Luntz and NBC's Gregory omitted context in dubbing Giuliani and McCain attacks among "the year's best quotes"
SUMMARY: On Today, David Gregory and Frank Luntz discussed video clips of what Gregory called "the year's best quotes from the campaign trail." However, Gregory and Luntz omitted relevant context for two of the quotations -- an attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by Rudy Giuliani and a separate attack on Clinton by Sen. John McCain.
On the December 31 edition of NBC's Today, chief White House correspondent David Gregory and GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who was identified only as a "political pollster," discussed video clips of what Gregory called "the year's best quotes from the campaign trail." However, Gregory and Luntz omitted relevant context for two of the five quotations they chose to highlight -- an attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and a separate attack on Clinton by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
During the program, Gregory introduced a clip of Giuliani saying, "Quote, Hillary Clinton, 'I have a million ideas. America cannot afford them all.' Swear, I'm not making it up. ... No kidding, Hillary. America can't afford you." Gregory said, "That's a bumper sticker right there." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, the Boston Globe editorial board -- the audience to whom Clinton originally made the statement that Giuliani cited -- said that when Clinton made the comment, she was "saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around."
The Globe first reported Clinton's remarks in an October 11 article:
Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.
She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
In an October 28 editorial, the Globe stated that Clinton's remarks during the interview have been "so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript that contains the remark."
Another of the quotes aired during the segment was a clip of McCain saying that "Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was -- I was tied up at the time." Luntz called McCain's criticism of Clinton "[a] double hit" and a "home run." But neither Gregory nor Luntz noted, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, that although McCain is listed as a co-sponsor of the amendment to remove the earmark for a museum at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, located "at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival" in New York, he was one of six senators to miss the vote to "table" -- or kill -- that amendment. The motion to table the amendment failed by a vote of 52-42, and the Senate subsequently passed the amendment by unanimous consent.
During the segment, Luntz was identified as a "[p]ollster" by Gregory and a "political pollster" by on-screen text. As Media Matters has noted, Luntz has worked for the Republican Party and for Republican candidates, including Giuliani during his 1993 and 1997 mayoral campaigns, as well as his 2000 Senate race, from which Giuliani withdrew.
From the December 31 edition of NBC's Today:
GREGORY: As 2007 winds down, in this morning's edition of "Today on the Trail" we look back at the year that was, the run-up to the 2008 presidential race. Pollster Frank Luntz is here with the year's best quotes from the campaign trail.
And, Frank, you've been doing a lot of focus groups, obviously, as you do every year. And this has been such a strange cycle so far in lots of different ways. And there are moments here that you think are telling.
LUNTZ: Well, I was expecting it to be all about experience and intelligence, and I got it wrong. In the end, likability actually does still play a major role. Hillary Clinton always had that issue of being too tight, of not showing her heart. But when she's humorous and when she comes up with a one-liner, boy, does she do well.
GREGORY: And when we talk about these in the context of a debate, they are very humanizing. Let's start with Senator Clinton. This comes from a debate in Las Vegas, when there was that perception that she was playing the gender card because her opponents were finally engaging her. Watch.
CLINTON [video clip]: I'm not playing, as some people say, the gender card here in Las Vegas. I'm just trying to play the winning card. And I understand very well that people are not attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead. And I understand. ... As Harry Truman famously said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And I feel very comfortable in the kitchen, and I'm going to, you know, withstand the heat.
LUNTZ: She plays the gender card as she's not playing the gender card, and she uses Harry Truman. She invokes one of the most popular, really tough ex-presidents. It's brilliant because it made her seem human. And the way that she related to the audience -- and she's also -- she does one thing perfect: She always ends when she's supposed to. She never goes over the one minute, and voters hate it --
GREGORY: When they see that.
LUNTZ: -- when candidates talk too long.
GREGORY: All right, let's now move on to Mayor Rudy Giuliani. This is from a debate in Orlando just a couple of months ago. Watch.
GIULIANI [video clip]: Second, she made a statement last week, and I've been very critical of her, but I want to tell her I agree with this one. Quote, Hillary Clinton, "I have a million ideas. America cannot afford them all." Swear, I'm not making it up. ... No kidding, Hillary. America can't afford you.
GREGORY: That's a bumper sticker right there.
LUNTZ: And it's great because Rudy needed to define the race not by his comparison where he stands on the issues vs. other Republicans, because in some cases mainstream Republicans don't necessarily agree with him. But they do see him as the best person to defeat Hillary Clinton, so he defined the opponent. If the opponent is Hillary Clinton, that's Rudy's advantage.
GREGORY: Let's go back to the Democrats and Barack Obama. He's been criticized for being a little bit aloof, not great during the debates, trying too hard, maybe, to stay above the fray. Well, at the recent Des Moines Register debate -- debate, rather, he mixed it up a little bit. Watch this.
[begin video clip]
CAROLYN WASHBURN (Des Moines Register editor and debate moderator): With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?
OBAMA: Well, the -- you know, I am --
CLINTON: I want to hear that.
OBAMA: Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well.
[end video clip]
GREGORY: It was a good -- it was a good line, and a lot of confidence there.
LUNTZ: Yes. And if Senator Clinton had been more careful, she wouldn't have laughed and she wouldn't have challenged him. Because that's what made this the great moment. It wasn't Barama's [sic] response. It was him responding to Hillary Clinton. These are not his best moments. He's much better on the campaign stump. But in these debates, if he can hold his own with her, he could do very well in Iowa and New Hampshire.
GREGORY: Right. Also betrayed some of the momentum that he's had, kind of showcased that, that he's had toward the end of the year.
Now, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, he's been obviously doing well in the debates, rising a tide of support and now the front-runner in Iowa. And one of his biggest assets has been his ability to communicate. So we're going to go back to something he said back in June that struck a chord with voters.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You are an ordained minister. What is the most pressing moral issue in this country?
HUCKABEE: Well, it looks like I'm getting all the moral questions tonight, and I guess that's a good thing. That's better than getting the immoral questions, so I'm happy to get those.
[end video clip]
LUNTZ: He used that line in a couple of debates. There's a reason why Mike Huckabee went from 1 percent in the polls now to, in some cases, in second place.
GREGORY: Right.
LUNTZ: He is the most likable of all the candidates. He is very calm, very relaxed, and very in control of himself. But even more importantly, the language that he used suggests a sense of confidence. They're asking him -- you could argue that he gets asked the toughest questions of any Republican --
GREGORY: Right.
LUNTZ: -- but he hits them out of the park. Now, the challenge for Huckabee is he's going to have to respond to the other areas of his record --
GREGORY: Right.
LUNTZ: -- he can't afford advertising and he's got a challenge ahead.
GREGORY: Let's get -- let's get in one from John McCain in a similar vein.
McCAIN [video clip]: In case you missed it, a few days ago Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was -- I was tied up at the time. But the fact is --
GREGORY: Hmm. Referring to him being a prisoner of war at the time.
LUNTZ: And what viewers should note is that they gave him a standing ovation that lasted --
GREGORY: Yeah.
LUNTZ: -- more than a minute for that line. A double hit.
GREGORY: Right.
LUNTZ: When you can do a double-ended joke, that's the home run.
GREGORY: It's his biography, as well. Frank Luntz, very interesting.
I love these guys saying stuff like Hillary said so and so and "it made her more human". I guess she also has to wear frilly underwear to make her feel like a woman? It's just such a dumb and useless thing to say (to normal people). But I understand they have an agenda to paint her a certain way. Just wish we had more articulate and intelligent pundits.
I have a different idea, somewhat along the lines of Shakespear and lawyers: how about we "fire" all the pundits, and figure out for ourselves who the liars are, and who is telling the truth? We couldn't do worse than the current crew, and we'd have the satisfaction of digging up the facts for ourselves.
Well, I've fired all of them in my mind. Does that count?
Ahhh . . . but have you "fired" them, in the Shakepeare sense concerning lawyers - even in your mind.
(I must confess that I have - I have a rather bloodthirsty imagination, ignited instantly by whichever one of them is lying at the moment on my TV.)
J.J.
Note, it's always it "makes her SEEM" more human. It's an illusion, and restricted to ONLY when these few phrases have been uttered.
The unavoidable corollary is, she is INHUMAN, all the time. Less than Human, inhumane, not normal, not "like the rest of us".
This is known as the "backhanded compliment", because by seeming to find a small something to laud, the main point is that she is constantly being DEFINED in a negative fashion. That's the NARRATIVE to be followed.
Such "compliments" are delivered as (1) being the "exceptions" to ordinary behavior, and (2) being "phony" (i.e. SEEMS human).
So now Luntz has moved over to the Mainstream Today show? Just plain disgusting and a joke.
So now Luntz has moved over to the Mainstream Today show?
Maybe they can have Luntz do something useful, like helping Willard Scott wish the over-100 crowd a happy birthday.
No joke. I still wish John Candy was alive so he can imitate Luntz on Saturday Night Live or something. Much more appropriate.
Oops. My bad. John Candy was never on Saturday Night Live. But either Candy or CHris Farley would have had a blast imitating him. God rest their souls.
This just shows once again how democratic and biased that this network is. Everyone already knew that this network was democrat by the news coverage and this is just one more piece of evidence to back up that theory.
Did you read the article? Do you ever watch NBC or MSNBC? Matthews LOVES Giuliani, and for some reason, has a bit of beef with Clinton. How that's support for the "Democrat" (sic) party is beyond me.
I think you're commenting on a different article.
Good laugh lines. If some here are going to get their undies in a bunch over events like this, it will be a rather testy year at MMFA. It appears from the above, that it wouldn't have made a bit of difference whether McCain voted on the mentioned earmark or not (52-42 would have been 52-43, big deal). There will be a lot of laugh lines thrown out this election season by both sides without clearly defining the context in which they were said. If we get upset by 1/2 of them (left or right), the sales of antacids and HBP medicine will go through the roof (perhaps an investment opportunity for some of us).
OSCAR:
I really WISH that your "everybody does it" observation were TRUE. If it were indeed true that the treatment by the press, the slings and arrows endured by BOTH sides, the scrutiny and harshness suffered by BOTH sides are a "ho-hum" WASH, we would have had a very different past SEVEN SOLID YEARS.
For one glaring example, GEORGE W. BUSH would have been subjected to SEVEN INDEPENDENT COUNSELS, with unlimited funding, to explore and examine every single aspect of his behavior, both public and private. AND OF COURSE, we would now be looking at an IMPEACHMENT, based on a few shreds of accusations dug up BY these investigations.
Ah, but it's not to be. WHY? Because there is NOT "equal treatment" in our nation. There is NOT an "everybody does it" equality that allows us to just shrug off claims that there is a double standard.
You WISH US TO BELIEVE that, heck, both sides get the SAME treatment, and so there is no basis for EITHER side to claim any validity to being singled out. But HISTORY and REALITY show us that your claim is BOGUS.
Democratic and Republican politicians face wildly differing treatment in our nation, because ONE SIDE ... the RIGHTWING side ... depends on a constant barrage of NEGATIVE tactics, and has the POWER and MONEY to keep the pressure on ... both by "think tank" influence, funding of "swift boat" projects, and control of a MEDIA that stands ready to present the rightwing NARRATIVE as factual and relevant. Rightwing DEFINING and FRAMING represents the baseline premises that our national Media accepts as REALITY. This spans from myths such as "Republicans are good for the economy and defense" to individual characterizations like "Hillary is shrill". The fictions are spoken far and wide as if conventional wisdom and unchallengably TRUE, underscored and repeated daily to the American Public to form the fiction that rightwing defining represents objective reality.
The public destruction of Democrats has been calculated and carried out with a very observable strategy, which is TODAY being repeated. Al Gore's "stiffness" and "exaggerations (lies)", Dean's "scream", Kerry being a coward, liar, and fraudulent "hero", Clinton's impeachment (with no basis). Where is the "balance" on MEDIA scrutiny given Republicans, over INVENTED and irrelevant aspects of their character? The examples do not exist, because the American People have not been treated to such equal tactics on both sides.
So, sorry Oscar, your "everybody does it" dismissal does not pass the most fleeting observation of REALITY and FACT. Americans are waking up to the fact that their media in league with rightwing character assassins have been fooled and bamboozled for a couple of decades now, have been told that negative trivia and manufactured smears have been deciding our leadership, and that leadership has been a DISASTER for America.
I agree...look at Larry Craig. Had that happened on the Democratic aisle, he would have been chased out of Washington with pitchforks and torches.Although, if he were a Democrat, He probably would have been more comfortable with his sexuality and not had to resort to random encounters with men in bathroom stalls.
You mean like William Jefferson or Mollohan or Kennedy (oh, I know, innocent until proven guilty).
Of course, we are only going to hear/read about the "smears" of the D candidates here, but you can close your ears/eyes and pretend that there are no laugh lines thrown out by the Ds aimed at the Rs (well, there may be laugh lines, but they are entirely innocent, right?). We see the bias we want to see and claim the other is just innocent fun, but what the hey, that's what MMFA is all about.
It seems like the bigger offense here is not identifying Luntz as a Republican pollster, but MMFA sort of glosses over that for this silly 'out of context' complaint which, is far less misleading in respect to the fact that they're identifying good soundbytes which, by definition, are meant to exist outside of context.
>>over that for this silly 'out of context' complaint which, is far less misleading in respect to the fact that they're identifying good soundbytes which, by definition, are meant to exist outside of context.
Hey, it's Mr. Verbose back with his crap! Yes, sound bytes can be criticized if they are flagrantly inaccurate, so inccacurate that the *Globe* felt they had to publish the text of the interview. If I call you a serial rapist is that okay, because it is a sound byte and doesn't need to have context?
I can understand posting the Clinton comments because of the context problem but what was wrong with what McCain said?
Gee, if I didn't know better, I would think that Luntz has it in for Hillary. Democrats bad, Republicans good ! [snort, grunt]
I particularly like your summary of the conversation - the snort, grunt, are traditional Repugnant emphasis for indisputable truth.
As we witness the unfolding of the "mainstream media's" coverage of this election, understand the STAKES.
Bush has moved many hundreds of billions of dollars into very few hands, the monied elites in defense contracting, oil, gas, and industries, pharmaceuticals and a few other "chosen winners". They realize they have BILLIONS to lose if this election does not go their way, so this tiny minority of wealthy Americans will use any means available to maintain the "status quo" established by Bush.
They NEED another Republican in the White House. Not only to continue the tax bonanzas and no-bid contracts and war everlasting, but also to avoid any meaningful INVESTIGATIONS of their dealings over the past seven years.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this is "just another election" to these people. It's deadly serious, it's the most important thing in their lives, it's about many mega-fortunes, and it's in many cases about staying out of JAIL.
Desperate people will act desperately, and I expect nothing short of the rightwing pulling out all the stops in order to try to destroy any posibility of there being a Democratic Presidency.
The American People want a fair election, and may the best person win. The rightwing aren't playing on that field ... they have way too much to lose. For them, it's WIN AT ANY COST, BY ANY MEANS.
Somebody explain to me what was wrong with what McCain said? Thanks.
BRUCE:
We could EXPLAIN it to you, but then we'd have to UNDERSTAND it FOR you. Considering that stating FACTS to a rightwinger is like speaking Chinese to a dog, you would have no basis for figuring out what was wrong.
Reminds me of the joke about the redneck who, wanting to compliment a lady, told her, "You don't sweat much for a fat girl." Then, confused and bewildered when she runs away crying, laments, "Wha'd I SAY??!!??" It's called 'clueless', and it really can't be cured.
Yes, your example was cruel yet personal attacks towards conservatives are completely warranted. I believe I understand it now. Thank you.
You're out of line on two counts. First, you're lumping all conservatives into a group that can't understand facts. Patently absurd, obviously. Second, it's a valid question. I'm not sure myself how the context significantly changes what McCain said. If you can explain why Bruce's question is stupid, which is clearly your suggestion, then do so.
Bruce is almost always (if not always) reasonable. You wouldn't accept a right-winger dismissing your question simply because you're a liberal, so it doesn't work the other way either. If you have a point, make it instead of launching blind partisan attacks.
Brab,
You're absolutely right, Bruce always exhibits respect and restraint on these boards, far more than myself, that is for sure.
For Tex to blast his valid question with a cheap partisan attack is ridiculous. It just shows his knee jerk reaction to do so when he can't toss out his patented talking points as an argument.
He ought to apologize and answer Bruce's question.
I agree. and I think I'll try to answer the question.Nothing is wrong with what McCain said. The beef here is not with what he said, but how Luntz and Gregory tried to characterize it. Personally I think it's kind of a stretch, but it is true he was not there to vote on the bill.
I think the way it was characterized as being one of the year's "best quotes" - which in the context of McCain's prisoner of war status at the time, is pretty accurate - regardless of what ideology is attached to it. It is about as benign an attack on Clinton as one can get.
BRUCE asks: “Somebody explain to me what was wrong with what McCain said?”
I reviewed what McCain said. He said, “a few days ago Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum.”
The earmark was for the “Bethel Woods Center for the Arts.” It’s Hillary’s job to attempt to promote tourism, education, and culture/arts preservation and promotion. If the Senate agrees, the funding is provided, if not, it does not. Nothing special about the process, but McCain saw fit to recharacterize the funding as for a “Woodstock Concert Museum”. Why? To invoke, of course, hippies and drugs, the better to ridicule.
McCain continued, “I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.”
Yup, Hippies and drugs. Hillary, trying to spend $1M to celebrate hippies and drugs.
No analysis is necessary about the economic impact on the area, comparisons to projects McCain has AGREED with as earmarks, just a cheap shot. Ah, but the joke was coming.
McCain deadpans, “I wasn't there. … I was tied up at the time.”
A good line? In my opinion, yes. The POW takes a shot at the war protestors at home, having a party and doing drugs. And he gets to place Hillary right there in the midst of the tie-died T-shirts, doobies, and mud.
I wouldn’t even disagree that, as a political “gotcha” line, it’s among the top five of the year. What I initially objected to was the tortured connections McCain had to make in order to deliver the punchline.
So, did I “overreact” in my response to BRUCE? Yes, I did. Reviewing the context, the outburst was uncalled for, as a response to his question. Several believe BRUCE is due an apology, and I agree.
Sorry, Bruce.
My “state of mind” responding to the a myriad of other issues, characters and posters in here (and short time) will sometimes try my patience, and the result is an unwarranted attack.
BRABANTIO adds, “you're lumping all conservatives into a group that can't understand facts.”
To that charge, I reply, I KNOW no “conservatives” who post here … but there are lots of rightwingers “informed” by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and a host of other misinformers, and lots who voted for Bush, who is definitely no “conservative.”. Those rightwingers, the ones who parrot the talking heads, the ones who continue to defend Bush, WILL be lumped into a “group that can’t understand facts”, and I make no apology for pointing that out.
When I falsely jump on a poster who does not fit that profile, it does me shame. I will strive to avoid that in the future.
Thank you Tex, I do appreciate that.
I think you're wrong Tex.
Bruce has always been one of the reasonable conservatives. He's earned my respect.
Thank you all for the kind words, Worrier, Brabantio, Tommy. Very much appreciated from my corner.
Bruce,
I'm not surprised at Tex's ignorant condescending reply to you, this is the typical sort of reply I've come to expect from him when he can't answer a question or refute an argument.
I'll be shocked if Tex apologizes, he never has before.
You are one of the most reasonable & fairest posters on this site & do not strike out at Liberals as if they were a monolithic group. Again, something Tex does constantly when attacking Conservatives..
McCain's quip was funny, and hardly an vilifying attack on Hillary.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Frank Luntz embodies all that is wrong with American elections, campaign finance, and the desparate state of our public medias. He is a Republican Strategist, not just a political strategist, a Republican Strategist who is on the job for the party while being identified as just a "political strategist." He has an agenda for his party while he pretends to be an impartial observer, and held up as though he had no affiliation.
A Republican making insightfull jems about the negatives for Hillary, letting Guiliani, and McCain joke/insult Clinton while telling the audience how 2 Republicans looked Presidential, and the Democrats not so much.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
and people listen to what luntz says?