Frank Luntz: Ultimate GOP spinmaster and 'impartial' MSNBC pollster

Watching the recall gunk unfold yesterday, I flipped to MSNBC and caught this guy named Frank Luntz talking about how unpopular establishment pols might have to dive for cover after this. A general notion, but Luntz is no general commentator.

Luntz is very suspicious, and the way MSNBC frames him describes everything you need to know about the network. He is just an "MSNBC pollster" on his bio box. However, in reality he is a high-ranking GOP political consultant, who uses his regular appearances on MSNBC to subtly assassinate Democrats and warp issues. He was considered one of the 'key architects' of the Republican swarming of the capitol in 1993.

He specializes in focus group type work, but he has finely developed the art of spinning a focus group. For example, once on MSNBC I saw a focus group on the democratic primaries. He made sure to end the focus group with "Now who thinks Al Sharpton would make a viable candidate for President?" Naturally virtually no one raised their hand. The end. That's what a Republican operative does: creates images of Dem. unpopularity. A panelist on Hardball immediately hassled him about it, but he feigned innocent intentions.

Make no mistake, this is how he works. Every word he says is carefully chosen as part of a plan.

And what better platform than his new show on MSNBC, "America's Voices"?

I've seen him tell Chris Matthews that he 'leans right' but, crucially, omit that he is a Republican consultant. Such is the state of today's corporate media.

Today the NyTimes said that

"If I were a governor from a different state with a huge deficit and bad poll ratings, I'd be scared senseless," said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who frequently offers advice to the nation's Republican governors. "If you're a governor in a recall state, this will send chills down your spine."

Here's a description from someone in one of Luntz's fabulous focus groups:

I'd like to let you know about my experience as a participant on Hardball in November 2000 during the recount fiasco. I was part of a Frank Luntz "focus group," that pitted 10 Republicans against 10 Democrats.

We were told to come to a hotel in West Palm Beach an hour before the show. Upon arrival, we were checked off a list and segregated by party. I was close enough to the Republicans to see a man passing out "talking points" to his fellow panelists - telling them that it would be great if they could incorporate them into whatever they said- and to make it sound personal.Each side had a few more people than they actually needed- so Frank and the Producer started to hand pick the participants and show them to their seats.

Interestingly, I was passed over initially (perhaps they smelled a trouble maker). I made it on when a gentleman had to recuse himself.

So here we sat for what was said to be a "sound check." The guy next to me explained in whispers that this was actually an "attitude check," and that the Producers were identifying who might possess a brain along with an attitude. During the show, those folks would be avoided and interrupted at all costs, my new friend said- unless they sat on the Republican side.

All said, the show looked liked a one-sided Jerry Springer show (Matthew's good friend, you know) with the well dressed and rehearsed Republicans winning sizable airtime with their facist talking points. I found the whole experience very disturbing.

An excellent piece from Media Whores Online goes into more detail about how Luntz works.

Let's examine the discourse between Luntz and Brian Williams after the second Presidential debate on October 11, 2000:

WILLIAMS: A group of uncommitted voters has been with us all evening long under the good auspices of Frank Luntz, political pollster, who joins us now from Cincinnati, city in the crucial battleground state of Ohio. Frank? LUNTZ: Brian, this is now the third time that we've gathered these undecided voters but there's something that thisnight featured that we never saw before. We do have a clear winner. And you can all demonstrate by a show of your hands: How many of you believe that George Bush exceeded your expectations for what you expected this evening? Please raise your hands. Brian, that's almost everybody.

Did you notice that Frank made a statement about a winner and then asked a completely different question regarding expectations?

Still not convinced that Frank might intermingle his own opinion with his pollstering? Take a look at the Young Republicans Online Community Network website (YRock.com), where he was not only their pollster for the 2000 election, but also a weekly columnist. Titles to his commentaries include, Saying Yes to Jobs and No to Minimum Wage Increase; Ending Racial Preferences; and The Real Truth About The Gore Plan.

He's not just a Republican, he's a super Republican with the power to influence public opinion to his advantage, and he's done it before. Luntz's bio on the Harry Walker Agency site, touts:

-USA Today labeled him one of the nine most influential minds in the GOP -Advisor to New York Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani - One of the strategic architects in the Republican landslide in 1994 - Key role in creating Gingrich's Contract With America (he is often noted in articles written in the mid 90's as Newt's pollster)

Would you not agree that the Contract With America took partisanship to new heights? Luntz was instrumental in conducting the research for the Contract and in the fall of 1994, he declared that all 10 provisions cited by the Contract had overwhelming public support.

The AAPOR asked to see the research supporting HIS claim that at least 60% of the public favored each of the elements in the GOP contract. He refused on the grounds of client confidentiality.

Frank Luntz was capable of creating the dubious notion that the Contract With America was embraced by most Americans in 1994 and Republicans benefited in Congressional elections that year. In the 2000 election, Frank Luntz helped to perpetuate the low bar of expectation for George W. Bush. Although he didn't win the popular vote and most certainly the electoral vote, it was much closer than it should have been. Frank Luntz is still on MSNBC, folks.

A Luntz-friendly site described him thusly:

Named the "Hottest Pollster" by Boston Globe, One of the Most Innovative Marketers of Political Ideas

Dr. Luntz, famous among campaign pros for his research on language and politics, is one of the most innovative marketers of political ideas. He has served as an adviser to New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and numerous candidates in this country and abroad.

He was one of the strategic architects of the Republican landslide in 1994 that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years and made Newt Gingrich speaker. Dr. Luntz had a key role in creating Gingrich's Contract with America.

So when you see this punk pop up on MSNBC, watch for semantic tricks and deceptiveness. Yes.

California Dems terminated

I had my fingers crossed that this wouldn't come to pass. But now its happened: the GOP precipitated a novel majority/plurality election and managed to vaporize the value of serious political discourse in America's most important state. Their candidate, a totally inexperienced, steroid-addled, wealthy movie star, provided that certain STRONG MAN FIX IT vibe, while surrounding himself with all the usual Republican operatives. Davis seems to have been a seriously terrible politician, so good riddance. Bustamante ran a wounded, half-assed campaign. Gee, thanks. (Maybe he's waiting for Arnold to alienate the Latinos with social service cuts)

Everyone should be highly disappointed that there wasn't any sort of real debate whatsoever. I think several proper debates for statewide office should be federal law, if otherwise we are going to have more of this garbage. Also plurality and majority votes shouldn't be on the same ballot, because it prevents the goverment from properly defending itself to the public while challengers maneuver to lead the field. In all, a squelching of discourse and a flood of static. Damn.

Why the hell do Democrats get such cold feet when it comes to supporting each other? Davis refused to campaign --hard-- for Bustamante, because he's a selfish, annoying man. Just like when Clinton didn't really campaign with Gore. The Rebubs are very good at slicing up these kinds of relationships by making it appear that the Dems have something to lose by appearing together. This is so messed up because the incumbent Dem's strength is the institution they hold. Until the D's learn to stand up and fight together then the R's will just divide conquer and make donkeys look scared. D's been fooled twice. Let this be the last time.

Fortunately the Rebubs can finally no longer play the sexual integrity card against the Ds. Which of course works more in their favor because Democrats don't philander as much as Rebubs.

The Cali economy: who knows what the hell these Rebub institution trolls will dream up... somehow I suspect it will shaft Hispanic and minorities on social services, while refusing to fix the property tax.

The big problem with Davis was that he was so damn chicken. The power companies literally walked out with the whole state treasury and he doesn't even seem pissed off. Why didn't he demand investigations, blame them for the budget and all that? Why why why?

As for the infinite-repeat recall problem: I don't think anyone wants to see a permanent recall loop, which could easily happen with such a polarized and crisis-ridden state. I really hate Schwizzy but it clearly would be unfair to force a recall before, say, this summer.

If Arnold is as partisan as he looks to be (lets set aside the generic outsider rhetoric and look purely at his advisers) then he will not be able to cut a deal with the Ds. He is so inexperienced he probably won't know how to hold carrots and sticks properly. California may be stupid, but they're not stupid. If he's an incompetent Repub. bastard who doesn't get it done, the stage will be set for a summer recall.

Dear god, then there's the very good chance that the Terrorists will attack California and we will see the superhero standing dramatically in some wreckage... Talk about the unity of fantasy and reality.

The whole campaign vibe was that Arnold could save the day like his movies. But we should remember how T3 ends: Arnold obediently, rationally, marches the world straight to the Apocalypse and never tries to stop it. That's California 2003.