't doing so well and wonder:

???????

In which case "pay for performance" doesn't exactly work, either. "Pay for failure, but you're one of 'us,'" really sucks lemons, though.

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:13:09am

re: #13 Charles

I've received bonuses from musical tours I've done, and I never once got angry about them.

Who the hell does Luntz think is going to get "angry" about being paid extra money? That is so wacky it makes my head hurt.

He thinks the lower-tier employees, the ones who are so lucky to receive a $50 gift card for "performance", not to mention the tens of thousand who are laid off to "save money" are going to get angry when they see the 1%'ers receive millions.

albusteve Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:13:32am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

You should be scared you pig. Occupy is going to help take capitalism back from greedy assholes just like you.

lobbying rules?
campaign finance?
congressional insider trading?
where is this change coming from? and how do you separate WS from govt?

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:14:10am

re: #18 Charles

Luntz isn't talking about CEO bonuses, folks -- he's talking about employee bonuses.

Last year I received a $50 gift card.

This year I am getting a week off. Without pay!

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:14:43am

re: #18 Charles

Luntz isn't talking about CEO bonuses, folks -- he's talking about employee bonuses.

Well in that case, I really don't get it, because most employees can track and see how the company is doing, and can see if the bonus matches the "extra" prosperity.

Although ESPP's and stock options are considered the norm in high tech companies.

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:14:57am

Read what he said:

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.’”

He's not trying to teach them how to spin executive bonuses.

iossarian Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:15:11am

re: #22 Alouette

Last year I received a $50 gift card.

This year I am getting a week off. Without pay!

Just wait 'til you see what Santa Capitalism's got in his big black sack for you next year.

Lidane Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:16:07am

re: #24 Charles

Read what he said:

He's not trying to teach them how to spin executive bonuses.

He's also automatically making the holidays a time of financial hardship.

dragonfire1981 Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:16:47am

Good grief. Here are some more of Luntz's "tips" and my response to each.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

Capitalism is not in and of itself immoral and of course we prefer capitalism to socialism, but that completely ignores a whole TON of middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism. That's like saying: "Would you rather it be 120 degrees outside or 40 below?"

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

Takes from the rich?? What? WHAT?! The government GIVES so much to the rich (usually at the expense of the middle class) that this talking point is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard.

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"

Hey Frank. The economy is in the tank. Nobody is hiring. In ANY INDUSTRY. I guarantee you there are people out there who would be happy to manage a Mcdonald's for $13/hr than sit at home, barely scraping by. Careers are great, but right now America needs all kinds of JOBS and we needed them yesterday.

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

This is the one that shot my WTF meter all the way up to 11. I'm going to page a more detailed response to this one in a bit, but suffice to say that politics is supposed to be ABOUT COMPROMISE. The whole point of a two party system is that we present two different viewpoints, talk it over and meet somewhere in the middle. Compromise and Cooperation are NOT the same thing. The way it's being presented here is: "You can either corporate with me or you'll get screwed" not "Let's work together to fix this."

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'
Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

How come so many of these so-called "job creators" seem to be better at killing jobs than "creating" them? In fact the only jobs they seem to be good at creating are gardeners, maids and butlers for whatever new mansion they've bought this week.

This also makes it seem as if apparently America has so many innovators that we don't even need to identify them anymore. Wait..what's that you say is happening in China?

10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

Long version: Always blame Washington when there's a nasty Democrat in the White House.

No matter how bad you fuck up, remember, it's all Obama's fault.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:17:52am

re: #27 dragonfire1981

Who has a problem with the word entrepreneur? I always picture a guy with a soldering iron in his garage, or a mom perfecting a recipe.

NJDhockeyfan Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:18:12am

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:18:43am

Capitalism and the Free Market have become more than mere mechanisms for running and managing an economy, they are matters of ideology, the things that define and identify us as a ntion and a culture.

Therefore, casting doubts or aspersions on them is tanamount to hating America and The Freedoms We Stand For.

iossarian Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:19:00am

re: #28 EmmmieG

Who has a problem with the word entrepreneur? I always picture a guy with a soldering iron in his garage, or a mom perfecting a recipe.

I don't have a problem with the word, but I do have a problem with right-wing assholes who pretend that, if only we slashed taxes to zero, someone would magically appear and offer everyone a job.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:19:10am

In 2008, we had to take a 5% pay cut. The entire company did.

Except for the CEO and founder.

He took his salary down to $1.

It was...comforting. It made it easier to take. It showed that he got it.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:19:19am

re: #21 albusteve

lobbying rules?
campaign finance?
congressional insider trading?
where is this change coming from? and how do you separate WS from govt?

The change will be a groundswell of support across the board for changes like re regulating certain banking practices. Lobbying money rules. Eventually OWS will be spending money on campaigns.

Simply Sarah Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:19:58am

re: #24 Charles

Read what he said:

He's not trying to teach them how to spin executive bonuses.

I still stand by my statement that it can used to spin both at the same time.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:22:21am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

Bracket creep is back.

Simply Sarah Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:22:49am

re: #32 EmmmieG

In 2008, we had to take a 5% pay cut. The entire company did.

Except for the CEO and founder.

He took his salary down to $1.

It was...comforting. It made it easier to take. It showed he got it.

Was he still getting massive bonuses or other pay outs, though? Hate to be so skeptical, but I know that sort of thing is often used mostly for optics, rather than actually being a sacrifice.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:23:37am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

Obdicut, you out there?

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:24:18am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

You know that progressive tax doesn't work that way, don't you?

NJDhockeyfan Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:25:11am

re: #38 oaktree

You know that progressive tax doesn't work that way, don't you?

Well he feels like he got hosed.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:26:34am

re: #36 Simply Sarah

Was he still getting massive bonuses or other pay outs, though? Hate to be so skeptical, but I know that sort of thing is often used mostly for optics, rather than actually being a sacrifice.

I don't remember, which given that my husband pays attention to this kind of thing, probably means either no, or yes but with justification.

Simply Sarah Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:26:35am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

If that happened, it means that the company isn't doing his withholdings correctly. It should only be applying the higher rate on the fraction of the month's pay that went into the higher bracket.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:27:28am

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

Bracket creep is back.

Bracket creep describes the process by which inflation pushes wages and salaries into higher tax brackets.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

wrenchwench Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:28:00am

10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

I've seen that here, and I've heard it locally, but never from an OWS supporter. People like to offer bad advice to people they disagree with. Making it Wall Street instead of DC was one of the smart strategies. DC does nothing that might anger the lobbyists.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:29:03am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

That's not actually possible, except in esoteric cases where he's taking advantage of some tax credit only available at the lower income levels. With simple progressive taxation, it can't work that way-- you don't get taxed a higher rate on your entire income.

Do you know what tax credit he was using?

recusancy Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:34:07am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

Your boss is a moron who doesn't understand progressive taxation.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:34:47am

re: #44 Obdicut

That's not actually possible, except in esoteric cases where he's taking advantage of some tax credit only available at the lower income levels. With simple progressive taxation, it can't work that way-- you don't get taxed a higher rate on your entire income.

Do you know what tax credit he was using?

I have heard of cases like that, it simply kicks in a mechanism that deducts more from that month's paycheck, but it comes back out at the end of the year when you file your taxes.

makeitstop Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:34:56am

re: #44 Obdicut

Do you know what tax credit he was using?

The one that Republicans talk about when they want to scare people about taxes.
/

Kragar Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:37:40am

Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should ‘Clean The Bathroom’

Conceding ever so slightly to flak he’s taken for calling child labor laws “stupid” and suggesting that schools fire janitors and replace with them poor kids, GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich got more specific today, saying working-class students should be limited to jobs like cleaning bathrooms. Bowing to concerns that janitorial work is dangerous, Gingrich floated, “What if they became assistant janitors and their jobs were to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?”

blueraven Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:37:50am

re: #32 EmmmieG

In 2008, we had to take a 5% pay cut. The entire company did.

Except for the CEO and founder.

He took his salary down to $1.

It was...comforting. It made it easier to take. It showed that he got it.

That's exactly what happened at Mr blueravens company.
However the CEO is so damn rich with company stock, he is set for life. Still, I like him very much. He has been more than fair with employees over the years. Nobody at the company begrudges his fortune.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:38:26am

re: #48 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What an asshole.

lostlakehiker Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:38:49am

re: #6 Rightwingconspirator

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation’s foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

You should be scared you pig. Occupy is going to help take capitalism back from greedy assholes just like you.

"Occupy" has no intention of "taking back" capitalism. Back? As if "Occupy Wall Street" once owned capitalism?

From time to time, the meanings of words shift. If one has in mind the original meaning, one must use the new word that carries the old meaning, for the new word has changed meaning. I cannot say that a bouquet of flowers is gay, any more.

And if I wish to talk about people whose yearly income is partly a pre-agreed minimum, and partly given out at the end of the year based on performance, then I cannot call the part that's given out at the end of the year a bonus, because nowadays, bonus means unearned, unwarranted extra income. You know, the kind that Fannie Mae's head James Johnson, and before him Franklin Raines, managed to notch up with the connivance of friends in Congress such as Barney Frank. [The performance targets were fiddled, and the numbers that were supposed to be met to reach the targets were also fiddled, and investigators were warned off by Congressional threats. Details in Gretchen Morgenson's book on Fannie and Freddie.]

There was a lot of that going on, and there's probably a lot of it still going on given that Fannie and Freddie have still not been reformed. Nor have Goldman Sachs or Bank of America. But why would we even hope for any reform? Look who's in power, and look who's contributing to them.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:40:01am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

Can't happen. Absent really weird facts, added income is always additive.

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:40:29am

re: #48 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should ‘Clean The Bathroom’

If you don't have professionals cleaning those bathrooms, they will become toxic biohazards in no time.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:40:52am

re: #51 lostlakehiker

"Occupy" has no intention of "taking back" capitalism. Back? As if "Occupy Wall Street" once owned capitalism?

From time to time, the meanings of words shift. If one has in mind the original meaning, one must use the new word that carries the old meaning, for the new word has changed meaning. I cannot say that a bouquet of flowers is gay, any more.

And if I wish to talk about people whose yearly income is partly a pre-agreed minimum, and partly given out at the end of the year based on performance, then I cannot call the part that's given out at the end of the year a bonus, because nowadays, bonus means unearned, unwarranted extra income. You know, the kind that Fannie Mae's head James Johnson, and before him Franklin Raines, managed to notch up with the connivance of friends in Congress such as Barney Frank. [The performance targets were fiddled, and the numbers that were supposed to be met to reach the targets were also fiddled, and investigators were warned off by Congressional threats. Details in Gretchen Morgenson's book on Fannie and Freddie.]

There was a lot of that going on, and there's probably a lot of it still going on given that Fannie and Freddie have still not been reformed. Nor have Goldman Sachs or Bank of America. But why would we even hope for any reform? Look who's in power, and look who's contributing to them.

They want to "take back" capitalism as in "taking it back to the store for a refund".

Killgore Trout Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:40:55am

Islamists Say They Have Mandate in Egypt Voting

The party formed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s mainstream Islamist group, appeared to have taken about 40 percent of the vote, as expected. But a big surprise was the strong showing of ultraconservative Islamists, called Salafis, many of whom see most popular entertainment as sinful and reject women’s participation in voting or public life.

Analysts in the state-run news media said early returns indicated that Salafi groups could take as much as a quarter of the vote, giving the two groups of Islamists combined control of nearly 65 percent of the parliamentary seats.

That victory came at the expense of the liberal parties and youth activists....

Bummer

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:41:20am

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Islamists Say They Have Mandate in Egypt Voting

Bummer

Self-determination is a bitch.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:43:08am

re: #51 lostlakehiker

Yes, taking back. Taking back the balance of power from wildly pro corporate policies to a more checks and balances based approach. OWS never owned capitalism, the consumer base does. Which is exactly who occupy supports. If the general desire of this re balancing can happen it will be with OWS on the front lines along with voters and some unions etc. And that is how we the average citizen / consumer / employee hopes to address your final paragraph.

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:43:11am

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Islamists Say They Have Mandate in Egypt Voting

Bummer

what's going on? We were so assured that the "Tahrir Square" protestors were totally against the MB!
//

Killgore Trout Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:44:01am

Breaking News: Jackson Browne now performing live at Zuccoti Park.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:44:06am

re: #58 Alouette

I thought we were assured the MB is moderate. I must have read the wrong meme.

Kragar Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:44:25am

Michele Bachamann: Gays Can Marry People Of The Opposite Sex

Michele Bachmann told a group of supporters in Waverly, Iowa yesterday afternoon that gay and lesbian people should have “no special rights” to marry people of the same sex, insisting that “the laws are you marry a person of the opposite sex.” Iowa actually began allowing same-sex couples to marry in 2009, but Bachmann, oblivious to the growing acceptance of marriage equality, explained that prohibitions against such marriages don’t discriminate against gay people since they can always marry partners of the opposite sex:

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:44:45am

re: #60 Rightwingconspirator

I thought we were assured the MB is moderate. I must have read the wrong meme.

MB was never moderate, except maybe among the Hamas crowd.

Killgore Trout Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:44:50am

re: #58 Alouette

what's going on? We were so assured that the "Tahrir Square" protestors were totally against the MB!
//

Yeah. Oh, well. Not much could have been done to stop it anyways. What's done is done.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:47:20am

re: #62 Alouette

I should have sarced that. My bad.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:47:53am

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

This is the sort of muddled thinking that these people engage in: a church can define "holy matrimony" as being between a man and a woman only.

But the civil institution of marriage is not identical with holy matrimony as described by many churches. For a long time, Catholics, for example, did not recognize divorce and continued to consider divorced couples as being united in matrimony.

I do not care if it is called marriage or civil union or whatever, I believe that people of the same sex should be able to enter into the same the rights, obligations and priveleges that go to any and all married couples.

Interesting Times Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:49:12am

re: #45 recusancy

Your boss is a moron who doesn't understand progressive taxation.

Among other things:

I just told my boss it was an urban legend. He said 'Do it anyway!'.

He would fall for anything.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:49:51am

re: #65 ralphieboy

This is the sort of muddled thinking that these people engage in: a church can define "holy matrimony" as being between a man and a woman only.

But the civil institution of marriage is not identical with holy matrimony as described by many churches. For a long time, Catholics, for example, did not recognize divorce and continued to consider divorced couples as being united in matrimony.

I do not care if it is called marriage or civil union or whatever, I believe that people of the same sex should be able to enter into the same the rights, obligations and priveleges that go to any and all married couples.

Exactly right. Churches can do whatever they want. Their definition of marriage is irrelevant. It's the state's that matters, because that's what controls things like tax status, inheritance, health care rights and the rest.

lostlakehiker Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:50:59am

re: #27 dragonfire1981

Good grief. Here are some more of Luntz's "tips" and my response to each.

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

Takes from the rich?? What? WHAT?! The government GIVES so much to the rich (usually at the expense of the middle class) that this talking point is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard.

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

This is the one that shot my WTF meter all the way up to 11. I'm going to page a more detailed response to this one in a bit, but suffice to say that politics is supposed to be ABOUT COMPROMISE. The whole point of a two party system is that we present two different viewpoints, talk it over and meet somewhere in the middle. Compromise and Cooperation are NOT the same thing. The way it's being presented here is: "You can either corporate with me or you'll get screwed" not "Let's work together to fix this."

AS TO "compromise"---couldn't agree more. Anyone who agrees to hold elective office is duty bound to look for compromises. It's part of the rules. No single representative, no faction, no branch of government is given the power it would need to spurn compromise.

AS TO "taking from the rich"---
What does the government give to the rich, as a whole? We're not talking what the government gives to particularly well placed rich, such as members of Congress who trade stocks on inside info, or lobbyists, or executives for Solyndra or investors who were looking at a big loss on that company's stock. Just, the rich, in general?

The government collects a boatload of taxes from the rich. Their incomes are, by definition, so large that social security is irrelevant to this class. They are taxed at something like 35 or 38 percent, unless they make their money via capital gains. [If they're scoring capital gains, we'd have to ask what their incomes would have looked like had the original purchase price been indexed for inflation.] This is not to say that the rich are being oppressed. Of course those who make boatloads of money should pay quite a bit in taxes. But whether that rate should be bumped up to 40, or whether capital gains should be indexed but then also taxed as ordinary income, is another story. Nobody serious thinks the rate should go to 80 or 90, for the simple reason that at confiscatory rates, the rich will find something else to do than beaver away making money for the government.

albusteve Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:51:32am

re: #59 Killgore Trout

Breaking News: Jackson Browne now performing live at Zuccoti Park.

the tall guy?

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:51:49am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

If he's willing to complain about it, do you think he'd be willing to share his gross/with holdings/net for last paycheck versus this pay check? :)

Charles Johnson Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:53:30am

re: #58 Alouette

what's going on? We were so assured that the "Tahrir Square" protestors were totally against the MB!
//

There are plenty of young Egyptians who took part in the protests who want nothing to do with Islamist parties. But the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi groups had well-established political organizations already in place, and it looks like they simply moved into the power vacuum and took advantage of that.

The military has the real power in Egypt, though, and we could see another outright military takeover before this finishes shaking out.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:57:07am

re: #57 Rightwingconspirator

OWS never owned capitalism, the consumer base does.

Romantic.

Targetpractice Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:58:47am

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Michele Bachamann: Gays Can Marry People Of The Opposite Sex

I imagine alot of folks thought the same thing during the Civil Rights era. "You're still getting to your stop, so it's not discrimination that you have to sit at the back of the bus!" Or, most glaringly, "You can still get married, it just has to be to your own race!"

Romantic Heretic Thu, Dec 1, 2011 10:59:58am

They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.

Um, I'm sorry, Mr. Luntz. But the people you are defending are not capitalists. They are executive employees and speculators for the most part.

If they were capitalists they'd have lost their shirts when the market crashed along with the rest of us.

What's really funny is the people who hate Marxism so much are going out of their way to prove that his analysis of capitalism was correct. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Killgore Trout Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:00:09am

re: #71 Charles

The military has the real power in Egypt, though, and we could see another outright military takeover before this finishes shaking out.

Sadly, that seems to be the best we can hope for.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:00:18am

re: #71 Charles

I thought the MB were the only ones with significant political organization. Wonder which parts of the country showed strongest for Salafists.

Anyhoo, going forward this will probably be a lot more about the internal strife in the MB (young versus old) than before.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:00:40am

re: #75 Killgore Trout

Sadly, that seems to be the best we can hope for.

You hope for a military coup?

recusancy Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:00:49am

How about we let Egypt handle its own business.

jamesfirecat Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:03:05am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

That should be impossible given America's progressive tax bracket structure shouldn't it?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:03:18am

re: #58 Alouette

what's going on? We were so assured that the "Tahrir Square" protestors were totally against the MB!
//

The Revolutionaries were not the MB. Actually, the coalitions most representative of the revolutionary forces are the socialist coalition (aptly named "The Revolution continues") and the left-nationalist liberals.

lostlakehiker Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:04:40am

re: #65 ralphieboy

This is the sort of muddled thinking that these people engage in: a church can define "holy matrimony" as being between a man and a woman only.

But the civil institution of marriage is not identical with holy matrimony as described by many churches. For a long time, Catholics, for example, did not recognize divorce and continued to consider divorced couples as being united in matrimony.

I do not care if it is called marriage or civil union or whatever, I believe that people of the same sex should be able to enter into the same the rights, obligations and priveleges that go to any and all married couples.

That's actually a compromise position. The hard position is that the word "marriage" must be part of the package.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:05:16am

re: #55 Killgore Trout

Islamists Say They Have Mandate in Egypt Voting

Bummer

You realize that the voting that took place only represents voters from Mid and southern Egypt East of the Nile and West of the Red Sea. (there are a couple of other small chunks but for this purpose, that's what we're seeing vote).

The Second round of voting will be Northern Egypt near the Nile River as well as the area around the Canal Zone. This takes place the 4th and 5th Dec (IIRC)

Then they have one more Round of voting for the Sinai and Western Egypt. Which takes place mid December.

Then they have voting for the upper Chamber, which takes place sometime from January to March.

about 2/3rds of all the seats are assigned in proportion to the voting results, with the remaining 1/3 being based on specific candidates running for a specific district and receiving a majority (else run off).

It's a complicated and wonky system. but basically 22% of the total seats from this round are assigned by proportional balloting. and I can't seem to find results for the remaining 11% that gives party representation.

Anyone have a link to detailed results?

wrenchwench Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:05:38am

re: #78 recusancy

How about we let Egypt handle it's own business.

With or without $1.7-some billion in annual contributions from the US?

Romantic Heretic Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:06:06am

re: #14 EmmmieG

We've all seen CEO's who get big fat severance checks after poor performances.

It's almost as if at that level, huge payouts are considered normal, not exceptional.

Not sure how to fix that, because forcibly taking money from the rich has never historically produced prosperity for the lower classes. Still, that level of greed appalls me.

The problem is that these people are delusional. They think they are capitalists and they think all capitalists make scads of money. Neither proposition is true.

Nothing some psychotherapy and medication can't fix. Probably. But it's sad when the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

HappyWarrior Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:06:46am

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Michele Bachamann: Gays Can Marry People Of The Opposite Sex

"No special rights." Like having their marriage treated the same as a man and woman's under the law. Oh that's equal rights. I suppose she thinks minorities in the 60's were demanding "special" rights not to be placed in substandard schools too. So sick of the bullshit spread by her and other anti gay bigots saying gays want special rights. She wants special rights for straight couples.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:07:00am

re: #83 wrenchwench

With or without $1.7-some billion in annual contributions from the US?

Does that buy us the right to name their government?

lostlakehiker Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:07:31am

re: #75 Killgore Trout

Sadly, that seems to be the best we can hope for.

It's not a realistic prospect. The Cold War is over. The U.S. will not send enough money to the Egyptian military to allow it take and hold power. Without the consent of the governed, the Egyptian economy cannot generate enough money to maintain a military regime in the style its police arm would expect, in exchange for its loyalty.

wrenchwench Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:07:39am

re: #86 garhighway

Does that buy us the right to name their government?

I don't think so.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:08:05am

I think of democracy not as of any "good", but, like Churchill (IIRC), as the least of all evils. That is in general, though. Sometimes democracy works against freedom.

garhighway Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:09:42am

re: #88 wrenchwench

I don't think so.

I agree.

Being who we are, don't we have to stick to the "a democratically elected government is a good thing" position and then try to moderate the behaviors we don't like through trade and diplomacy?

When we extol democracy and then try to undermine it when we don't like who wins, we beclown ourselves.

recusancy Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:10:12am

re: #83 wrenchwench

With or without $1.7-some billion in annual contributions from the US?

With. If they choose a path hostile to our interests, without. Let them choose their own path first.

wrenchwench Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:11:41am

re: #90 garhighway

I agree.

Being who we are, don't we have to stick to the "a democratically elected government is a good thing" position and then try to moderate the behaviors we don't like through trade and diplomacy?

When we extol democracy and then try to undermine it when we don't like who wins, we beclown ourselves.

Some people boycotted the election because of the violence in Tahrir Square. The diplomacy is very complex.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:11:57am

re: #89 Sergey Romanov

Democracy is the least evil form of government, but it doesn't cure everything. Hungary just democratically enshrined bigotry into their new Constitution.

The democracy is only as good as the politically active people in that democracy, and it it's usually worse thanks to the corruptive power of money treated as speech.

wilburs Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:13:34am

re: #61 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Michele Bachamann: Gays Can Marry People Of The Opposite Sex

The only problem is that the "laws" don't say that

see: MA and IA Constitutions.

HappyWarrior Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:15:34am

re: #94 wilburs

The only problem is that the "laws" don't say that

see: MA and IA Constitutions.

pfft constitutions aren't Michelle's God's word ergo they're invalid.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:17:44am

re: #93 Obdicut

Yep, yep. Taken at its most literal, democracy is mob rule, ochlocracy. However, if we include in the def. of democracy the inviolable rights of the minorities (i.e., to make an extreme example, the majority cannot authorize killing of a minority for non-military/judicial reasons; I don't mean death penalty or war killings as such, of course) , then we should judge what happens in Egypt and elsewhere through this lens - if they institute even more strict religious/authoritarian laws, curtail freedoms, then it's not a democracy by that definition. Not a liberal democracy in any case. Regardless of how an Islamist party came to power.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:23:12am

re: #89 Sergey Romanov

. Sometimes democracy works against freedom.

Could be, but I have never heard of tyranny working for freedom.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:23:18am

re: #82 bloodstar

(Conversations with myself now... They have drugs for that)

Ok, So far what I can tell, there are a total of 168 seats up for grabs out of the 498 elected total (10 additional seats are appointed by the president). which is almost exactly 1/3rd of the seats. So, if MB has 40% of the vote and the Salafis has 25% in a worst case scenario. then they out of the 110 seats up for grabs in the proportional voting, the MB will get 44, and the Salafis will get 27.

Also of note the MB denies they'll work with the Salafis, though I take that claim with a grain of salt.

Romantic Heretic Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:23:50am

re: #48 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Gingrich Doubles Down On Child Labor: Poor Kids Should ‘Clean The Bathroom’

I worked as a janitor for a while. It was in a place that used to be a distillery that had been converted into a cultural space. Artists, art galleries, theatre companies, restaurants etc.

Because it was a sprawling complex and security wasn't tight the local homeless population, which had increased a great deal when we had a 'conservative' premier and not reversed when 'liberals' took over, had discovered they could use one of the more isolated bathrooms. They did so until security tightened up, and the bathroom became too filthy even for them to use.

I got the job of cleaning that out. One urinal, one toilet and one sink took an hour and a half to clean. I started the job by shovelling old faeces into a garbage bag with my gloved hands. Then spent half an hour scrubbing the faeces encrusted toilet and urinal down. It was pretty much like a normal clean after that. It was a hideously unpleasant job and I'm amazed I didn't catch something horrible from it.

There's no way I'd want any kid to do that job. I do want Mr. Gingrich to do it just so he can finally have a reality check.

100

sagehen Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:27:12am

re: #90 garhighway

When we extol democracy and then try to undermine it when we don't like who wins, we beclown ourselves.

My father used to say "there's nothing more democratic than a lynch mob -- it's nearly unanimous, there's only one dissenting vote."

101

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:28:16am

re: #97 ralphieboy

Could be, but I have never heard of tyranny working for freedom.

Sure, but that's not what one would expect either. We're talking about lesser evils here. If democracy doesn't work out, it's permissible to wonder if a dictator was not a lesser evil - in some circumstances, of course.

To put it more formally, what's less evil, a formal (non-liberal) democracy (mob rule) that presents a threat to minorities, or an "enlightened" (relatively, of course) dictator that protects minorities while not overly oppressing the majority (beyond the need to save his own power)?

102

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Dec 1, 2011 11:47:27am

re: #29 NJDhockeyfan

My boss is upset about this month's paycheck. He got a $100 bonus which put him in a higher tax bracket and it lowered his net pay.

We don't believe you

103

TedStriker Thu, Dec 1, 2011 12:28:58pm

re: #20 Alouette

He thinks the lower-tier employees, the ones who are so lucky to receive a $50 gift card for "performance", not to mention the tens of thousand who are laid off to "save money" are going to get angry when they see the 1%'ers receive millions.

And, on that point, he'd be right. It pisses me off to see CEOs get paid major coin, even after running their companies in the ground and putting their peons out of work...it just ain't right and it takes a twisted, amoral shitheel to think that it is right.

104

kirkspencer Thu, Dec 1, 2011 12:29:58pm

re: #102 WindUpBird

We don't believe you

Actually, some of us do. Sort of. I believe he got a $100 bonus, and that a higher portion of his income was deducted. If he says he got a $100 bonus and his total takehome went down, then I'd doubt it.

Thing is, there are peculiarities in various accounting software when dealing with exceptions, and bonuses are exceptions. So it's possible he got bit by one of those.

As Simply Sarah noted, if he has other credits and tax adjustments in place they can also have an effect. However, it will come out in the annual balance reconciliation (aka final tax forms). If he still claims he's getting less because he jumped brackets, he's mistaken, lying, or got caught trying to use complexities to minimize payments that he was no longer eligible to receive.

105

Stephen T. Thu, Dec 1, 2011 1:28:08pm

re: #32 EmmmieG

In 2008, we had to take a 5% pay cut. The entire company did.

Except for the CEO and founder.

He took his salary down to $1.

It was...comforting. It made it easier to take. It showed that he got it.

I worked for a company that did the same thing, except the CEO was awarded a bonus, excuse me, performance pay at the end of the year that was greater than the income of the company, not greater than the profit, greater than the income, they took out a loan while in crisis mode to pay him. We all wondered what the pay cuts were for.

106

Dark_Falcon Thu, Dec 1, 2011 5:17:49pm

I would remind everyone that all Frank Luntz is doing is teaching the same 'rephrase' tactics to the GOP that George Lakoff taught to the Democrats a few years ago. And it's something I do in sales all the time. Nothing evil about it at all.

107

Interesting Times Thu, Dec 1, 2011 6:36:47pm

re: #106 Dark_Falcon

IAnd it's something I do in sales all the time. Nothing evil about it at all.

Seriously? No difference between minor rephrasing and outright lies? No difference between lying for a greater good (e.g. to save someone from persecution) and lying to enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless?

So just as he did with his infamous 2003 global warming warming memo – which taught conservatives how to sound like they care about the issue while opposing all action — Luntz has some key advice for Republicans on how to pretend to care about regular people while continuing to screw them over.
...
Democrats do sometimes misuse the language and create euphemisms. All politicians do. But it is Luntz and his legion of conservative followers who have twisted the English language beyond recognition. They are the true Orwellians. The GOP parrot him as if they were reciting lessons in grammar school

This is evil. And so is defending and excusing it.

108

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Dec 2, 2011 3:23:03am

re: #85 HappyWarrior

I suppose she thinks minorities in the 60's were demanding "special" rights not to be placed in substandard schools too.

In fact, they do. I would say their enmity against gay rights is really rooted in their hatred of civil rights and suffrage, in the first place -- only God's Favorites are supposed to have full rights. The rest are to be second class citizens. Any other condition is perversion.

States rights totalitarianism.

109

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Fri, Dec 2, 2011 3:23:55am

re: #107 publicityStunted

Seriously? No difference between minor rephrasing and outright lies? No difference between lying for a greater good (e.g. to save someone from persecution) and lying to enrich the powerful at the expense of the powerless?

This is evil. And so is defending and excusing it.

Not to a sociopath, no.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Frank Luntz Teaches GOP Governors How to Lie More Effectively

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud