Luntz lies about GOP work

MediaMatters has the goods:

Reporting Republican pollster Frank Luntz's complaints about MSNBC's decision to drop him from its debate coverage after a letter from Media Matters for America, as well as criticism from progressive weblogs and their readers, Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz reported that Luntz "says he's done no GOP work since 2001" but didn't bother to look into whether Luntz's statement was true.

From Kurtz's October 4 "Media Notes" column in The Washington Post:

"I think they buckled to political pressure," says Luntz, who has advised Republicans from Newt Gingrich to Rudy Giuliani but says he's done no GOP work since 2001. "They caved. ... Why is it that Democrats are allowed to do this" after leaving politics, "but Republicans aren't?"

But as MMFA has noted, the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press reported on September 2: "Earlier this year, GOP pollster Frank Luntz advised Republicans to never talk about Iraq or homeland security without first mentioning how '9/11 changed everything.'" The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on September 1: "Republican pollster Frank Luntz did his best Tuesday to pump up Ohio's Republicans at a delegation breakfast. 'If you guys fail, if John Kerry becomes president by a percent or half a percent, I think you're going to be pretty regretful,' he said."

Luntz also worked for Republicans during the California governor recall effort. A September 7, 2003, New York Times article reported: "Frank Luntz, a pollster who was an adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was hired by the group that triggered the recall, Rescue California, Recall Gray Davis." (A USA Today article called this group "Republican-led"). Similarly, an October 23, 2003, Weekly Standard article referred to Luntz's "client Arnold Schwarzenegger."

A June 2004 memo by Luntz titled "Communicating The Principles Of Prevention & Protection In The War On Terror" coached Republicans on how to connect the Iraq war with the war on terror, including concepts like "It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington" and "9/11 changed everything," which have been staples of Republican rhetoric for a year. (Cf. President George W. Bush's April 20 speech.)

There's more (including links to the source articles). Howie Kurtz is a hack.

•  'Howie Kurtz is a hack.'

  He has plenty of company.

  by Bob Johnson on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 06:52:18 PM PDT

  •  Same ol', same ol'

    'Howie Kurtz is a hack.' He has plenty of company,

    Of course. Kurtz equals mediocrity.  

    Which brings us to a familiar situation: Are the Howies, Wolfies, Judies, et al, mainly incompetent or mainly evil, purposeful in their lies? The answer I suspect is complex.

    Lets take the latest Howie incident:

    • Did Howie know he was just making up, lying, about his statement that Luntz wasn't politically operative for the last 2 years? Probably.
      
    • Was Howie trying to defend friends in the media, friends who give him exposure on the TV? Likely.
      
    • Was Howie trying to please his Republican friends who bequeath him his "access of evil" card. Sure.
      
    • Was Howie also partly lazy in simply not looking up the easy-to-find fact that Luntz has remained politically active to this very day? Maybe.
      
    • Did Howie feel, underneath, that he was battling the notion that he needed to prove he wasn't being some "liberal" journalist by defending the indefensible Luntz? Could be..
      
    • Did Howie underestimate our noble new detectives on the Internet who are increasingly exposing this type of media mediocrity? Yep..

    I have no proof, no "Cameron-style" smoking gun to prove any of this, its just based on rational guessing. And of course Howie is one tentacle on a multi-tentacled octopus of media mediocrity.

    But the real tragedy of this style of non-reporting reporting is not just that its pathetic and incompetent, it kills, literally. This same lazy-ass medicocre journalsim is, along with Bushco, responsible for thousands of dead in Iraq to cite only one example.

    I will write anothe letter, another e-mail to yet another lazy Kurtz jouranlist. I can only hope that with our new-found strong progressive/libvera/dem base we can turn the tide on the sleeping 4th estate via continous attrition.

    by assyrian64 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:30:31 PM PDT

    •  Oops, correction to my text

      Substitute:
      

      • "journalist" for "jouranlist"
        
      • "liberal" for "libvera"
        
      • "continuous" for "continous"

      I accidentally hit the "post" button before text clean up...  ):-(

      by assyrian64 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:37:18 PM PDT

    •  They're just dinosaurs

      Being a journalist is a job to them.  They have their 20-year-old methods and they stick to it.  Google?  Never heard of it.  

      by TrentL on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:38:13 PM PDT

      •  It is even easier than that

        all he had to do was go back to Media Matters for their reaction.  They would have told him, and given links, for their side of the story that would have shown that Luntz was lying once again.  St either kurtz is:

        A). Not Doing his job and should be fired or

        2). A partisan hack and should only be able to work for Faux News.

        by ETinKC on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:02:41 PM PDT

        •  Kos - Go ask Howie

          I think we need to take the role of bloggers as part of the media one step further.  I think Kos should ask Kurtz to respond to this thread.  I'd like to hear what he has to say about this issue.

          by trillian on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:47:50 AM PDT

          •  I emailed the "Post" stating that

            either fake "media crtic" Kurtz be required to declare his bias, and thereafter only write editorials in effort to advance the Republican't agenda, or be fired and thrown out on his ear for lying to the readers.

            And if that isn't done, the the entire "Post" management and editor staffs should be thrown out on their ear for allowing Kurtz' continuing deceit.
            

            by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:24:12 PM PDT

      •  Google Contempt

        I routinely post in our local community college's political board. The Political Science professor, a guy I've never met, ceaselessly shows his ultra-right-wing stripes (even though he says he's not a Republican).

        We get into cage matches all of the time -- and he usually ends up making condascending comments at my Google research habits. They usually put whatever he can come up with right back down. But, I'm always asking him what his problem is with Google (he complains about it all of the time). Here he is, a PhD who happens to be a teacher -- and he says he prefers "ideas from the top of a person's head" over documented sources. Isn't that just about the strangest and scariest behavior coming from a teacher?

        I shudder to think what other special little quirks of his his students are treated to.

        Segway -- I think some of these folks, even the ones doing the reporting, are intelligent enough to do the research. The problem is, they simply have contempt for facts.

        by ilona on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 12:54:43 AM PDT

        •  He has a Phd

          and he's teaching at a community college? I think that says it all...

          (no dis to community colleges)

          by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:49:41 AM PDT

          •  thanks -- you're spot on.

            :o)

            by ilona on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:47:12 AM PDT

    •  9/11 Changed Everything

      Let's put our heads together and make a list of what 9/11 changed:

      1. After 9/11, the United States' foreign policy no longer had to make sense;

      2. After 9/11, Americans no longer had a right to legal counsel or a speedy trial;

      3. America no longer had to abide by the Geneva Convention;

      4. The government no longer had to justify its desire to spy on individual citizens to a judge;

      5. The congress was relieved of its responsibility to be a check on the power of the Executive Branch;

      6. The press was relieved of the responsibility to  question the logic of patently illogical actions;

      More..... Add yours.

      9/11 Changed everything, indeed.

      by Joan in Seattle on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:50:27 PM PDT

      •  6

        6 happened long before 9/11.  9/11 was just the reichstag fire that gave everyone an excuse to power grab. The media moguls knew that 9/11 meant they could step closer to the right, be more Republican, and enjoy the profits that come from FCC deregulation (hey, theyre still trying).  News is just another consumer widget to them, accurate, fake, biased, whatever sells AND is within their interests.  Its not even about the bottom line anymore. The bottom line has been married with deregulation and right-wing ideology.

        by skallas on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:27:30 PM PDT

      •  I want Kerry to jump on this

        You know that at some point in the upcoming debates, the chimp is going to blurt out "9/11 changed everything" (in between his stammering, long vacant pauses and blinking).

        When he does, I want Kerry to pounce.  There's so much he could shoot back with, such as:

        "Mister president, you say 9/11 changed everything, but I disagree in the strongsest possible sense.  That's letting the terrorists win.  You may be willing to surrender to the terrorists but I'm not.  I refuse to allow the cowards who attacked our nation on that dark day to take any victory by wrecking the very things that make our nation great.

        9/11 may have changed some things, but it did not change everything.

        It did not change our basic sense of decency, compassion for those in need, and our commitment to doing the right thing.

        It did not change our respect for the rule of law, both domestically and internationally.

        It did not change our dedication to civil liberties and the freedoms that true American patriots have given their lives to preserve.

        It did not change our need to act on the best information and intelligence available, to be smart about how we go about our international relations - something you and your administration repeatedly fail to do.

        It did not change our national character, which tells us that the lives of our brave fighting men and women are precious, and are not to be squandered cheaply in unnecessary foreign quagmires.

        It did not change our basic sense of decency, our sense of right and wrong, our love for peace and prosperity, that have made America a beacon that shines around the world.

        No, mister president, 9/11 did not "change everything", and in my administration, we will not exploit the tragedy of that day as a cynical ploy to distract Americans from the real issues that we must confront and over which we must triumph."

        Well, you get the idear. ;)

        Kerry could get nice and wound up on this one - lots of opportunity for righteous indignation and high oratory here.  We all know this pitch is coming.  When it does, I hope JFK swings for the god damn fences.

        YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
        ah, I really needed that.

        by leftyboy666 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 10:00:14 PM PDT

        •  To sum up

          "9/11 changed everything!"

          "It didn't change my sense of decency."

          by Dragonchild on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 12:08:40 AM PDT

          •  The assertion that "9/11 changed

            everything" should have been critically attacked when first uttered.

            Instead, that anti-intellectualism remains in play.

            What it didn't change?  Begin with the fact that Bushit remains a constant liar -- including his claim to be a "Christian".
            

            by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:27:20 PM PDT

      •  After 9/11

        People got an excuse to try all the things they knew wouldn't, shouldn't, and couldn't work before 9/11, it sounds like.

        "9/11 changed everything!!  

        Including good manners, Common decency, aand common sense?

        by Gimli on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 10:56:24 PM PDT

    •  NO

      Kurtz=Hack.

      He pretty much openly spins for the right wing. His latest suckup job was spinning that Kerry didnt really win the debates and people would come to see that over the next few days yada yada. Judy Woodruff was jumping from talking head to talking head trying to get some probush spin and only he came up with any.. so she stuck with him.

      You're overanalysing. After a while Charlie Brown you oughta consider that Lucy probably aint gonna hold the ball still for you.

      by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:53:09 AM PDT

•  Depends on what the word "GOP" means!

  Right, Chump?

  by Volvo Liberal on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

  •  This is getting too easy....

    ....I wish these thugs and lying media whores would make it harder for us because this type of lying shit is just to easy too smell

    ...Can you believe there was a time when we didn't exist and Kurtz and Luntz could lie, in words of the late Vince Foster (when speaking of the WSJ) without consequences?

    Too bad, suckers. We're here. We're blogs. Get used to it!!!

    by Volvo Liberal on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 06:55:56 PM PDT

    •  We were here

      we just werent in blogs. Ive had political sites for over five years. There were tens of thousands of them out there as well. Everything from web pages to forums. But blogs made the media take notice by giving the people a voice. And by giving people like Marcos et al the ability to debunk the lies in Realtime. And the media hates it.

      by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:56:41 AM PDT

•  Freep Zogby Poll

  Zogby Interactive Poll

  Go fill it out NOW!

  Remember to say that you

  1. WERE going to vote for Bush, but now are changing your mind.
     
  2. Live in a rural area
     
  3. Wrong Track
     
  4. Iraq War and Politics are the biggest problems right now.
     
  5. You live in the Battlegrounds (Florida/PA/Ohio/Wisconsin)
     

     Zip Codes: Ohio-44870, PA-17837, Fl-32301, WI-54301
  6) Are a middle aged white male/security mom

  I just filled out mine now

  
  Come on People!  

  Push it.  Fight.
  

  by rapidfire on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:00:43 PM PDT

  •  Um, I really don't think it's appropriate to

    screw with Zogby Interactive Polls.

    It's in everyone's interest if these are as accurate as possible.

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:12:08 PM PDT

    •  Um, and the world is a fair place

      
      And Gore won the election and he's the president,

      And Soldiers in Iraq are getting good armor becuase of the 87 billion dollar provision

      And Saddam supported Al-Quaeda.
      

      Come on, WAKE UP, polling is part of what's wrong with democracy.  

      Popularity should not make public policy.

      by rapidfire on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:16:28 PM PDT

      •  What was Karl Rove's first political prank?

        Was it:

        A) Making certain all polls were conducted accurately, since this is clearly in everyone's interests?

        B) Making certain his candidate always told the whole truth and nothing but the truth until the democrat buckled under the fire of his righteous godliness?

        C) Stealing stationery from an opposing campaign and inviting outsiders to headquarters for free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing?

        If you think the answer is A or B, please consider a Health Chat message board, rather than one that deals with politics.

        by markymarx on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:30:33 PM PDT

        •  Right. Because other people are

          assholes, we should be assholes.

          Because others are liars, we should be liars.

          Because others are dishonest, we should be dishonest.

          Because others are untrustworthy, we should be untrustworthy.

          Because the above defines Republican't, we should all become Republican'ts.
          

          by jnagarya2 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 09:53:20 PM PDT

          •  politics

            isn't for everybody

            by markymarx on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 02:12:33 AM PDT

            •  Politics _is_ for

              everyone.

              Dirty tricks are not.

              Sleaze is not.

              Being exactly like one's enemy -- thus being one's enemy -- is not.
              

              by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:29:33 PM PDT

              •  wrong again

                Playing politics as it has always been played does not make us "exactly" like our opponents, any more than fighting Germans with tanks, airplanes, and armies, turned us into Nazis.

                by markymarx on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

          •  politics matters

            What is this Sunday School?  There's two choices here:

            1)

            Because some people are pious moralizers we need to be pious moralizers.  (your view)

            2)

            Political campaigns have relied on negative ads, and a variety of tricks to get an advantage since 1800.  This is how politics always has been, and always will be, so there's no sense moralizing about it.  

            by markymarx on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 01:42:56 PM PDT

            •  Though murder is illegal,

              murders happen anyway; so, because the laws prohibiting murder are not perfect, therefore do not prevent all murders, we should repeal them all.

              Bad guys are liars, so we, the good guys, should lie.  By that screwy "logic" we will remain the good guys.

              by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:32:43 PM PDT

              •  where do i start

                So, if bad guys start wars, we should never fight them?  Based on your painful logic, we'd all be speaking German right now.  

                by markymarx on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:44:26 PM PDT

    •  Is it wrong

      to say I'm a Progressive Democrat living in a rural area who was Kerry leaning before the debate and more pro-Kerry now?  It's all true, but by leaning, I mean I would hae voted for a bucket of warm spit vs GWB before the debate and was pleased witht he outcome...

      by TheGryphon on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:46:07 PM PDT

  •  Taking the poll is worth the results they show

    Very encouraging information out of states we need.  

    An interesting and perhaps funny (alhtough I'd much rather see Kerry win in a landslide, or at least by a legit margin) is looking at the state by state numbers they give, which suggest that we may lose the popular vote and win the electoral college.  Boy would that piss off the Republicans.

    by timdauwalter on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:15:48 PM PDT

  •  Chillicothe, Ohio

    45601

    by Carnacki on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:40:10 PM PDT

    •  Good rural swing state ZIP

      Cape Girardeau, MO - 63701

      by napoleonblownaparte on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 06:29:45 AM PDT

  •  Bad Idea.

    Hows does "freeping" this help anyting?  Zogby already uses the most pro-kerry methodology of any of the "mainstream" polls.  Why create easy fodder to discredit it?

    Moreover, you don't want to move polls now, you want to show slow steady, inexorable movement towards victory for the one  crucial poll in November.  If you do manage to "freep" this poll, all you've is create another problem for yourself.  Any  subsequent poll slips that by "unfreeped" gives the Lazy Media's an easy story:  "Kerry can't solidify debate win"

    Kerry's winning.  Give  money.  volunteer.  Call a friend in a swing state and get them involved -- have them pick up the excitement of being on the winning team.  

    But Freeping zogby doesn't help.

    by tylerh on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 09:54:24 PM PDT

  •  Cognitive dissonance

    I'm bothered to see, in the middle of a thread about catching Luntz in a lie, a message suggesting that we should create lies ourselves.

    In addition to the obvious ethical problems with such a suggestion, I think it's also a bad idea pragmatically.  I imagine the primary effect, if it had an effect at all, would be to make the Zogby poll look unreliable.  I don't see how that would help either Zogby or the Kerry campaign.

    by dsn on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 07:47:33 AM PDT

•  JMM

  JMM has commentary on this as well.

  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003570

  by Semblance on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:04:03 PM PDT

  •  Why would he lie?

    The information at Media Matters, taken together with the stuff at TPM shows that Luntz just lied.  Why would he lie like that?

    Because, as a Republican, he is used to lying whenever he feels like it, and he can be certain that:

    •  Almost no one will check,

    •  If anyone does, it won't get published, and

    •  If it does get published, no one will care.

    by James Earl on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 09:28:12 PM PDT

•  Singin'

  We will, we will BROCK YOU!

  Seriously, how did this guy convert from being the ultimate right-wing hitman into our foremost media guy?  It's not a conversion like Zell Miller, who was just always in the wrong party.  Brock was a legitimate right-wing asshole (see the Clinton Administration) who suddenly decided to be a good guy.

  Anyone?

  by Mikey on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

  •  The unavoidable stink of one's own morality

    I love David Brock.

    by ablington on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:15:50 PM PDT

  •  Read his book!

    Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

    The story of his transformation, and the inside scoop on the right wing conspiracy during the Clinton days, are astounding.
    

    by ChgoSteve on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:06:10 PM PDT

  •  Brock

    In "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock,
    we learn about his transformation and
    alot about Republican dirty tricks.

    He tried to apologize to Anita Hill but
    she did not respond. On Air America,
    Kathrine Lampher chided Brock for his
    way of speaking without any inflection.
    He speaks in a sad monotone.
    Maybe he still feels bad over his
    Republican past and MMFA is his way
    of atonement.

    Since Anita Hill is one of my heros,
    I found it hard to forgive Brock but
    his hard work on MMFA has helped.
    

    by Agathena on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:30:32 PM PDT

    •  What's truly disgusting

      is that we have a sitting supreme court justice who is one step above a rapist. Appears to be a racist (though he belongs to the race he works so hard against). And gets taken seriously by people left and right despite his laughable intellect.

      While Anita Hill risked her career, her integrity, and her psyche to stand up to him.. and was sold out by the Democratic senators who claim to support everything Thomas's ...lets say Bosses.. order him to vote against.

       

      by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:03:13 AM PDT

    •  Brock is a hard pill to swallow....

      I understand what he is doing with Media Matters and so far I am impressed with the organization.
      But I just have this feeling in my gut that Brock is nothing more than an opportunist and a profiteer.  Now I can't justify this feeling, but I just have it.  I read "Blinded by the Right" and felt like I should have taken a shower after every chapter.  And as much as I hate republican tactics, Brock himself was even more loathsome.  At least some republicans are guided by some sense of (misguided) ideology.  Brock on the other hand portrays himself as a guy dealing with his gayness and poor relationship with his father and simply seeking acceptance.  Although one can't help but wonder if he was just trying to find a way to make it as a "journalist", without putting in the legwork of real journalists, by ruining peoples lives (I mentioned Anita Hill the other day to a friend who responded with "That lying whore from the Supreme Court stuff??" -- That poor woman is still seen as some sort of demon) and by taking advantage of partisanship.  And now all of a sudden he gets an attack of conscience ??  Where was the conscience when he was destroying Anita Hill's life??  Where was that conscience when he was publishing stories that he knew were false ??  Where was that conscience when he was working tirelessly to destroy the Clinton administration and mire them in controversy and make him a less effective leader of this great country of ours??

      Here is a guy who was the king of hypocrisy, and we embrace him as some sort of media darling because he says he is reformed ?  Where is the consequences for what he has done in the past ?  Shouldn't this mans credibility be nil even if he is on "our side" these days ?  Aren't all his scruples questionable??  What's to say that he isn't just trying to profiteer from writing and doing things simply to go against whoever is in power??

      I'm not saying that he hasn't reformed, nor am I saying that his intentions aren't good.  I don't know for sure.   I just don't have it in my to give him a pass because he has "seen the error of his ways" without having any real consequences.
      While other gay men and women struggle with the same issues he did, he chose to go the route of attacking his own interests to "fit in" with the most deplorable of people and feel better about himself via getting access to "elite" politico-social circles by destroying people who are much  more honorable than himself. -I don't respect the man, and I am not comfortable with accepting his help in this political struggle.  I tend to believe he is only doing what he is doing for his own benefit (or to "reinvent" himself since the GOP controls everything and he didn't have anything else to attack)

      Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am.  He just rubs me the wrong way.

      by avagias on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:55:15 AM PDT

      •  So don't swallow

        I don't respect the man, and I am not comfortable with accepting his help in this political struggle.

        Since we can't throw him in jail, can't force him to compensate Anita Hill and Clinton and whoever else he slimed along the way... how would you suggest he repay his debt to our democracy/society?

        I grock your point, in fact mostly agree, but this battle is too important to not accept his help.  Besides, he's damn good at what he's doing.

        As much as I loathe what he did, there just isn't any way I can think of to try to make amends other than EXACTLY what he is doing.  If it wasn't for him, we would still be alledging that people like him exist; the C in VRWC.  He is the living breathing proof that the right wing smear machine is NOT a tin foil hat conspiracy.

        There is one thing I'm comfortable with, and that's that we're better off that he is NOT still working for the dark side.

        by dalemac on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

        •  You're right...

          and my point isn't that he needs to "repay" some kind of debt.  I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.  He is no longer helping the "enemy", and his organization is doing good things and helping our cause.

          My point though is that it's a bit unsettling to see the high regard that the liberal community as a whole is holding him in.  I guess what I would like to see is more kudos to Media Matters the organization (which I'm sure has a wonderful staff contributing to the good work being done) and less praise for Mr. Brock himself (Maybe when Media Matters is cited, the citation to Mr. Brock himself can be removed.  I know it would be a symbolic gesture, but its something).  It puzzles me how he has gone from loathsome character assassin to liberal darling in such a short time. (The first time I saw him was about a year and a half ago or so when he was hawking "Blinded" on the daily show.)  It makes me feel like this guy got away with Murder because he chose to "find religion".  And a small part of me wonders how we can be taken seriously if we don't choose our allies better.  If I cite a Brock report as evidence of something, and the response I get is "Isn't that the self proclaimed liar??  Isn't that the guy who made a career of assassinating the character of others??" are we comfortable with responding "Well he's changed now....now he's on our side" ?

          I dunno....I'm torn (which is probably why I posted to begin with...so other community members' viewpoint, like yours dalemac, will help settle me more)
          

          by avagias on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 12:21:55 PM PDT

          •  Not torn

            I believe Isn't that the self proclaimed liar? was the initial standard repug response when the book first came out, because it's the only thing they got.

            are we comfortable with responding "Well he's changed now....now he's on our side" ?

            I don't think we need to respond that way.  Brock has slipped into a niche that nobody else could probably fill.  It's a blog.  You click the links... the information stands on it's own.  He doesn't get the chance to just make shit up in this format.  His bullshit filter is more finely tuned than most, and the relatively short length (almost sound-bite size) of the posts and timely nature of the format works great.

            It's too valuable a weapon not to embrace, but the truth still needs to stand on it's own.

            I'd like to see Bob Somerby at the Howler combine forces with Media Matters.

            by dalemac on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:31:02 PM PDT

          •  Brock is not one of my heros

            Al Franken said that Brock was his hero on Air America. I thought that was extreme.

            Brock is making amends and I'm bound by my
            belief in forgiveness and atonement.

            At least Brock attempted to apologize to
            Anita Hill. Has Joe Biden ever apologized to
            her? Has Arlen Spector ever apologized to her?

            (She is a real hero, and you know what?
            History has proven that she was right
            about Clarence Thomas' lack of
            qualifications for the Supreme Court.)

            by Agathena on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:21:44 AM PDT

•  It's even worse than Kos found

  Josh Marshall is on a roll these days.

  He posted what one reader found, that Bill Simon paid Luntz $80K in 2002 and 2003, in addition to the $25K paid from Darrell Issa for the recall campaign.

  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_03.php#003570

  Both purely Republican efforts.  Whatever you might say about the recall campaign proper being "nonpartisan" (which is doubtless what Howie the Hack, shilling for his new Republican consultant wife, would say), no question Issa was a Republican congressman spurring a Republican effort against a sitting Democratic governor when Luntz was doing the work.  After all, Issa never filed for Governor once the recall was certified, so the work was done for the purely Republican campaign to GET the recall certified.

  And of course, Simon was the hapless GOP nominee for Governor in 2002.  Nothing Howie can do to spin that one.  

  I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Good to see another Republican slime merchant exposed as the pathologic liar so many of them are turning out to be, these benighted days.

  by Steady Eddie on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:08:14 PM PDT

  •  This is why JMM is one of the best....

    Some people get down on him, but he consistently produces as well as or better than anyone else out there.....

    by Volvo Liberal on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:10:57 PM PDT

    •  Im one of those who generally cant stand him

      But i have mucho egg on my face and need to eat crow for about the next year. He's gone from being oh so bored by it all to posting some of the best journalism in america, Period. Next to Lehrer imho he's done more good than any journalist alive this year.

      by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:05:09 AM PDT

      •  JMM

        Next to Lehrer imho he's done more good than any journalist alive this year.

        Sorry to intrude, but this years award goes to Sy Hersh.  Hands down.

        by dalemac on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 11:39:45 AM PDT

        •  You win

          I was wrong

          by cdreid on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 02:44:28 PM PDT

•  Luntz is a liar...

  ... so what else is new in Republicanland.

  It is creepy to recall how many times I've heard those phrases

  ""It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington"

  and

  "9/11 changed everything"

  spewing forth ad nauseam from Bush and his acolytes.

  How I detest scripted, repetitive, soulless comments, especially when they cost peoples' lives and freedoms.

  by murfmom on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:11:46 PM PDT

•  I've told many friends about Luntz' firing

  They're not Kossacks, and they're worried and depressed (though today, I finally began detecting an uptick in morale). The tale of how this jerk lost his job in a single day's letter-writing campaign has brought smiles to their faces and encouraged them to get out, call, write, do something.

  A friend who teaches a US government class looked up Media Matters and used it in his class the next day.

  And every time I think about it, I still smile.

  But if you write a response to this, point out the problem was that his bias was not disclosed. Journalistically that's a huge ethical violation.

  by zic on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:13:28 PM PDT

•  Here's where you can write the Post and tell them

  that Kurtz has as much credibility as Carl Cameron.

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/print/corrections/

  by skiddlybop on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:18:38 PM PDT

•  Bush campaign ------

  Apparently BC'04 has planned a huge campaign on the 16th of October.  Some sort of Walk the vote..

  I was wondering would it be wrong for me and lots of dems to sign up to do this and then have more important commitments at the last minute?

  Get started here: www.GeorgeWBush.com/Walk

  by mihirbhatia on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:21:22 PM PDT

  •  I'll be blunt.

    It sounds prankish.

    Like, if a co-worker torques me off, I'll. . . steal his stapler!  Yeah, that'll show him!!

    We got enough to do debunking propaganda.

    by Dragonchild on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:53:08 PM PDT

•  I just looked it up...

  ...and it turns out that "Luntz" is German for "steaming pile of moose droppings."  

  Go figure.
  

  by loudGizmo on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:32:32 PM PDT

•  Al Franken on Scarbrough country

  ..........  

  Did anyone else see the repugs pushing the manicure theme?  Even after Fox was outed..

  Olberman picked up on it == hopefully others do too..

  by mihirbhatia on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:46:13 PM PDT

•  Kurtz is a partisan scumbag

  he's one of the worst offenders of not-so-hidden bias in the So-called-liberal-media.

  Alterman has been going after him for some time, as in this post by Michael Signorile:

  One among several topics in What Liberal Media? that I’ve hardly seen elsewhere is a long-overdue discussion of the role played by the powerful Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz within the corporate media. Noting the inherent conflict within which Kurtz operates—both a Washington Post columnist and a CNN on-air commentator, he still portrays himself as having a distanced eye in criticizing Big Media—Alterman explains that Kurtz’s conflicts are nonetheless "rarely raised in the media, owing to the power of the real estate he controls."

  It’s certainly true that Kurtz, among the most influential pundits in America, hardly ever comes under scrutiny. We often see blistering criticisms from right-leaning commentators and journalists about Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, or, from those on the left, about Coulter and Andrew Sullivan. But hardly anyone ever criticizes Howard Kurtz, even though, as Alterman shows, Kurtz is clearly partisan. Indeed, Kurtz often promotes a conservative agenda, has given the Bush administration a free ride and regularly showcases as "mainstream" such gasbags as Rush Limbaugh and National Review’s idiotic frat boy, Jonah Goldberg.

  by Madman in the marketplace on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:47:59 PM PDT

  •  Yes,

    Indeed, Kurtz often promotes a conservative agenda, has given the Bush administration a free ride and regularly showcases as "mainstream" such gasbags as Rush Limbaugh and National Review's idiotic frat boy, Jonah Goldberg.

     one of the lowest moments for this blog, IMHO, was when a guest poster presented us with a front page post-primary piece featuring and defending a Kurtz 'analysis' of the Dean campaign.

    by colleen on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 10:04:59 PM PDT

    •  Kurtz

      That Howie Kurtz is a partisan hack is old news to me.  I went head to head with that bastard and WaPo after his "analysis" of the Dean campaign appeared in February.

      What was significantly missing from that story was any discussion of the relationship between Dean's campaign and the media--and Kurtz calls himself a "media analyst."  But what pissed me off the most about that story was how Kurtz relied heavily on unattributed sources; the only quotes came from Joe Trippi and Kate O'Connor. This was in clear violation of WaPo's policy on the use of unattributed sources, which WaPo revised in light of Jayson Blair's fraud at the NYT.

      I really wish Kurtz would get hoisted on his own petard.

      by mini mum on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:43:57 AM PDT

      •  Alterman

        goes after him relentlessly, but the WaPo and CNN seem unmoved. IIRC, his wife does work for Republican candidates ...

        I especially hate that he describes himself at times as a "democrat". He's plainly not impartial.

        by Madman in the marketplace on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 06:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Even worse

    Howie Kurtz wife is none other than GOP media consultant Sheri Annis who is a partner at Fourth Estate Strategies. She has done work for Issa on the California Recall campaign as well as working for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Kind of interesting that the WP and CNN don't feel the need to mention that little conflict of intrest.

    It makes it far less supprising that Kurtz repeats RNC talking points so often. After all he is married to one of the people who formulates the talking points in the first place.

    by ces on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:12:02 AM PDT

•  Don't forget to CC: WaPo Ombudsman When Emailing

  his address is:[e-mail]  Howie's is: [e-mail].  Let's work those refs.

  by Rob Waldeck on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 07:49:42 PM PDT

•  OT:on the spot urinalysis coming to a neighborhood

  NEAR YOU!!!

  Aerial mosquito spraying alarms residents

  By KATI BEXLEY
  Staff Writer

  A plan by the state to reduce St. Johns County's mosquito population and a federal government effort to determine the effects of aerial spraying on people caught officials by surprise Sunday afternoon.

  Some county residents also learned of the plan Sunday when a representative of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to their homes asking for urine samples for a study.

  The aerial spraying with the chemical Dibrom was scheduled to take place today between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. or Tuesday at the same time, according to Jean Carver, spokeswoman for the St. Johns County Health Department. But Carver also said the department would determine today what areas are to be sprayed. She told The St. Augustine Record that the health department learned of the spraying and the survey at 5 p.m. Thursday when a call was received from the state's environmental health office.

  She said the health department planned to put out a notice today about the project.

  She said Marion County was supposed to receive the spray, but devastation from recent hurricanes prompted the state to choose St. Johns County instead.

  The CDC is conducting a nationwide study of the aerial spray's chemical Dibrom on people in sprayed areas.

  "Because of concerns of environmental groups, the CDC put this project together," Carver said. "There really hasn't been documentation before this to show there aren't effects from the spray."

  Carver said that very rarely are people negatively affected by the spray.

  Hastings resident Melissa Stromingher said she was alarmed when a CDC representative came to her home and asked for urine samples. "It's a little shocking when the CDC walks up your front porch," she told The Record. "They were going door-to-door. They were especially looking for a pregnant woman for the test."

  Strohminger's documentation from CDC states one pre-spray urine sample is needed, and then four post-spray samples, collected morning, noon, night and the following morning after the spray.

  "We are asking you to give us some urine samples so that we can find out if the amount of pesticides that you have in your body increases after the spraying," states the CDC document.

  Strohminger said the CDC representative left her cups for her urine samples and a confidentiality form. She said the CDC told her it needed 210 participants in the Hastings area.

  The CDC representative could not be reached by The Record on Sunday.

  Strohminger said the mosquitos have been bad where she lives, but she would have liked some notice about the aerial spraying.

  "It's scary to me because they're doing something and I don't know what it is," she said.

  Strohminger was not the only one who didn't know what was happening. Neither County Commission Chairwoman Karen Stern, nor Steve McEvoy, acting director of the Anastasia Mosquito District, knew of the plan before being called by The Record.

  "I think they usually give us the courtesy of letting us know when they're conducting research like this," Stern said of the county health department.

  She said residents should have at least been given notice before being affected.

  McEvoy, too, was concerned about the notification process. "They should have contacted me It's a lack of communication," McEvoy said of the county health department.

  He said one of the mosquito control commissioners received a call from a Vilano Beach resident, also approached by the CDC Sunday, McEvoy said.

  "She (the resident) wanted to know what was going on," he said.

  McEvoy said the chemical Dibrom is used all across the state and it is not harmful.

  "Duval (County) uses it, Flagler (County) was sprayed just last week," he said. "This is not a new chemical by any means."

  Aerial spray kills adult mosquitoes, whereas spraying using trucks kills mosquito larvae, McEvoy said.

  He said aerial spray can cost up to $1.50 per acre, so this could be a good opportunity for St. Johns to have it given by the state.

  After Tropical Storm Frances, areas in Julington Creek and Fruit Cove were badly hit by mosquitoes, he said, and he applied to FEMA -- Federal Emergency Management Agency -- for aerial spray.

  "But the high winds from (Tropical Storm) Jeanne took care of the mosquitoes," he said. "The mosquitoes haven't been nearly as bad after Jeanne."

  McEvoy said his office has recently received calls the mosquitoes are heavy in areas such as Flagler Estates. "This will take care of those mosquitoes," he said of the aerial spraying.
  clicky
  http://www.staugustine.com/stories/100404/new_2621659.shtml

  by demnomore on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:06:14 PM PDT

•  Reporters should do their job

  and Thank You to those who dug up the Facts on Luntz who is a hypocrite and a liar and deserves morethan being fired from MSNBC. I've seen how he structures his so-called impartial focus groups and then the questions he asks. Clever by half but he steers and he never divulged his political leanings. Go kossacks, all pols should have to reveal their connections.

  by philinmaine on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:13:49 PM PDT

•  Luntz Lines for Sale

  Ok, am I the only one to catch this one.

  A catchy Luntz line that I believe no one reported on
  was the ubiquitous "He spoke from his heart."
  Every grim faced Repub spinner in Spin Alley directly
  following the GREAT debate said the line within the
  first 15 seonds:  mortician Ralph Reed, the pop eyed wild man of the RNC Slick Gillespie, and puppeteer Karen Hughs for three.

  Then, egad, the usually reliable David Gregory of NBC
  began his stand-up report with the very same words
  describing Junior... as if he wrote them himself.

  Such is the power of the well polished, well-focus
  grouped sound bite.  Bush does NOT speak from his
  heart.  He speaks from a vetted script.

  In other news:  just saw a repeat of the Bush-Gore
  debate (their 3rd and final head to head).  Get this:
  The Liar's very last line in the debate was "People in
  America want a man in the White House they can
  trust."

  Yes we do.  And we're still waiting.

  by Fogman on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:18:27 PM PDT

•  Jeeze Louise!

  Forget Google!  He just doesn't know squat about major recent political stories.

  Luntz's role in the California recall was written about by lots of people, including myself as then-editor of Random Lengths News in San Pedro.  We even ran a photo of him with our story about the GOP's behind-the-scenes machinations.  

  Now, if he slept through the recall, well, then I guess he'd need Google.  But how can he admit to having slept through the most notorious gubenatorial recall in US history????

  Oh!  I forgot!  It's 2004, not 1904.

  Nevermind!

  by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 08:25:20 PM PDT

  •   kurtz' wife worked on schwarzenegger's campaign

    dont gorget kurtz' wife worked on schwarzenegger's campaign!
    

    by n69n on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:45:15 AM PDT

•  Kurtz is worse than Rather

  Kurtz has set himself up as a sort of gossip columnist for the inside baseball media.  He still though is a reporter at a national newspaper and owes it to his readers to print facts.  He is not writing for the NY Post (although that's where he belongs).  I think it is appalling that he lacks the common sense to simply fact check Luntz's claims about not working for any campaigns before printing them in the Washington Post.
  It's actually pretty darn embarrassing.  

  We still don't know that the documents Rather showed on CBS are fake, forgeries, or what all facts are as to how they ended up with Rather.

  We know though for certain that Luntz  worked in the last couple years for Republicans, contrary to what Kurtz printed in his column.  

   

  by MediaMeister on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 09:52:01 PM PDT

•  BBC has been reporting

  for some hours that Rumsfeld said he hasn't seen any evidence of a link behind Saddam and Al Qaeda.

  So now we have another chink in Bushit's armor.  Will he continue to play his part in sending mexed missages?  Or will he flip-flop by now insisting that he never said there was such a relationship?

  So far, we have at minimum Powell and Rumsfeld admitting it.  Placing bets: who will hold out the longest: Condolizard, Dick "Go Fuck Yourself" Dickhead, or Bushit?
  

  by jnagarya2 on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 10:04:43 PM PDT

•  It is better to fight the War on Terror ...

  "It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington"

  This has to be the stupidest, most simplistic  strategy I have ever heard.  With terrorists active in dozens of countries, there is no evidence to suggest that fighting in Bagdhad will make terrorists less likely attack us here.  It's bravado, bluster, bull$hit and bar talk.  

  It's like a guy sitting in a bar saying, "The first day in prison, find the biggest, meanest, nastiest prisoner and sucker punch him.  He might kick your ass, but then no one will mess with you."  Sounds impressive, but probably doesn't work too good in practice.  If you actually talked to someone in prison, or a prison guard, they wouldn't recommend it.

  by CountAsterisk on Mon Oct 04, 2004 at 11:09:35 PM PDT

•  If You Found Out A Pollster

  If you found out a pollster was partisan and lied about who he worked for, would you be:

  Extremely unlikely to believe him
  Highly unlikely to believe him
  Very unlikely to believe him
  Somewhat unlikely to believe him
  Neither likely or unlikely to believe him

  by CountAsterisk on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 12:47:07 AM PDT

•  If Kurtz is a hack, who is a better source?

  I have to say, I love Kurtz' column because you get a nice summary of the current news and spin.

  I need to read these pieces slamming him because to date I have noticed a partisan slant popping up only every now and then from Kurtz.  It's not as if every piece he does is pro-GOP; he makes light of both sides.

  In any event, does anyone know a better source for the kind of daily media summary Kurtz offers?  Thanks.

  by phlsphr on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:21:26 AM PDT

  •  Read him more carefully --

    while making "light of both sides," he is not even-handed.
    

    by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 04:44:32 PM PDT

•  Into the belly of the beast

  As I posted in a diary last night, I've received an invitation to Luntz headquarters for a VP debate focus group.  For those of you unfamiliar with my history, I was a mild Bush supporter in 2000.  Living in Maryland, I voted Libertarian, but cheered as each new state flashed red.

  I have since mended my ways.  I realized that my main
  "Republican" issue, fiscal policy, had been thrown out the window, and that I didn't really have anything other than family tradition tying me to the party.  Then along came Dean, who balanced his state's budget while improving services and had a really high NRA grade, and I felt comfortable going from R to D.

  I've come around to Kerry, as he's better about the "leave me alone" issues as well as balancing the books, along with being more competent, all around.  He's the president I want for myself when I move to Germany this month and definitely for the US troops I'll be working for.

  Any advice for tonight?  Tips for avoiding getting spun?  I doubt we'll be televised anywhere (no mention of it in the email)

  by A Texan in Maryland on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 06:09:52 AM PDT

  •  Leave out the extremist

    NRA special-interest gun-industry front group.

    And get over their Second Amendment lie by substituting for passive consumption of that an active study of actual US history.  Begin here:

    Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford.

    Those are the debates by those who debated and wrote the Bill of Rights and its Second Amendment.  From it:

     {6} "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."  At 30.

    The Bill of rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1991), Ed. by Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski.

    That provides the origins of the Bill of Rights: state constitutions and bills of rights, all but one of which was framed and adopted during 1776-1777.

    You indicate that you are in the military.  How about getting the facts -- rejecting the ideological and political falsifications -- about the Constitution you swore to uphold?

    As concerns Kerry: see the film "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry".  It will provide an accurate picture of what was going on during his anti-US involvement in Viet Nam (not the same as being "anti-war") activism, along with accurate presentation of who he was -- and is -- and the beginnings of the false smears against him which began then.  

    And, worth the price of a ticket by itself, is his uncut statement to the Senate, in which he did not "accuse" the troops of anything.
    

    by jnagarya2 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 05:01:44 PM PDT

    •  Civilian here

      Nah, I'm not actually in the military - I'm going over as a civilian employee.

      Like it or not (and I don't like it), NRA approval stands in most Americans' minds as shorthand for how loose a candidate wants gun ownership laws to be.  Dean being outside the liberal mainstream as I understood the liberal mainstream to be in 2002 helped me see a place for myself outside the Republican Party, which I was ceasing to see a place for myself in.

      I've come to appreciate John Kerry as the campaign season has progressed and am honestly enthusiastic about him being our next president.

      I just tried not to come off that way to the Luntzies.  I failed on the screening phonecall, though, so no focus group for me.

      by A Texan in Maryland on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:48:54 PM PDT

•  See also....

  My diary on this yesterday, "Luntz makes putz of Kurtz" nails Luntz on a couple more instances of consulting for Republicans in the past couple of years. Josh Marshall also points out that he's been doing regular strategy sessions for the Republican caucus.

  And yeah, since Kurtz' wife also worked for Issa and Arnie on the recall campaign, you'd think that Kurtz might have remembered... but I guess not.

  by jeremybloom on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:37:39 AM PDT

•  If they are dishonest, and you are

  dishonest, then you are exactly like them in being dishonest.

  And the more you endeavor to rationalize that which you find immoral in others as acceptable for you, the more you render yourself as untrustworthy.
  

  by jnagarya2 on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:27:14 AM PDT