Leaked conference reveals Republicans' plan to tell a new set of lies

But really, they are just the old set of lies in new clothing. I suppose everyone knew this was coming, but, it just is so much worse when you actually see how talking points are created.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street

By Chris Moody
Political Reporter

Protesters form a wall of signs at the Occupy Portland camp in downtown Portland, Oregon. (AP)

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."

Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'

"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'

"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."

"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

maybe I'm just a bit cynical on the whole thing, but I tend to see this as a necessary consequence of partisan politics.

For a political party to mean anything, they have to have a cohesive message, and individuals can't challenge one another within the party if they want to be competitive in the game that is electoral politics.

Interesting stuff none the less, but I would almost assume the Democrats have similar "keep-on-point" style meetings, and certainly Democrats aren't above lying. Very interesting though

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I'm just a bit cynical on the whole thing, but I tend to see this as a necessary consequence of partisan politics.

For a political party to mean anything, they have to have a cohesive message, and individuals can't challenge one another within the party if they want to be competitive in the game that is electoral politics.

Interesting stuff none the less, but I would almost assume the Democrats have similar "keep-on-point" style meetings, and certainly Democrats aren't above lying. Very interesting though

The real interesting line is the first one; he says he is terrified of the Occupy movement! "Frightened to death"! So much for the notion that no one was taking them seriously. Here we see the Republicans in a scramble to try and adjust their message to run from them.

The headline of Republican lies is a bit outlandish, as both sides aren't going to articulate their "real" goals and I don't think it's lizards.

Either way words win the masses and they (the masses) have about a 2 week memory for media buzz.

What's Occupy Wall Street?

I agree with 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. I see nothing wrong with those and I agree with the concepts.

2. Since I think we should do away with all income taxes, I will obviously consider "taxes are bad, mkay?"

4. Who doesn't want a career or long-lasting job? That's just common-sense.

5. I think the government wastes tons of money in their spending. I really like the direction of calling it waste. Since I am closer to "classical republican" in my political ideals, I would obviously agree with calling most government spending waste. It needs to be cleaned up and the majority of it ceased.

7. Telling politicians how to speak to protesters is not lying. IMO, if you don't already know how to engage in dialogue with the protesters, you're an idiot. If you have to be told to say "I get it", then you're an idiot. This talking point is rather stupid and it shows how stupid some republicans are if you have to tell them to say it.

9. Sound advice. Most tax payers have sacrificed enough, already. No more sacrificing: adjust the tax system and government spending.

10. This one is a "duh". Yes, much of our problems can be directly or indirectly blamed on Capital Hill and the White House. That much should be obvious. However, voters are fairly tired of the blame game. I am not sure if this is the best of advice, but I do agree with it on principle.

The others are just dishonest or stupid.

Originally posted by lord krondor
What's Occupy Wall Street?

Didn't you get the memo?

Aerosmith is up next followed by Metallica

The thing is that he's not saying "change your policies to reflect these wishes of the people", he's saying "the people have these wishes, so change your language to reflect it and dupe people into believing you stand for something or make it seem like the issue is something else, but continue in the same way you have before policy-wise".

Ah, good ol' Frank Luntz. Making Social Darwinism and Feudalism palatable for America.

I'm not sure how using language to persuade your audience is a lie. Also, I'm pretty sure Luntz is a Jew.

manipulation OF language...it's just more bullshit

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. I see nothing wrong with those and I agree with the concepts.

2. Since I think we should do away with all income taxes, I will obviously consider "taxes are bad, mkay?"

4. Who doesn't want a career or long-lasting job? That's just common-sense.

5. I think the government wastes tons of money in their spending. I really like the direction of calling it waste. Since I am closer to "classical republican" in my political ideals, I would obviously agree with calling most government spending waste. It needs to be cleaned up and the majority of it ceased.

7. Telling politicians how to speak to protesters is not lying. IMO, if you don't already know how to engage in dialogue with the protesters, you're an idiot. If you have to be told to say "I get it", then you're an idiot. This talking point is rather stupid and it shows how stupid some republicans are if you have to tell them to say it.

9. Sound advice. Most tax payers have sacrificed enough, already. No more sacrificing: adjust the tax system and government spending.

10. This one is a "duh". Yes, much of our problems can be directly or indirectly blamed on Capital Hill and the White House. That much should be obvious. However, voters are fairly tired of the blame game. I am not sure if this is the best of advice, but I do agree with it on principle.

The others are just dishonest or stupid.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you understand these are not actually policy changes. They are discussing how they will make themselves sound like they're changing direction, without actually changing at all.

I don't agree. They are changing their words to sound better while still maintaining positions that mean the same thing. Meaning, they are not trying to sound like they are changing direction, at all: they are just delivering most of their talking points more intelligently.

Obviously, both the dems and the GOP want to create jobs. But creating jobs is not enough. We need to create careers. Implementing smart regulations (not just a bunch of them), lower taxes, cutting government spending, creating policies that make it easier for American companies to compete, improving healthcare, and improving foreign relations are all ways to create careers instead of temporary jobs. It just so happens that I covered most of the other talking points.

Sometimes, it is not what you say, but how you say it. Many of the GOP positions are great or awesome. It's just that they never adhere to them. Same with the dems.

Who DOESN'T want a streamlined and efficient government? Who doesn't want smart laws and regulations? Who doesn't want less government spending and better use of taxes?

Any person who does not want those things is either out of touch, an idiot, or both. It just so happens that the GOP and Dems say they want those things but never deliver.

None of these are remotely new and none are strictly lies. About what you'd expect from a political advisor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who DOESN'T want a streamlined and efficient government? Who doesn't want smart laws and regulations? Who doesn't want less government spending and better use of taxes?

Any person who does not want those things is either out of touch, an idiot, or both.

Lots of people want vague generalities. That's why they're so meaningless. It's nearly as insipid as the"Harm Principle".

I'm going to have to agree with King Kandy: this is just another set of Republican lies. After all, we know that this tactic is never used outside of conservative political circles. Liberals--sorry, progressives--would never resort to such chicanery to accomplish their goals. You don't hear progressives rebranding global warming--errr, climate change--or same-sex marriage--I mean marriage equality--or abortion--sorry, reproductive rights--into new terms and phrases to advance their legislative agenda. Typical Republican behavior, really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lots of people want vague generalities. That's why they're so meaningless. It's nearly as insipid as the"Harm Principle".

You're confusing summarizing with generalizing.

I actually typed out a post that lists some specifics that most people are aware of when they hear/read the section you quoted of my post. I am quite sure you are aware of those items, as well. If you would like me to give you what I typed out, I will: just PM me.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm going to have to agree with King Kandy: this is just another set of Republican lies. After all, we know that this tactic is never used outside of conservative political circles. Liberals--sorry, progressives--would never resort to such chicanery to accomplish their goals. You don't hear progressives rebranding global warming--errr, climate change--or same-sex marriage--I mean marriage equality--or abortion--sorry, reproductive rights--into new terms and phrases to advance their legislative agenda. Typical Republican behavior, really.

You do have a point.

It is both parties who lie not just one party. 🙂

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is both parties who lie not just one party. 🙂

Yeah, but Republicans try to screw the middle class and the poor more though.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm going to have to agree with King Kandy: this is just another set of Republican lies. After all, we know that this tactic is never used outside of conservative political circles. Liberals--sorry, progressives--would never resort to such chicanery to accomplish their goals. You don't hear progressives rebranding global warming--errr, climate change--or same-sex marriage--I mean marriage equality--or abortion--sorry, reproductive rights--into new terms and phrases to advance their legislative agenda. Typical Republican behavior, really.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Democrats already have made the shift to pretending to sympathize with the occupiers. So I am guessing they had a similar meeting earlier in the year..