Republican euphemism 101

An article in Time had me seething today as I browsed my latest issue while watching football.

It's a little fluff piece intended to promote a new book by Republican pollster Frank Luntz entitled Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. In the piece, Luntz opines that locution can decide elections.

He might be right, but what a sad commentary on the state of politics in this country. I'm so disgusted with PR gimmicks like this being so prevalent in our politics.

To wit, the article details how Luntz successfully promoted "death tax" for "estate tax," "climate change" for "global warming," and "scholarships" for "vouchers."

Death tax and climate change especially rankle me. I particularly get a kick out of everyday people who get behind Republican attempts to abolish the estate tax, a tax which affects every millionaire in this country, but for most Americans, the tax has no effect. Sorry, I'm not for making rich Americans even richer, on the back of my hard work. If some spoiled rich kid stands to inherit $55 million, it's unearned income, just as if he won the lottery, no matter how PR hacks like Luntz spin it, and no matter what name they give it.

Climate change? Yea, right - it's global warming, people. Our atmosphere's temperature and CO2 content are both rising dramatically, and to give it a title like the seasons are changing is simple minded and stupid.

However, no PR euphemism riles me more than troop surge. The White House doesn't call it what it really is - a troop increase with no end to this war in sight. The only thing that surges every time I hear Tony Snowjob say "troop surge" is my anger.

The Time piece gave a sample of Luntz's brilliance in his book (undesirable words in orange, italicized passages are from the Time piece):

Listening: So much for the listening tours that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made famous. Voters are in a results mood. "Too passive," Luntz instructs. "'Getting it done' is more active.'"

Patently absurd. Politicians need to do a lot more listening to voters and a lot less listening to strategists and pollsters. I don't think I've ever written anything on this blog that is more wishful thinking than that.

Globalization: The word "frightens older workers," Luntz warns, since they translate it as losing U.S. jobs to other countries. A more palatable way to convey the idea: "free market economy."

One theory I've come up with is that globalization frightens older workers because of strategists and pollsters like Luntz who put out so much misinformation during political campaigns.

Eavesdropping: It doesn't say antiterrorism. It says "people listening in on their neighbor's personal conversation," says Luntz. "Electronic intercepts" is "more scientific and justifiable."

What a crock. Eavesdropping is eavesdropping. The overwhelming concern that every single American ought to have about the NSA's capabilities is this: Who guards the guards? What's to stop a Nixonian administration (and this administration is in many ways worse than that debacle) listening in on conversations of political opponents? It's been done before, and you can be damn well sure it'll happen again.

Even more damning is the fact that the NSA wiretapping program was proposed before 9-11. Yes, you read that right - before 9-11. I've read many accounts of this.

Tort Reform: Republicans love this term, but to Luntz is either makes your eyes glaze over or suggests a French pastry. He advises tort bashers to use the snappier "lawsuit abuse."

This one makes my blood boil. The GOP's idea of tort reform goes something like this: take away a jury's ability to award pain and suffering damages greater than $250,000, and put more money in the pockets of insurance companies and big business, both of whom have been screwing over (and getting rich off of) the working class since the beginning of time.

I can't let this one go without offering up a few examples and another side order of anger, because there is so much misinformation out there, and a lot of rhetoric.

I used to know someone who lost her baby because a doctor did not properly diagnose pre-eclampsia, which almost her, and it did kill her baby. The doctor was found liable, and she won about $1.2 million from her doctor's insurance company in pain and suffering alone. Trust me, there isn't a day that goes by where she didn't wish she had her baby, and she would give all of that money back to have her baby back.

It's personally offensive that a president who's enjoyed a life of privilege since birth is now after people who win pain and suffering damages in lawsuits. Our president is a man who would certainly have never been president were it not for his last name. He certainly would have not been able to put together a group of businesspeople to buy the Texas Rangers. In other words, other people can't be given money as a result of their suffering, but I can get rich because of Daddy. Real classy, Mr. President.

Quick sidebar: The president has shown this type of hypocrisy before, specifically about tort reform. I'll never forget Bush's smirk during the '04 presidential debates, and his snide remark that Kerry's solution to tort reform "is to put a trial lawyer in charge of reform" (a reference to Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards, previously a successful trial lawyer). Any president who was appointed president by the Supreme Court as a result of his lawyer's arguments has zero credibility when it comes to criticizing lawyers. Like I've always said - everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Back to tort reform. There really is so much misinformation out there. Anyone hear about the woman who was awarded "millions and millions of dollars" for spilling McDonald's coffee on her lap? Yea, I've heard that one, too.

The plaintiff who took on McDonald's, an 81-year old woman at the time, put the coffee between her legs and it spilled. Hey, that could happen to anyone - my wife spills coffee just about every day, and I spill stuff all the time, too. But, this particular coffee was a skin-scorching 185 degrees. McDonald's knew about the problem - it had settled about 700 suits relating to its scalding coffee in the decade prior to the case. The woman in the case had never filed a lawsuit before in her life, and wouldn't have against McDonald's had the corporation agreed to pay her medical bills, which it refused to do. The woman suffered serious third-degree burns to her legs, genitals and groin, requiring skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. She was awarded $2.7 million, the equivalent of two days of coffee sales; at the time, McDonald's generated revenues of over $1.3 million daily from coffee sales, selling about one billion cups every year.

Now, you tell me - was she not awarded a proper amount of pain and suffering? You bet. Her award was later lowered by a judge to $480,000, a fact got virtually no press. I follow the news pretty closely, and I didn't even know the award was lowered until I did some digging about the case online. There are many Websites that discuss the case. Here's one of them.

What's more, you think an arrogant president and his Republican party both have the right to take away your right to pain and suffering? Sounds like McCrap to me.

And there are countless other instances of serious injury or deaths of people at the hands of corporations and businesses. It's awfully tough to put a price tag on a life and/or pain and suffering, but mandating a blanket $250,000 cap on suffering awards is nothing but a sop to already sleazy insurance companies and big business. (Read: We scratch your back now, you scratch ours come election time when we need campaign contributions.)

The issue of tort reform is a complicated one, I realize, and there are many cases of juries awarding absurd lawsuits. But no system is perfect - there will always be cases of abuse no matter what laws are in place, but I'm for erring on the side of caution when it comes to victims, no corporations and big business.

Hey Luntz - "lawsuit abuse" my eye.

Amnesty: "Amnesty for illegals equals death for politicians," says Luntz. People don't want breaks for illegals. They want "border control" and "rule of law," he warns his clients.

Okay, Luntz has a point here. But, we haven't had border control during the entire six years Bush has been in office. This only became a political hot potato when polls told Bush it could cost him votes. And his Band-Aids for the border problem are laughable.

The president had a chance to abolish or seriously reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) following 9-11 (or at least push for it, but he had a Republican-controlled Congress at the time), and he failed to act.

I recently read a story where there are still 9-11 hijackers on government's No-Fly List! Are you kidding me? An INS official's explanation? "These lists are slow to be updated." Slow wouldn't be the word for it - 9-11 happened over five years ago. When I read stories like that, I think this government would screw up a cup of coffee, no matter what temperature it's served at.

Again, Luntz's way of thinking typifies what's wrong with our political system, and I'm referring to all parties here. The message I get from all of this "let's not work on correcting the problem, let's just work on getting elected with the right words that resonate among voters."

How can you conclude differently?

Allow me to offer up some better euphemisms:

Global Warming? Climate Change? How about Global Oven? And big business is paying the electric bill. Okay, I need to work on that one.

Death Tax? Estate Tax? How about Paris Hilton Enhancement Tax? Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears are beeeeeeeeyond annoying, but at least they are working for their money. Yea, just what we need - rising deficits so lazy fat asses can sit around and spend their late mommy and daddy's money. Raise the dollar limit on tax-free estates to $5 million, and leave it there. For good.

Tort Reform? Lawsuit Abuse? No. How about Corporate Rape?

Anyway, thanks for nothing, Luntz. Here's wishing you have a Jerry Maguire moment some morning when you look in the mirror, since you contribute zilch to society now. I'm not holding my breath.

Or should that be Voluntary Oxygen Deprivation, Mr. Luntz?