You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (773)

PLAYS: (1943)

Oh, the irony! Frank Freakin' Luntz, the man so amoral, he actually got censured by his trade association, lecturing Democrats about right and wrong for using "misleading" poll-driven language? I think my heart's about to seize from me laughing so hard. Republicans are such flaming hypocrites, aren't they?

Wikipedia:

Luntz's specialty is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”

You mean poll-driven language, Frank? It couldn't be that you're angry that we're using your tactics against you, could it?

In 1997, he was reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for refusing to release poll data to support his claimed results "because of client confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR when it reprimanded Luntz, said, "It is simply wanting to know, How many people did you question? What were the questions? We understand the need for confidentiality, but once a pollster makes results public, the information needs to be public. People need to be able to evaluate whether it was sound research."[12]

In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's presidential debate, following a letter from Media Matters that outlined Luntz's GOP ties and questionable polling methodology.[13][14] In a video piece, entertainers and libertarians Penn & Teller lambasted Luntz for his comment that the key to survey polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer".[15] In the wake of the 2008 Presidential election, fellow Republican and prominent pollster Bill McInturff criticized Luntz before journalists at a National Journal Breakfast, insisting that Luntz is "a moron" and lambasting him for mocking Senator McCain's inability to use a Blackberry, which McInturff attributed to the injuries that McCain sustained while a prisoner of war in Vietnam.[16]

Nah, that can't be it. Because from what I read, you're now working for the Democrats, too:

Luntz simply says he's on fire, chalking up his expanded business and full calendar of speeches to his 2008 election dial-testing of voters for Fox News Channel. "Everyone saw my dial sessions, the debate analysis, the ad tests, and the accurate prognosis. Now, everyone wants to apply what they saw and figure out what they can learn from it," he says. "I see no reason not to provide the analyses for those who want it."

Democrats cheer. "Frank has been helpful as we continue to develop our broad-base strategy," says a House operative. Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, adds: "To the extent that Senator Reid likes to hear from pollsters, which is rarely if ever, he always appreciates hearing what Frank has to say." And, he adds, "it has the added benefit of making Republicans mad."

And speaking of ethical dilemmas, Frank, that sort of creates a problem for you, doesn't it? Because while you're on Fox News lambasting Democrats (some of whom may be your clients) and praising Republicans (many of whom are your clients), shouldn't you disclose exactly who paid for your services?

Because if you didn't, that would be wrong.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1215)

PLAYS: (4019)

I actually found a pretty good segment on TV: Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was excellent today on CNN's State of the Union. She spoke clearly and effectively of the importance that there be a public option available for health care to all Americans. No Luntz talking points, just straight talk about how the public option will benefit Americans.

SEBELIUS: Well, I think that competition is a good thing, that most Americans understand that choice and competition is what we want. So, if you look at a health exchange, a marketplace, where people can have some options -- in many parts of the country, private insurers have no competitor, in -- in a state like my own home state of Kansas. There is a dominant insurance company in a lot of the states.

So, we created a public option for state employees, so they could choose side by side benefits and prices. Competition is good. You can write the rules for a level playing field.

The president does not want to dismantle privately-owned plans. He doesn't want the 180 million people who have employer coverage to lose that coverage. He wants to strengthen the marketplace.

But, you know, I -- I don't think it's a big surprise that a lot of insurers say, you know, what we would really like is, everybody who doesn't have insurance to be told they must buy it, and buy it only from us.

The president feels that having a public option side by side, same playing field, same rules, will give Americans choice and will help lower costs for everybody. And that's a good thing

.
Wow, who would have thought that Insurance companies would be against a public option. She beat back the "trigger" that many HICers want to try and put in place. She said that we can't afford to wait for some trigger to go off. The time is now to attack this problem.

KING: ...So, how about a trigger? How about you enact reforms that give the private insurance industry, maybe it's three years; maybe it's five years, and if, by then, they haven't lowered costs, they haven't brought the uninsured into the thing, then the government option would trigger and kick in then"? What's wrong with that?

SEBELIUS: Well, there are a lot of, now, specific ideas being discussed on Capitol Hill. And, certainly, the trigger is one of them.

But what Massachusetts found when they moved to insuring all citizens of the commonwealth is that, unless you address costs from the very first day, unless you have a system where cost control and cost lowering is one of the goals, you don't do so well. You -- you can bring everybody into the system, but the costs may rise.

So, I think having a public option from the outset, having the design, being competitive, and making sure there is some choice, making sure that consumers have a choice of plan, and, for the first time ever in the United States, making sure that insurers don't decide who gets covered -- if you got a preexisting condition, we want you in the marketplace, we want you and your family to be covered, and we want you to be able to go to a doctor of your choice and have preventive care and wellness care. That's part of reforming the system.

Goodbye to the "trigger effect." It won't work and it gives the health care industry a license to fleece us. And I loved what she said here.

Continue reading »