On Hannity & Colmes, Luntz misrepresented Edwards comment about campaign finances
SUMMARY: Referring to a video clip of John Edwards discussing campaign finances at an appearance in Emmetsburg, Iowa, Republican pollster Frank Luntz stated: "But the problem with Edwards is, whenever he brings up money, people remember how wealthy he is, and they have a hard time listening to him complain about other candidates spending money when he himself is worth dozens and dozens of millions of dollars." But Edwards did not "bring[] up money" during his appearance in Emmetsburg; rather, he was responding to a question about campaign finances from an attendee at the event.
On the January 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes aired a video clip of Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards' (NC) saying during a December 31 campaign appearance in Emmetsburg, Iowa: "We're not going to have an auction in Iowa; we're going to have an election. We're going to decide who the best candidate is, not who the person is that can make the most money." Colmes then asked his guest, Republican pollster Frank Luntz: "[Y]ou know how the whole thing works. Does Edwards have a point there? I mean, if he can really, you know, pop in Iowa, the money rolls in. He doesn't have to worry about it so much any more." Rather than answer Colmes' question, Luntz responded: "But the problem with Edwards is, whenever he brings up money, people remember how wealthy he is, and they have a hard time listening to him complain about other candidates spending money when he himself is worth dozens and dozens of millions of dollars," adding, "I just don't think the money argument plays for him." However, as video of the event posted on the FoxNews.com blog Embed Producers makes clear, Edwards did not "bring[] up money" during his appearance in Emmetsburg; rather, Edwards was responding to a question from an attendee at the event. Edwards paraphrased the attendee's question as: "What he's saying is he's hearing directly from the other campaigns, including Senator [Barack] Obama's wife ... that 'Well, Edwards, he may be a great candidate, but is he going to have enough money to be able to go on, and to be able to win?' "
From the video included in the Embed Producers blog entry, headlined "Edwards Rejects the Money Factor," and posted on January 1 at 12:34 a.m. ET:
EDWARDS: OK. Here. What he's saying is he's hearing directly from the other campaigns, including Senator Obama's wife --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah.
EDWARDS: -- that, "Well, Edwards, he may be a great candidate, but is he going to have enough money to be able to go on, and be able to win?" Well, let me -- can I say something first of all? We're not going to have an auction in Iowa; we're going to have an election. We're going to decide who the best candidate is, not who the person is that can raise the most money.
Do you understand -- let me just say this -- and you need to say this to people: Do you understand how frightening it is to a campaign and a bunch of campaign workers and a candidate that have raised $100 million to have somebody even with them?
At no time during the Hannity & Colmes segment was it made clear that Edwards' comment came in response to a question from the audience about campaign finances.
From the January 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
[begin video clip]
EDWARDS: We're not going to have an auction in Iowa; we're going to have an election. We're going to decide who the best candidate is, not who the person is that can raise the most money.
Do you understand -- let me just say this -- and you need to say this to people: Do you understand how frightening it is to a campaign and a bunch of campaign workers and a candidate that have raised $100 million to have somebody even with them?
[end video clip]
COLMES: Senator Edwards seems pretty confident about his cash and candidacy. We now continue with our panel: pollster Frank Luntz, Republican strategist Pete Snyder, and Fox News contributor Harold Ford Jr.
Frank Luntz, you know how the whole thing works. Edwards have a point there? I mean, if he can really, you know, pop in Iowa, the money rolls in. He doesn't have to worry about it so much any more.
LUNTZ: But the problem with Edwards, when he's talking about the anxious or the forgotten middle class, he scores well, and he won the last debate in Iowa, according to our Fox focus group. And we'll be doing more of that tomorrow night.
But the problem with Edwards is, whenever he brings up money, people remember how wealthy he is, and they have a hard time listening to him complain about other candidates spending money when he himself is worth dozens and dozens of millions of dollars. I just don't think the money argument plays for him.
COLMES: Harold Ford, do you agree with that assessment? Is that a bad move on the part of Edwards to mention money?
FORD: No, he probably needed to, only because, with all due respect to Frank's point, I think he needed to. He's raised far less money, but the thing that we've got to remember here, Edwards still polls high. This issue of middle class angst and anxiety is a real one and a serious one, even -- or notwithstanding what Edwards may bring personally to this campaign.
COLMES: Speaking of money, here's what the Politico is reporting. We'll put this up on the screen in terms of which party is doing better in terms of fundraising.
It says it "constitutes a widening in the already substantial financial advantage for Democrats. In the first nine months of this year, the top seven Democrats raised $223 million, while the top seven Republicans raised $144 million."
Pete Snyder, what does that tell you about where the country is in terms where they want to give their resources to who they want to see elected and running the country?
SNYDER: Well, Alan, look. I think it's very clear that the Republican Party has been in a funk for the past year or two. I mean, you know, when the president's polling in the 30s and you have Congress as unpopular as it is, even though it's run by Democrats now, it's not a great time to be a Republican.
Hopefully, we'll be a united party in the next couple weeks and months, we'll get a good -- a good nominee out there, and we'll go into battle in November.
RULES OF THUMB:
1. If it's said on Faux News, it's a lie.
2. If it's said on "Hannity & Colmes" by anyone other than Alan Colmes, it's so far removed from reality it's pathetic.
Well said ... and just think how pathetic and discredited Luntz's reputation/career as a pollster is? Who will ever believe anything he says ... this a a curse if you are a pollster ... think about it ... a pollster who knowingly falsifies the results.
Too bad we don't have a system where the nose grows bigger during such appearances. It is more fun watching Giulliani stretch the facts, he starts blinking uncontrollably and the eyes get so big. I recall their " leader ' starting out 2000 being the party of moral valuesw and they alone owned the title.
Edwards' personal financial situation doesn't seem, logically, to be an issue for anyone except those who are never voting for him. If you believe in Edwards's message, there's really no viable alternative,
The propagandists at Faux News are so transparently contradictory that its amazing that there is ANYBODY left who doesn't get that. For instance, if a Democrat talks about the economic interests of working people, then he is denounced by Hannity, O'Lielley, Gibson, Luntz, et al, as conducting class warfare. However, whenever that Democrat is himself wealthy, these Faux men trip all over themselves attacking him for being rich. They plainly see him as a class traitor. Look how absolutely nuts they get over Edwards' bank account or the size of Gore's house.
The lesson is that class warfare is clearly being fought in this country, and for the last seven years has been fought with a crazed and ruthless intensity by our economic elites and their corporate media vassals. It simply becomes problematic for them when working people recognize that they... and their descendants... are being openly robbed, flimflammed, and pillaged by these zealots of greed. At the slightest suggestion that people are waking up to this reality, Faux jumps right up and begins flashing shiny distractions at us, inundating us with images of thoroughly f*cked up plastic celebrity beauties, missing blond girls, and smirking denunciations of 'bad' rich people... i.e. Democrats.
And the hell of it is that they never seem to change their game plan.
Thus far, they haven't needed to.
MESCAL:
BRAVO! An excellent analysis, and so damned true in every aspect! Well done.
Thanks, Tex.
Coming from you, that's high praise indeed.
Dontcha just love election time? If it weren't for the latest polls saying who kissed whose baby or the flip flop or waffling on issues by these potential candidates my life would not be very complete. Hey we all know who too vote for and that person is the best candidate that not only addresses the issues but actually does something about those things without expensive earmarks associated with passing that law. Both political parties are so corrupt and morally bankrupt in my judgement, both very capable of spin and distortion. Will the best candidate regardless if he or she has a big mole on their nose or recommends changes to the status quo for the good of our country ever have a snowballs chance in a furnace of getting elected? I think not! Our country it seems has only the choices of people with mega millions in their coffers that when elected serve the interests of those that put them in office via contributions, although I enjoyed watching the former head of Enron squirm when even though he contributed millions to the Republican Party he knew he could not use the get out of Jail card from the Bush Administration
and all this started when this country was born out of a conviction for a representative republic when it was an honor to serve with your talents at 1 dollar a year salary. I would. but then again, i am one of those liberals.
What a wasteland these "political talking head" television shows are, or at least seem to be from this example. Sometimes I wonder how the folks at MMFA can watch all this stuff, without becoming overwhelmed and giving up; maybe they have periodic retreats into the real world, in order to stay sane. I hope so. This television stuff is a serious hazard to your emotional and mental stability: It should be suffered in only carefully controlled doses by even the most rock-steady adult; children should be exposed to it not at all.
So from just a brief video clip of Mr. Edwards, observing...
EDWARDS: We're not going to have an auction in Iowa; we're going to have an election. We're going to decide who the best candidate is, not who the person is that can raise the most money.
...and his noting also how this obvious truth can "frighten" (I'd have said "shock") any candidate who just doesn't get it, and can't see how their magnificant fund-raising totals may not translate into votes (are not a qualification to Office!)...
And the politically brain-dead talking heads just run off at the mouth with it, and begin chattering about Mr. Edwards' personal wealth (only luntz did that, and what does that have to do with what Mr. Edwards said?) and begin talking generally about fund-raising, and the disparity we hear being reported between Democrats and Republicans at this time...
What does that have to do with what Mr. Edwards said?
Strip the entire video excerpt provided here by MMFA, strip it of the politically brain-dead talking heads running off at the mouth, and be left with only Mr. Edwards' true observation about fund-raising and how it doesn't buy votes (and why in the name of common sense would it?) and how fund-raising is no true qualification to Office (but only an imagined one, in the imagination of the fund-raisers themselves)...
Mr. Edwards' comments alone (and so brief), are the substance of pretty good talk and they are the truth...
But what the televised idiots did with them in just a minute or so, was spin foolish and wrong and way off the mark.
This stuff is insufferable enough even in just tiny doses; I wonder how the good folks at MMFA can voluntarily subject themselves to so much of it.
Speaking of fund-raising, I sense that my Christmas contribution to MMFA must have FINALLY cleared: there are already TWO threads today! Ooops - I guess that is a little off-topic?
It does serve, though, as the intro to a point about Edwards that I would like to make: the guy has a few bucks, but still seems to understand that enterprise must be regulated and lawful, for the protection of the fragile human element in the Capitalist equation. I LOVE IT!
Speaking of fund-raising, I sense that my Christmas contribution to MMFA must have FINALLY cleared: there are already TWO threads today! Ooops - I guess that is a little off-topic?
I'm assuming MMFA was on holiday break. I know I was - today was my first day back in the office since December 20th.
(At my company, we work on all the lesser holidays throughout the year - such as President's Day, Good Friday, and Columbus Day - so that we can all have a week off between Christmas and New Years.)
and at my office, we get the same week and a half, plus all the holidays you mentioned above.I know, I know, I'm envious too.
On a side note, how many returns must a poster return before his return is actually a return?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Hopefully, we'll be a united party in the next couple weeks and months, we'll get a good -- a good nominee out there, and we'll go into battle in November. //SNYDER
Just go ahead and start crying. It's ok. We understand, we lived through '94 with Newt, Delay, and "The Contract With America." You can start crying the blues in a WASP offbeat polka sort of way, you can get used to it to!
It's going to be a few decades before Americans are going to entrust American Democracy to the Republican. They have managed to make the many shenanigans of Democrats a nostalgic dream in contrast to the Republican/Fascist nightmare.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Could have been worse...This 'commentary' by Fox... is really just their (or the Republican) viewpoint of how the campaign is or should be run... I do believe that Republicans veiw this presidency by Cheney a relative success... They've set out to right the misteps of the prior Republican administrations and, by all accounts, they've been successful. The mention of 'Fox focus groups' is absurd -- I'll be hanging on the edge of my seat for those results (sarcasm).
To look for any substantial (or factual) information from Fox is a joke. But, we know that.
Ron Paul may also be having some hard feelings towards them.
FOX NEWS! WE Decide, you make barnyard animal noises.
I wonder what focus group Frank tested that dozens and dozens line on? Who really cares? Frank and his phony bs is tiresome.
In his own words, here's what sets Edwards apart from the economic royalists on the right, "Some people come from nothing to being wildly successful and their response is, 'I did this on my own.' I came to a different conclusion. I believe that I did work hard, and I think people should work hard, but I think my country was there for me every step of the way."
And then there's this, "An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the commonwealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth."
The guy gets it. His message is fundamentally American and that's why I support him for President.
Unlike other Democrats who talk about compromising their Progressive values to the for profit sector on healthcare, or their living wage killing support of NAFTA style trade deals; Edwards will not sell out the Progressive principles that made this country what it is.
"Fox News is our name, misrepresntation is our game."
Lughead Frank Luntz is an idiot. I don't know why the Fox News suits keep hiring morons like him. His fixed "focus group" is a complete joke. It is filled with hidden agendas that supports the GOP.
Stupid Sean and his producers like this fool, that's why Lughead Luntz is always on Hannity and Colmes. Unfortunately, you will see this wingnut more often on Hannity and Colmes.
http://www.grind.com/video/If9EWDB_zK4/penn-and-teller-defend-ron-paul-vs-luntz-and-fox-news.html
Penn Gillette nails Luntz's tactics in a video. (careful, Penn uses colorful language! Teller lends his support.)
I wonder how much time and money Edwards spent this week at the Pink Sapphire Salon and Day Spa.
You tell us. I'm sure one of your rabid partisan websites, like a vicious stalker, has been watching John's every move.
Not every move...I'm sure they'll stay out of the room while the little princess gets his Brazilian wax.
Don't kid yourself, sycophants of the type you truck with, will stop at nothing.
Ya might wanna look up the definition of sycophant there, Slappy..
...the little princess said he doesn't use campaign cash to pay for his $4oo haircuts..
..so does that mean he uses the money he makes off poor people's mortgage foreclosures?
And the Stranger prefers ________ for President? (Fill in the blank please)
And the Stranger prefers ________ for President? (Fill in the blank please)
Fred!
That's just too easy, Stranger. I would hope you have a second choice in mind because it sounds like he is throwing his support behind McCain after he drops out.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7682.html
I am guessing you hate Hollywood values, but love Fred, Arnie and Ronnie, eh?
Did you like his statements connecting immigration to the mortgage crisis?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thompson23dec23,1,6505648.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
Asked about the Jena Six, Thompson said, “I don’t know anything about it.”
Asked about his thoughts on the Terri Schiavo matter, Thompson said, “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”
Asked about hurricane property insurance while campaigning in Florida, a huge local issue, Thompson said he doesn’t “know all the facts surrounding that case.”Asked about Social Security reform, one of the top issues on his policy agenda, Thompson said he couldn’t remember what Bush’s position was on Social Security two years ago.
Gotta love that Fred Thompson and Fred Phelps are peas in a pod too, eh? Guess that is why you hate Edwards.
http://cjonline.com/stories/101807/loc_209459393.shtml
After this week, you're going to have to find another horse to ride.
What? You think the hacks you adulate are not a self-serving, servile, fawning parasites?
Just because they may not fawn over Edwards doesn't mean they ain't suckin' scum for their betters.
Yeah, and Romney's perfect quaff he got at Great Clips.
Is this the new Republican strategy? label the Democrats as "girly-men"? Are you trying out some new talking points on us?
They are girly men, especially the little princess Edwards.
I' m sure Romney does pay a good amount for his hair cut.
..but he doesn't then turn around and hypocritically spew rhetoric about there being "two Americas"..
..Romney doesn't apologize for his wealth..quite the opposite..he's trying to create conditions where more people can improve their lots in life...
..Oh...and Romney is not making money off of foreclosures of home loans of poor people..
..but..but..but..the little princess said that he went to work for the Fortress Group so he can learn about poverty..
..yeah he learned about poverty all right...he learned how to make hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars by KEEPING people in poverty
Show us where Edwards has apologized for working hard to be successful.
The difference is that when Edwards talks about wealth he knows he acquired his not because taxes are low, or markets deregulated but because we have a tax supported commonwealth that protects and empowers our ability to prosper.
Strangerbytheday, Do you like to peek in through the window at Edwards? You seem to have a fixation..but that's OKAY here. Live your dream. Also, could you tell me how much our President spends to have his hairpiece maintained? Or didn't you read that in the WackoWorld of ConBlogs?
You seem to pick on Edwards for looking good. But you say nothing about Willard and his beautiful hair? Why? Are you partisan?
Bush wears a hairpiece? Really?
I know you wouldn't just make that up...cuz if you did, you'd look like a total douche.
...and who said edwards looked good...looking gay and good are not the same thing..
"look like a total douche" ----> I think you already took that role.
I'm concerned Strangeone - you promised in an earlier thread that were were not going to be able to post after the holidays. Yet here you are. What happened - your paper route was given to another kid? If it was, I'm guessing it was a girl because you have the very annoying habit of feminizing everything you disagree with. Now, to me that's not a big deal, but I read in it an attempt at diminishing those you disagree with. If that's the case - you are an idiot.
MMFA: "But Edwards did not "bring[] up money" during his appearance in Emmetsburg; rather, he was responding to a question about campaign finances from an attendee at the event."
Alright, so he talked about money never the less. He did not initiate conversation about it, but he did talk about it (a.k.a bring it up). But forget that, Luntz and Fox didn't air the question, therefore whatever Edwards said doesn't count, and all commentary on it is a bunch of lies. The articles on this site go further off the deep end every day...
Thanks God you're here, John, to pull us back from the edge! Sorry, but just because you don't have the intelligence to see the manipulation and spin employed here, does not mean that it doesn't exist. Actually, the fact that you can't see it proves that what Faux News does, works! There are ignorant Republican morons, just like you, throughout this country eagerly lapping up the lying and fear mongering that Faux spews from their putrid gullet every day!
IOWADEM, Shouldn't you be caucasing or something like that? I though they locked all of you in barns today and when the white smoke appears, you've elected our next President.
This being my first caucus, I will have to learn if we are indeed sequestered until we have chosen our new nominee. If so, I hope they provide dinner!
Johnny Numbers, do you think that Fox was "fair and balanced" and gave you the proper information to DECIDE? Or don't you need all of the information to DECIDE?
The only thing I decided about this is that, regardless of how it was brought up, Edwards talked about money, and MMFA is trying to make up some bunk that because it was brought up in the context of a question, he really didn't mean to talk about it. Please, that is insane. The man talked about money, period.
I don't give a hoot about what anybody on Fox said or what their opinion on it is, because I really don't care. I don't agree with their agenda, nor do I support their news service.
Actually, it DOES matter how the topic came up. Edwards did NOT "bring it up"; answering a question and bringing up a topic are 2 different things. What should he have done, say "no comment" when asked a money related question? Context matters, and the point MMFA is making is that these clowns not only ignored the context of Edwards quote, Luntz ignored the substance too, choosing to attack Edwards for daring to have made and spent some money in his private life.
I disagree that knowing that Edwards was answering a question matters in this case, only because Luntz made a broad statement. He simply pointed out the things [that he thinks] people think about whenever Edwards talks about money (Edwards did talk about money here, even if it was in the form of answering a quesiton). Luntz's statement applies to when Edwards may have talked about money 5 months ago, in this current response to a question, or in a speech 3 months from now.
This criticism of Edwards disguised as a pollster's "perception" is just partisanship by Luntz. It's obvious, isn't it, that Luntz has been a Republican operative for years? That's what he's paid to be.
The sniping like this just makes it harder to the U.S. to ever have leadership that will try to tackle the real problems that previous pols have created. The treaty disasters have contributed to the acceleration of outsourcing of jobs and the flood of illegal immigrants. Edwards addresses this. It must be addressed or the Middle Class will continue to shrink into poverty.
Mescal nailed it at the beginning of the thread.
Mr. Stranger/danger illustrates perfectly the tactic of distraction from the issues that Edwards raises.
ditto! The more we engage fools like Stranger, the more opportunity we give them to derail the conversation into meaningless distraction.