Luntz: The Romneys capture that "first family look"
On the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) family: "If you've ever seen his wife and kids, this is a model American family. They're all attractive. ... [T]hey all got the look of the first family look, and the more that he brings that in, the more successful he's going to be."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Luntz joins the ranks of numerous other media figures who, in recent weeks, have gushed over the former governor's looks. For instance, Newsweek senior writer and political correspondent Jonathan Darman and assistant managing editor Evan Thomas described Romney as "buff and handsome in late middle age." MSNBC host Chris Matthews applauded Romney's looks, saying that the former governor "has the perfect chin, the perfect hair." Roger Simon, chief political columnist for The Politico, wrote that Romney "radiates vigor," noting his "chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest." Finally, Mike Allen, former Time magazine White House correspondent (now chief political correspondent for The Politico), touted Romney as someone who "looks like a president."
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
LUNTZ: He did even better by talking about his family. If you've ever seen his wife and kids, this is a model American family. They're all attractive. They all got the -- they all got the look of the first family look, and the more that he brings that in, the more successful he's going to be.
We want to vote for a family person. We want to vote for a family man or family woman. So, that was very effective communication.
yeah, nothing homerotic about all that gushing so just move along, nothing to see here until FAUX tells us who is pResident.
Why do I think that "First Family look" is code for "White Male President"?
I think you're on to something there. The implication is that the Democratic front runners don't quite have that white Christian male thing going for them.
Well you may have a point considering how he was praising Edwards so much in that spot. Another white male.
Right. I have a suspicion that Luntz' concept of a "model American family" wouldn't be Obama's, for example.
And, puhleeze, no singled, divorced or widowed people, or other misfits like that. They are only 40% of the adult population (or more). So obviously none of them are qualified to President.
Nothing misinformative here, again........and MMFA should put this in context, Luntz was very complimentary about John Edwards during this interview as well.
Yes, he was very complimentary toward Edwards. He also was critical of Bush and the way Bush responded to a question regarding Iran. I am not sure of the point of this thread is , we allready know Luntz is a Republican , and he has his own opinions and views. I was very suprised at how much praise he had for Edwards. I wish that piece of video was here so we could all see for ourselves. I am not a big fan of Luntz . but I do not believe he said anything bad here.
Maybe the point is not necessarily partisan, but how utterly shallow and short-sighted it is to choose a leader by how he looks posing with his family. I realize that he's only reflecting the shallowness of the American electorate, but it's a shame, nonetheless.
Nerzog,
I don't believe he was choosing anything - he was merely pointing out an opinion........Romney has many problems with flip-flops all over the place - he will get nowhere on his "first family looks"
I totally agree...you have a strategist saying VOTE ON LOOKS!! There, again, Tommy, is NO SUBSTANCE!! And I'm curious about the 'we want a family man' statement- does he mean republicant's do, or everyone does? Considering the hell the neocons put Clinton's family through, some candidates may want to fly solo on this campaign...
Nerzog,
I don't think he was choosing anything - it was his opinion about the look of the Romney family.......he has plenty of flip-flop issues to deal with, his "first family" looks will get him nowhere.
I would agree. Another shining example of the utter lack of substance that poses for 'news'.
You're right, it is a shame. But it's no shame on Luntz. He's merely analyzing what truly wins elections in this country, which is exactly what he's on the show to do. I'm no Luntz fan, but he's just talking basic marketing to the overwhelmingly shallow and uninformed electorate. Like it or not, he's telling the truth. And don't think you're not getting insight into the campaign tactics of every american politician.
Painful as it may be, Tommy's right. I mean, correct. MMFA should have let this one go. I mean, Weiner hasn't even been on yet, so there will be plenty of material to fill the space later in the day...
No, I think MMFA made it clear in the second paragraph that they are documenting an ongoing trend. Taken alone, this example would be meaningless, but it's not to be taken alone. It's part of a pattern.
It may be a pattern, but it's not the fault of the individual pundits propagating it.
The fact is, as I stated above, the majority shallow and uninformed constituency will make their judgement based - at least partially, but to a large extent - on appearance. If Romney exceeds the average on that trait, it's only to be expected that there would be comments on it from any "political analyst", because it's a factor. Obama went through the same thing a short while ago, if you remember back. Yeah, it's not right. But it's life in these United States of overpriviledged and under-appreciative citizens, and blaming the pundits for pointing out the truth is not the kind of thing we need to waste our time doing.
"It may be a pattern, but it's not the fault of the individual pundits propagating it."
So much for individual responsibility. The corporate media has made a calculated decision to, by and large, feed us this sort of pap. You said it yourself: They are "propagating it." To believe that the opinion shapers in this country are somehow helpless to put substance before style is misguided.
"The fact is, as I stated above, the majority shallow and uninformed constituency will make their judgement based - at least partially, but to a large extent - on appearance."
Fine. I mostly agree. But we have a full-time infotainment industry which very intentionally feeds this phenomenon. Luntz is a particularly egregious practitioner when it comes to soft-soaping the issues. He is not just another talking head, but an active propagandist engaged in dumbing down the population. I've visited quite a few political sites, both on the left and right, and one thing many people on both sides seem to agree is that this country is not well served by a MSM that (by and large) serves up this sort of drivel disguised as news. There are thoughtful, courageous newspeople out there who explore issues in-depth, but an outsized portion of the political news in this country is given over to glib commentary about hair and clothing.
"Yeah, it's not right. But it's life in these United States of overpriviledged and under-appreciative citizens, and blaming the pundits for pointing out the truth is not the kind of thing we need to waste our time doing."
You are correct: It is not right. The citizens deserve some blame, but the pundits are not just reporting on a trend, they are shaping it. Five companies (Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, Bertelsmann AG and General Electric) now own over 90% of the media in this country. Their opinions are not monolithic, but they are guardians of the status quo and, as such, have a vested interest in not having people think too deeply about how the system is structured. Infotainment may be the media model of the future, but that doesn't mean it is a "waste of time" to point it out. After all, this is a site dedicated to discussing the media.
Wow, what a surprise.
Another Tommy "Nothing here to see, move along" post.
You really are boring and predictable.
it is intentionaly manipulative, trying to infect the meme that only those that 'look' presidential to a old white guy is the standard to vote for. Fact is you are under no obligation to comment on any thread you don't like Tommy, so you choose to read and respond, that is your own fault, not MMFA's
duh........Thank you.
for bringing it to your level, you are welcome. next time you need english translated to your native 'DUH' just let me know :)
Tommy are you accusing MMFA of cherry-picking? :-O
They'd never do that...that's what they go after everyone else for doing ;-)
Actually if Hollywood made a movie about a First Family, the Romneys would fit that certain stereotype many still perceive as All -American.
Exactly - but some want to pull that trusty ole' race card from their hip pocket and lay it out there......tried and true, but tired and weak.
Exactly - but that trusty ole' race card starts to burn a hole in some people's pockets and just has to be played........clockwork.
Just curious, what are you saying MMFA is 'cheery-picking'?
Tommy wrote:
MMFA should put this in context, Luntz was very complimentary about John Edwards during this interview as well.
Basically, Luntz made flattering remarks about both Romney & Edwards. You know fair & balanced like?
MMFA chose to highlight ONLY Luntz's complimentary comments about Romney, without mentioning he'd also spoken favorably about Edwards as well... I suppose to prove some kind of bias on Luntz's part?
That could be defined as cherry-picking.
That is a good point, there should (IMHO) been more mention of that, perhaps a comparison between the remarks. I will go along with that
J2, what else would one expect from a group dedicated to showing conservative bias in the media? Cherry pick? Never!!!! High light those issues that make your point? Of Course!!!!
Missing the point...again. If you read the second paragraph then you will see that MMFA has clearly stated that they are documenting a trend among Republican pundits. The fact that he also said something favorable about Edwards is completely beside the point.
This brings to mind a routine that the comic Gallagher did a few years back about politicians posing with their families. It was something to the effect of, "Wow, his d*ck works!"
What a waste of air time. Voters are looking for information upon which to base an intelligent decision in 2008. To suggest that voters think it matters how nice the wife and kids look is indicative of the opinions that out-of-touch pundits like Luntz have of us "ordinary" people.
To add insult to insult, Luntz then not-too-subtly implies that it's the pretty, white Anglo-Saxons who qualify as "model Americans" and not the, say, Obama family, for instance.
Luntz has been quite complimentary towards Obama as well. He was particularly impressed with his convention speech from 2004.
"Luntz has been quite complimentary towards Obama as well. He was particularly impressed with his convention speech from 2004."
That's really wonderful. It's really too bad Obama doesn't have the "model American family" Luntz requires.
"Luntz has been quite complimentary towards Obama as well. He was particularly impressed with his convention speech from 2004."
That's really wonderful. Too bad Obama doesn't have that "model American family" look that Luntz really desires.
As far as I know, Luntz hasn't commented positively or negatively on Obamas family. If Luntz actually came out and said he didn't think Obamas family had that "First Family look", then you would have something to complain about.
"If Luntz actually came out and said he didn't think Obamas family had that "First Family look", then you would have something to complain about.
I do have something to complain about, and I will be complaining about it.
Luntz singles-out a very-white family's looks (as opposed to their accomplishments) as "model American". By implication, that excludes non-white families, like Obama's. This, to me, is "dog-whistle" type commentary. To act like Luntz' definition of a First Family is something other than a White Family is in my opinion a pretense.
Complimenting one is not necessarily criticizing another. If you are so sure that this was a shot at Obama then it should also be a shot at McCain, Edwards, Clinton, Guiliani, and any other candidate not specifically mentioned as having that "First Family look".
Luntz never mentioned race.
"If you are so sure that this was a shot at Obama..."
I don't think I claimed it's a "shot at Obama". I stated the fact that Luntz' ideal first family looks like Romney's. Romney's family, to me, looks very white, very Anglo-Saxon. I don't know anything about them, and Luntz specifically asked "have you seen them (Romney's family)?". I'd like to know exactly what Luntz' definition of "model American family" is. All we know is that his ideal looks like Romney's. Knowing what I know about Luntz, I strongly suspect it doesn't look like Obama's.
Bruce, It's all race, all the time with some here.......that's all they've got.
"Bruce, It's all race, all the time with some here.......that's all they've got."
All Tommy's got are the predictable words of contempt for this site and its supporters, nothing more, six hours/day, M-F.Leave it to some on the left to make this a race issue.......right on cue.
Leave it to you to not be able to read between the lines.
Like I said, boring and predictable.
Leave it to you to race bait, apparently.
Leave it to me to leave it to both of you...
And let's not forget the Christian bashing. Damned Lefties!
Tommy race is an issue. To pretend that is it not is hiding your head in the sand. There are still many people in this country who think the "all american" family looks like Rommney
Remember Rev. Haggard, white, christian, male, married and since his "therapy" cured of his homosexuality. Republican's "all american family".
If you see a racial component in this comment, that is your business. Unless you can demonstrate it exists beyond your imagination, it is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
There's that Tommy smart Aleck smugness. Nevertheless, for some inexplicable reason I still like you even though I know you don't care; but it's moments like this when I just want to smack you one time. Nothing big mind you, just one up side your head.
Lynn, There is nothing smartalecky about it........there is no race relevance in this whatsoever. I don't do patronizing pats on the head like some guilt ridden liberals in saying "poor thing, aren't you offended by this!!!???". I have more respect for you and all black Americans than that.
Tommy,Everything isn't about being liberal or conservative. This is simply a matter of respecting a person's RIGHT to their very own feelings. If Pearlene tells you that SHE finds something offensive, you can't tell her she doesn't. You can't tell people how to feel Tommy. Now you can go into that new conservative mantra about nobody having the right NOT TO BE OFFENDED if you want (I'm still trying to understand what the heck that means)
Lynn, To be clear - everyone has the right to be offended by anything they wish - that was not my point. If Perelene is offended by these comments, as I said to her - that is her business. In my opinion, there is nothing there. You are right, it is not liberal or conservative - however, many on the left choose to make race an issue, even when it is not.......for political one-upmanship. It happens, and it is sleazy and transparent.
That is my opinion, if you or someone else does not share it - it's all good.
It's done by many on the right only from a different angle. Rush Limbaugh, Beck, and many of the wingnuts bait all the time. Let's not forget the wing nut term Halfrican and Beck's insuation that being a "White guy" is the equivelent to being "regular or normal." guy That's baiting in it's worse from.
I agree with you for the first time in a long time. No one can be sure what Luntz is really thinking when he says these things. It is unfair to put words in someone's mouth or ideas in their heads. There does not appear to be any basis for speculating Luntz prefers white traditional-looking Christian Males over other people.
I just find Luntz's observation pretty insipid and shallow. It isn't really worth anything in the debate. If Luntz continues to make this kind of observation about white male Christian candidates, then I may have to re-assess my thoughts on this.
Open,
I don't see it as a huge issue. However, I believe what the other posters are saying that "traditonally" when Whites refer to someone as all American they're usually refering to someone very WASPY in appearance. It matters not though, because when I look at my family I see us as an "all American Family". We're 100% American, after all AA's are indeed an American creation, just like jazz.
I
I agree with you lynn. I think that is usually what people are referring to. However, I am very cautious at believing it as the absolute truth (and I'm not implying you do either). I would like conservatives to give me the benefit of the doubt, so I try to do the same to them in issues where they are not explicitly racist or whatever.
The problem for me here is that 1 or 2 datapoints (i.e. Romney and/or Edwards) are not sufficient for me to argue Luntz has established a pattern here, which is what I believe would be necessary to make the point that Luntz is indeed a racist on this.
I am just trying very hard to be fair. Maybe too hard, but I would rather err on that side as I would wish my opponents would do for me.
yeah, Haggard's cure was almost as instantaneous as Jesse Jackson's weekend " fogiveness " for cheatinhg on his wife.
Luntz's comment is just about as funny as Vaughn Meader's "First Family" record.
"they all got the look of the first family look"
Brought to you by the good folks down at the Department of Redundancy Department.
Firesign Theater. Excellent.
It pays to listen to the classics.
Ouch! They weren't classics when I was listening to them, back when I was a spy and a girl delighter...
They were instant classics. And in the spirit of the recent red-baiting (Hillary Lenin & Trotsky Edwards) threads we've had recently...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Can_You_Be_in_Two_Places_at_Once_When_You're_Not_Anywhere_at_All
Too bad the MSM is so mean to Romney. The poor fella just doesn't stand a chance, with vicious attacks like Luntz's.
Luntz is right, if all we're looking for is a group of people to play the First Family on TV.
Surely someone who looks presidential wouldn't steamroll the nation into a war of choice. Have we learned anything since large portions of our Fourth Estate last sold us a president based on whether or not we'd want to have a beer with him? The press corp likes to cover these retail politics stories -- sometimes with the caveat that they are merely covering a regretable reality -- but too often they are pushing the meme they are supposedly just reporting on. More at 6:00 about Mitt's chisled chin, Hillary's pants suits, Gore's earthtones and the like. Luntz may have been "complimentary" toward Edwards, but don't look for him to elevate the debate beyond the superficial. There are conservatives who are idea people, but Luntz is purely a propagandist. A master of the feel good euphemism, his MO has long been geared toward fuzzing the issues.
there is a bit more importance than looks to be a first family. Like his agenda on possible Supreme Court justices appointments and the numerous judgeship appointments.
Surely someone who looks presidential wouldn't steamroll the nation into a war of choice. Have we learned anything since large portions of our Fourth Estate last sold us a president based on whether or not we'd want to have a beer with him? The press corp likes to cover these retail politics stories -- sometimes with the caveat that they are merely covering a regretable reality -- but too often they are pushing the meme they are supposedly just reporting on. More at 6:00 about Mitt's chisled chin, Hillary's pants suits, Gore's earthtones and the like. Luntz may have been "complimentary" toward Edwards, but that's almost beside the point; don't look for him to elevate the debate beyond the superficial. There are conservatives who are idea people, but Luntz is purely a propagandist. A master of the feel good euphemism, his MO has long been geared toward fuzzing the issues.
Obviously, according to people like Luntz and Matthews, no one who is single (always single, divorced, or widowed) or childfree by choice or otherwise, could possibly be qualified for the job. In the world of people like them, the 45% or so of the electorate who fall in this category are all misfits, psychos, and freaks.
(sarcasm, of course)
Barack Obama has a wife and two young children. He has stood on stage with them and they look like a typical family. Relatively young parents who are only in their 40's with two elementary school aged children. Why doesn't Luntz say that Obama captures the "First Family Look"?
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
"Why doesn't Luntz say that Obama captures the "First Family Look"?"
Too black... hard to get the skin tones right in color photographs. ;>)
"...they all got the look of the first family look,"
And that is so important these days... I'm giddy with anticipation to see old photos of Mitt and his wife holding hands when they were young and just dating... you know, maybe with some nice soft music in the background. Sigh....
To believe that the opinion shapers in this country are somehow helpless to put substance before style is misguided.
WE are the opinion shapers. Granted, we're a gullible lot, subject to the latest fads and shiny objects. But unfortunately, picking on those whose jobs are to analyze the gullible public is not going to fix the problem, which you state below:
The citizens deserve some blame, but the pundits are not just reporting on a trend, they are shaping it. Five companies (Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, Bertelsmann AG and General Electric) now own over 90% of the media in this country.
and
Infotainment may be the media model of the future, but that doesn't mean it is a "waste of time" to point it out.
Exactly. It's the networks and media conglomerates which should be the subject of these kinds of articles, not saps like Luntz. He's doing what he gets paid to do, and at least he's being honest about it. I put little to no value on going after the guys like Luntz, more on going after the media giants and the legislation that let them become such. Reverse that, and you've made progress toward stopping the misinformation.
I'm Sorry . . . but unless Romney's a dry drunk and unless his wife has a vehicular manslaughter in her past, then the Romney's don't have the "first family look" . . .
be afraid of the "ideal American family" look... see Factory Girl for an example of why... often what's on the surface does not reflect what's underneath... look at the Santorums for God's sake! the point is, looks aren't everything... just ask John Kerry, who was criticized more for his appearance than for his politics in '04...