Luntz inadvertently shows why Fox News prefers to call reconciliation the "nuclear option"
March 04, 2010 11:00 pm ET by Greg Lewis
On tonight's Hannity, Fox News contributor and "Word Doctor" Frank Luntz appeared to make a very revealing error during his health care reform focus group segment.
As shown in the clip below, Luntz asked the focus group participants if Democrats "should try to get any health care through and accept 51 votes as being enough," noting that, "it's called reconciliation." At that point, close to half of the group raised their hands, apparently in agreement with this idea. After a brief pause, Luntz altered his question, asking who wanted Democrats to use the "so-called nuclear option." At that point, several people in the focus group lowered their hands. Check out the video:
As Media Matters has repeatedly documented,
"nuclear option" has been the preferred term for
reconciliation on Fox News (and this is after they redefined what the "nuclear option" meant). And based on the negative reaction that is invoked
by using "nuclear option" displayed in that clip, it's clear why.
And it was Luntz who perfected the process of demonization of Democratic candidates that was taught at Gingrich's GPOAC boot camps in Georgia.
Also, despite what they say constantly, Fox News IS the mainstream media.
Hey Frank, try this one. "How many of you favor keeping the estate tax (hands go up)...er..the death tax?" (hands go down)
Luntz's book is a "how to lie" manual; and that makes him smarter?
Did you notice that with the help of Luntz Bush and his policies, inactions, actions, and incompetence nearly destroyed this nation?
Agreed. Then he goes off prompter and the Uhhs...ahhh...umms....uuuuhhhh...ssss...start.
Barry gaffes
Hero of the stupid
How can we leave out Foot-in-mouth Biden?
If the Republican party nationally is using 'focus group' testing, and then employing 'word doctors' (read lawyers or those expert in the lawyerly art, otherwise known as rhetorical art), if the one side of the political spectrum employs such public relations tactics, then why doesn't the other?
Good question.
How hard is it to say "SIMPLE MAJORITY", and then follow that two word phrase with "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS", how hard is to do that?
How hard is it to say "MAJORITY RULE", and then cite that as being the near absolute definition of what the word Democracy means?
Not hard I say... it requires no 'focus group testing,' or any 'word doctors.'
Anyway, 'spinning' is what liars are compelled to do, but if it's the truth you speak, then how clever do you need to be in speaking it?
Not at all... you just speak, and the listener knows what it is you say... and if what it is you say is the truth, then that is what they then hear and know, either because you just told them, or because they knew it already, and maybe they are just pleased to hear you say it, pleased that someone could say it.
I hate frank luntz, not just because he works for the devil, but because his art is common and he's no great practitioner of it, and because it's easy to speak the truth, and even easier to hear it...
'Focus groups' and 'word doctors,' just how stupid and sheepish have we become?
[It's a rhetorical question, I do not necessarily want to hear it's true and sad answer.]
It is curious that you want to promote majority rules now.
I can give you more, if you'd like, but one of the basic premises of our nation is that we protect minorities in certain ways.
The Civil Rights Act essentially makes it illegal to discriminate against minorities, thus protecting a minority. The 5th and 14th Amends provide for due process of law so that a majority cannot simply tell an individual (or group) to shove it, ie the minority is guaranteed certain rights of addressing an issue.
I'll let you look up the counter-majoritarian difficulty, but it in short seeks to balance the will of the majority with the will of the minority, and the representation reinforcement is when the courts step in to correct harsh laws against those who did not have adequate representation.
These are all legit. Check them out.
For a good example, though, consider Brown v. Board of Education, handed down aabout 10 years or so before the CRA.
If you are arguing that 41 votes is superior to 59 votes, you are promoting an elitist, anti-democratic system.
How would you feel about a legislature that was constructed so that 25% of the seats were selected by African Americans, 25% by Asian Americans, 25% by White Americans and 25% by Native Americans? Since you hold that a partisan minority is equivalent to an ethnic minority, this would probably be the system that best represents your apparent values.
1) No, I do not feel they are necessarily given a status superior to others. The premise behind them is such that people are to be protected. As applied, it is a different story. FOr example, the recent SCOTUS case from the U. of MI law school stating that being black (or another of a list of minorities, not including Asians) can recieve a 'plus' on their application. This brings the application of the idea into an area where one group does receive a superior status over others.
2) Actually, I disagree with your very assumption in this question. 60 votes is needed to override a filibuster, which is a device used to stop legislation from going to a debate or vote. If the 60 vote rule did not exist, there would be nothing to stop a filibuster. The 60 vote is actually a device that allows efficiency to override the filibuster. Unless you don't like the filibuster, the 60 vote is a good thing.
3) This is where you get into the obsurd. Dictating representation by race is obsurd, for equality of rights does not mean that who represents various groups must be of the same race as the group. The very notion is obsurd.
I do hold that an ethnic minority is essentially the equivalent to a partisan minority. Really, what is the difference? Any group that is a minority should not be discriminated against, regardless of ethnicity, don't you think?
I do not want this to become a discussion of civil rights, because this is not the time or place. I only wish to discuss the merits of the premise of protecting minority groups, not the policy of protecting them.
Unfortunately, this is the reality we live in.
What Rat Con is trying to do is extend that to the Republic itself,ie the protections of the minorities were forced on the majority, the problem with his position is, the majority, with the help of the minorities, enforced its will on a itself.
Who decides what is tyranny in this matter?
I suggest we put it to a vote!
Let the majority decide... let the "tyranny" of the greater number of us decide!
Under such strange and irrational thinking, a majority of voters (a Democratic majority) is the same as a minority of voters, a Democracy is a tyranny...
I may have been born in the daytime, but I wasn't born yesterday!
The best we can do collectively, is to take a collective poll... and as the majority of us decide, so we go as a majority rule collectively, as a Democracy...
No?
"The tyranny, the arrogance, the unfairness of it all!"
Democracy: liked by the majority of the people, disliked by the rest...
What shall we do to please them all?
The Tyranny of the majority leads to slavery, women not being able to vote, Jim Crow laws, Prohibition.
It is Democracy that tames this tyranny by having a portion of the majority and the minority, now becoming a new majority, enforcing its will on the rest of the majority. This is a good thing. This is the Progressive movement.
There are numerous pieces of legislation, and you are right that a majority of Congress votes them in. But the laws are there to protect against the will of the majority. But it is not just the Congress that can this, as I demonstrated above.
It is a hard idea to grasp, and it seems backward. However, I am not sure I'd want it any other way.
Back when Dems were blocking the judges, while I thought that they should let them through, I did not think it worthwhile to change the rules so they could not do so.
If you have the inclination, read the Federalist papers. Madison spends some significant time talking about this problem-- protecting the will of the majority while at the same time not allowing them to ruin the rights of the minority.
In the end, I agree with jarossiter-- this very idea is the Progressive movement.
The real problem is not the majority rule of a democracy and the simple majority requirement of our Constitution. The real problem is with the factions aka parties caring more about the preservation of their ridiculous political clubs than they care about the preservation of our country.
I do agree about the fascination/obsession with political parties. I do not think it is possible to get rid of them, but would love to see some viable alternatives to the two we have now.
So you think preservation of political parties which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution [there are no provisions for political parties at all in the Constitution] trumps preservation of our country? The Constitution requires only a simple majority to pass legislation. If the political clubs weren't so hellbent on self-preservation, there would be fewer problems with the preservation of our country.
Unbelievable.
Are you speaking to me?
I was speaking to Rat Con. We seemed to have run into that wall
What do I think is a bad thing? The protection of minority rights? I actually think it is a good thing and a necessary thing. I might disagree on the nature of some of the policies to achieve and preserve that goal, but the goal itself is necessary. The 'tyranny' of the majority goes both ways, and as such it is good to have the safeguards in place, even when it gets in the way of what I think is good policy.
I never spoke directly of who does what, only that in our nation processes exist to protect minorities. Frankly, I don't see how it is possible to have it so that these get enacted without the support of the minorities.
Yes, these restrictions are imposed on ourselves, and that is a bit of why it is a confusing idea. On a level, you'd think a majority should have unfettered access to rule as it wants. Yet, for a variety of reasons, this nation has chosen not go that route, and it is to this nations credit that it has done so.
This statement led me to believe that you were argueing the opposite.
As I said elsewhere here, I think they should have been given a vote and not blocked, I am thankful the procedures are there so that rogue legislation is passed without due consideration or comprimise.
One is a power of government the other is a right of the people. The 2 do not even come close to equality.
Think about it, if those devices did not exist in the Senate, you'd have a whole bunch of convervative judges on the bench right now.
That does not make a case.
""Rational Conservative" has proven on numerous occasions that he's neither rational or a conservative. Asking him to document his allegations is futile"
You figure out, based on all the discussion over this issue, if I have documented my allegations. You figure out if I am rational. You do not have to agree with my comments, but surely you can see that I am not spewing baseless or unsupported ideas. I fully understand the points I make have been debated for centuries. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to find that out.
We are not likely to settle the issue today, nor tomorrow, probably ever. But her statement to me was not offered for any purpose except to discredit me, and she did so without even considering the "clues" I gave. It was immediately to nothing I present is worthwhile and an attack on my intelligience. For whatever it is worth, my response was really quite tame in that I simply stated I gave her direction and asked whether or not she dismissed that because it wsa I who gave that direction.
By definition, a democracy is ruled by a simple majority. Your comments are specious and off the mark.
We are not a pure democracy, and have never been one. If you are a student of Madison you should know this. A great example is how we elect our presidents. Its not about a simply majority-- its about the electoral college. Its also about the division of power within the federal representation of the states, ie WY has but one Congressman where as NY has several. These are direct evidence of the desire to avoid unfettered rule by the majority set forth at our founding.
Even within the democratic republic, some citizens are more equal than others. Citizens from states with small populations are several times more powerful than citizens from states with large populations. Same applies to the Electoral College.
That we live in a republic in no way justifies that an elite legislative minority should triumph over the majority.
BTW, do you think that a society will ever have a population that is 100% equal in every sense?
The basic premise of democracy is that a majority vote is determinative. When an elite minority imposes its will over the majority, it is something more akin to tyranny.
God help up us if that were to ever occur, but these protections in Congress ensure protections outside of Congress.
Please clarify.
How about renaming the Republican Party the Devil Worship Party.
Once we get into this whole emotive renaming game imagine the fun!
It's obvious he has no shame, what is quite depressing is he is allowed to be on TV even when people are informed of his manipulations.
...but I think that in Yiddish, "Luntz" means "A horse manure salesman with a mouth full of samples."
I'm sure Frank could format a question that positively prooves me wrong.
Please don't feed the troll. If he really wanted the answer, he would have looked it up himself.
Reconciliation is making corrections to a bill that has already passed the Senate and House and the differences need to "reconciled."
That is the extent of my knowledge. But, I am sure we are ALL going to learn more than we want on the subject soon.
The House is going to pass the Senate bill and then the Senate is going to use reconciliation to remove the more onerous parts, ie the Nebraska compromise and the Luisiana Purchase.
The Senate has to agree to do this, or the House will not pass the Senate bill
reconciliation = running the blockade
nuclear option = clearing the harbor on a permanent basis
They serve the same purpose but are distinctly different procedures. Got that?
Nuclear option was originally coined for legislation that would have broken the filibuster rules altogether, IIRC. So use of the term is incorrect in this case altogether.
Reconciliation is a legitimate, but rarely used process which allows the majority, in the case of contentious, but necessary [in their opinion] legislation to limit debate and amendments.
Try educating yourself instead of listening to talking points. You'll be surprised at the lies you are being fed.
I must say Luntz's analysis of why Republicans hijacked the term is spot-on.
Is it unfair to use both terms used by both sides, especially if you take care to note to viewers "nuclear option" is a slang term?
Democrats trying to pass the health care bill don't have to change Senate rules to do reconciliation. The rules have been there since the seventies.
The use of the term "nuclear option" implies that there is a negative, objectionabe, or unfair aspect to it. Reconciliation is none of those things. The "slang" term does not fit.
Basically what you are saying is that if I can get enough reporters to call my car "the nuclear option" that would mean that slang term would could mean whatever we want it to mean. It doesn't even have to make sense and we can completely forget what it was called in the past.
Last and most importantly, Luntz repeatedly suggested (this was at least the third time Luntz was on Fox with this focus group) that his group was split between Democrats and Republicans but I'm suspicious, from his careful wording (and he's a wordsmith) and from the number of GOP talking points in the responses, that the "Obama voters" may well have included Repubicans and/or independents who voted for Obama.
Fox has a love affliction for replacing reality with perception. Not only are they COMPLETELY distorting abortion funding, the deficit numbers, and the impact it will have, they're literally REDEFINING terms now...
If I had ANY faith in people that watch Fox...any INKLING they had a spark in their empty heads, I'd ASSUME they'd question the validity of their holy interpreting pundits...but I would also assume they didn't function from a HIVE MIND.
What SHOULD be known a the "Constitutional Option," has now, under Bush, been rebranded as the "Nuclear Option." And FOX, has created their own dictionary where either reconciliation doesn't exist or reconciliation = "nuclear option"
Regardless if it's just stupidity...sociopathy....it sounds a lot like INDOCTRINATION to me, especially when you knowingly mislead people, with a good idea they won't question your validity.
I hate Fox "news" so much. They've lost all humanity.
(of course, this only applies in MY world if in THEIR world "Reconciliation" DOES NOT = "nuclear option"...I gotta get my worlds straight...)
I WONDER....what if FOX would've questioned their audience if they believed DEMS should have used the "Constitutional Option" instead?
Hmm.......
Nah...couldn't be....that would HAVE to mean Fox has an AGENDA....not Fox....
....does not compute.....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/03/gop-memo-reveals-campaign-strategy-to-stroke-ego-driven-donors-play-up-fear-card/
http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/index.cfm/category/RNCChair
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/03/04/leaked-rnc-memo-donors-are-fear-and-ego-driven
Here's the actual Memo:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100303_rnc_finance_leadership.html
In my humble opinion, it seems these guys had so much success in lying about reasons to invade Iraq, that they have applied the same principle (and the same degree of deception) to almost every venue they can (e.g., the "threat" of health-care reform, the "threat" ACORN purportedly poses to the average tax-payer, the "threat of gay-marriage or the repeal of DADT, etc...)