Even Faux News said that Obama won

For the record, I detest these "instant analysis" polls given by the networks immediately after any presidential debate. One, because I think it's the "instant gratification" that the networks constantly crave, and two, I doesn't allow people to actually sit down and ponder what they heard from all the candidates. With little time to think, mics are thrust into their faces, and they are forced to give an answer. We're not talking about a football game here, we're talking about a presidential election, and who will lead us for the next four years.

Having said all of that, they do have a bit of value - it's a quick way to see which way the political winds are blowing after an hour and a half of hot air spewing by the candidates. And last night, Obama was the winner, even on Faux News. That should be pretty telling.

Crooks & Liars has the transcript:

Frank Luntz: Early in the debate these people thought McCain was doing better, by the end of the debate Obama seemed to finish better. Brit.

Brit Hume: Question -- you said that none of the people came in there for Obama, may I take it that that's because they were undecided or because they were for McCain?

Luntz: No, they were undecided, we got 23 undecided voters. Brit, I chewed them out to make sure they were undecided. Did anyone switch your position tonight? We have one person... four people. Who did you go to?

Undecided voter #1: I lean more toward Obama.

Undecided voter #2: Obama.

Undecided voter #3: Obama.

Undecided voter #4: Obama.

Luntz: This is a good night for Barack Obama.

A good night for Obama indeed. It must really suck to be working at Fox News right now. Awww - too bad.

Bill Maher is back, & better than ever

This morning I got a chance to watch the first new episode of Real Time With Bill Maher, and boy, did I miss him. Above is his opening monologue, and it was one of his better ones. He's an important liberal voice in the media, and I sure look forward to hearing his shows from now until the November election.

And the panel on his show Friday night was good as well, particularly NPR's Michelle Martin - who is no pushover sheep; she really added to the discussion, and best of all, she doesn't simply nod in agreement with all of Maher's points. Now here's hoping that this fall he doesn't bring back his most annoying and moronic guest of all, GOP pollster Frank Luntz. I enjoy hearing competing points of view, but Luntz is a GOP stooge masquerading as a mainstream poll.

However, my favorite segment from Maher's show last night was his infamous New Rules (as is often the case). Maher really took aim at critics (mostly Republican) of John Edwards, who really is the Democratic Party's most prominent, effective voice when it comes to poverty.

I'm not defending Edwards' actions in his personal life - it takes a special sort of dirt bag to cheat on your wife while she's suffering from cancer. But there was plenty of knee-jerk reaction to his adultery. I'd have Google money if I had a dollar every time I heard people, many of them Democrats, say in the wake of the outing of Edwards' affair, "Thank GOD he's not the nominee!" Well, I guess that's true, because the adulterating conservative rubes like Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, etc. would have derided him mercilessly (and of course, hypocritically).

Of course, as Maher points out, McCain gets a pass for cheating on his first wife - it gets virtually NO discussion in our disgraceful corporate media. McCain's backers would no doubt shout, "But that was over 30 years ago!" Fair enough, but again, it still goes to character, just like the fact that he very publicly called his wife a "cunt" during one of his infamous tirades in the 1990s.

Don't get me wrong - I think politicians' private lives should stay private, but there should be no double standards, but there certainly has been considering the political sex scandals dating back to the Clinton Impeachment.

As Maher sagely points out, some of our most effective presidents in the last 100 years have strayed in their personal lives; FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Clinton; while some of our most disgraceful presidents have, by all accounts, remained faithful; Carter, Nixon, Reagan, and most of all, President Bush 41 and our current National Embarrassment, President George W. Bush.

Maher's show is as much of a must-see as The Daily Show - it can't be missed. In fact, it's reason enough to get HBO, if you need one more.

Note to Fox News: don't do jokes

Check out what Frank Luntz, the right-wing hack and Fox contributor, had to say after the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama debate last week. I know it's a joke, but really? Funny how I don't hear jokes like that on other networks. It's typical of the misogynistic jokes and coverage that Hillary Clinton has had to endure since her time as first lady. That issue is bigger than Hillary, too; no woman should have to endure this kind of garbage when aspiring to our nation's highest office.

Once again, why Bill Maher insists on having this guy on his show is beyond me. He even goes so far as to call him "Our good friend Frank Luntz." Get real, Bill.

GOP strafes Pelosi regarding plane

I got a pretty big kick out of the non-story story from this past week - how Nancy Pelosi was requesting an enormous airplane for her trips to and from California. I have to give credit to the press, for the most part, about this story though (but not in all cases).

A few Republicans, most notably staff at the Republican National Committee, tried to make political hay out of Nancy Pelosi's request for an airplane for trips to her home state of California and back. What many of Pelosi's detractors conveniently forgot was that former Speaker Dennis Hastert also had access to a plane to his home state of Illinois.

Each and every Speaker of the House should have secure, sufficient protection, which should include a secure aircraft, and it doesn't matter who the speaker is, or from what party.

This policy began following 9-11, since the speaker is third in line to the presidency, and I'm happy that policy is in place.

However, a report on the CBS Evening News by Sharyl Attkisson this past week stated: "The fuss is over whether Pelosi should fly on the same small jet used by her predecessor Dennis Hastert ... or the much bigger military 757."

However, Attkisson's report neglected to mention that the White House and the House Sergeant at Arms both defended Pelosi's need for a plane that can fly nonstop to and from her district on security grounds, if such a plane with that capability is available.

Here's a press release from the House Sergeant at Arms, as reported in Talking Points Memo:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

That's not all. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also thought the whole issue was a non-issue, too stating:

[The White House] position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

On Thursday of last week, Tony Snow came right out and said that he thought the whole story was "unfair to the speaker."

That didn't stop some from coming after Pelosi anyway, facts be damned.

The Republican National Committee, while Tony Snow was defending Pelosi, issued a press release with this heading:

I won't even get into the details of the press release, which I have read, but I'm sure you can guess.

As Media Matters reported:

A February 9 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt flatly stated that the C-20, one of the military planes used by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) for domestic travel when he was speaker, "can make the nonstop flight year-round" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) California district from Washington, D.C. But media reports from the previous two days had reported that the C-20 cannot make it to California nonstop under all conditions. The article by Scarborough and Hurt did not attribute its contrary assertion about the flying range of the C-20 to anyone.

Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, was quoted by ABC News two days earlier saying that the C-20 is "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter." Also, on February 8, the Los Angeles Times reported that the aircraft used by Hastert "require[d] ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel."

Of course, my favorite Republican Strategist and Pollster, Frank Luntz, weighed in on Sean Insanity's show with his own ill-informed propaganda, first, with this:

LUNTZ: And let me tell you, Sean, this situation with Nancy Pelosi and the aircraft -- that's going to play very badly for the Democrats, and I think that's going to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton who, at this point, is the front-runner.

Later in the same show, this exchange, and it's amazing that Alan Colmes actually grew a set, for once:

COLMES: Frank, you took a shot at Nancy Pelosi. The fact of the matter is: She did not initiate this. It came from the sergeant of arms. Conservatives are making a bigger deal of this than really exists. And we got very little press when there was a Denny Hastert issue when he asked for the same thing. So, you say it's going to resonate and be -- and hurt the front-runner for the Democrats. I disagree. I -- where are you getting this information?

LUNTZ: Well -- no, here's the issue. The public said "no" to the Republican Party in 2006 because they thought that they'd gone native -- that they'd gone Washington -- that there wasn't a sense of accountability. But they will say the same "no" to the Democrats if they seem to be -- abuse their power. And she doesn't need a huge, gigantic plane.

COLMES: She didn't ask for one. She just wants a nonstop --

LUNTZ: If she wants to deny everybody else from flying -- you know what?

COLMES: -- doesn't want to have to refuel. It's a security issue whether or not she should stop to refuel.

LUNTZ: She does -- it is not a -- it is not a security issue. She doesn't need a plane, and American taxpayers -- I can promise you, Alan -- the American taxpayers don't want to be paying for her private flights in huge jets.

COLMES: But it's not her decision, it's the sergeant at arms. She doesn't make that decision, Frank.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): All right, we gotta run.

LUNTZ: She can say no. She can say no.

MICHAEL BROWN (Democratic strategist): The American taxpayers do not want to pay for a war they don't agree with --

HANNITY: She was offered the plane.

LUNTZ: Just say no, Alan.

HANNITY: She -- he's asking for the bigger plane. She, herself is asking --

COLMES: She didn't make that decision.


HANNITY: -- and it would be $300,000 round trip for the American taxpayer.

COLMES: It was not her decision.

LUNTZ: Exactly.

HANNITY: This is a bad political play, Frank. Frank, I agree with you.

##

Luntz has a long history of disparaging Pelosi, saying on Insanity's show last year, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a face lift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.'"

First of all, as someone who looks like Howdy Doody (left), Luntz (below, right) has preciously little room for criticizing Pelosi's appearance. Secondly, Luntz should grow up - leave the elementary put-downs to bloggers and such - you're supposed to be a professional. Wait, you consistently appear on Faux News - so much for being a professional. Okay, this IS the sort of thing we should expect from you. Forget everything I just said - keep meeting our lowered expectations of you, Luntz.

I know I'm writing and bringing a lot to you about this, but it's just one example of how the radical Republican press forges ahead, facts be damned.

Give Pelosi her damned plane, like every speaker deserves, and get on with the business of running the country and making our lives better. Republicans seem pretty angry that Democrats so far have made some progress, so we get this pseudo scandal about an airplane.

A little more on Bush's "Democrat" slur

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Podcasts. As long as I've owned an iPod, I was a bit late coming to the Podcasting game, but last year I discovered them in a big way.

One Podcast I never miss is It's All Politics, a Podcast hosted by Ken Rudin and Ron Elving - two political commentators for National Public Radio. Their 10-12 minute take on the big issues in Washington is essential listening.

Last week, the duo spent a few minutes going over the history of Republicans using "Democrat" to describe the Democratic Party.

I have to confess, and I really should just let it die, but I got irked all over again. Of course, Bush has begged off inquiries on multiple occasions since this utterance during his State of the Union Speech three weeks ago: "And I congratulate the Democrat majority."

Elving and Rudin then played a clip of Bush brushing it off, saying it was an "oversight" and that he "didn't even realize he said it," accompanied by his characteristic snide sneer.

President Bush has tried to shovel some pretty nasty fecal matter into the mouths of Americans since he was appointed president in the fall of 2000, but this is one of his biggest. Bush has turned blowing smoke into an art form.

As Rudin and Elving rightfully pointed out, this slur has a long history in the Republican Party, going back to at least to the era of Joe McCarthy, who flat out refused to refer to the Democratic Party as Democratic.

Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used to coach Republicans to refer to Democrats this way, to intentionally rile them up. And this slur has Republican pollster Frank Luntz's fingerprints all over it, too.

The bottom line is that the line was intentional, and it underscores the pettiness of our frat boy president. Notice I didn't say fraternity boy president, but really, it wasn't intentional. I didn't even know I wrote it.

My thoughts on Bush's State of the Union

I've been stewing about President Bush's State of the Union Speech for a few weeks now, and to be honest, I've been a bit too busy to have the time to finish off my thoughts - the beginning of the semester, along with our trip to Vegas have both not allowed me to have much time to write (plus a nasty cold that I'm fighting), but I'm ready at last.

But, before I comment on Bush's last relevant State of the Union speech, I figured it would be cool to look at his SOTU from a few years ago. Watch the clip above, and then read on...

Too funny, eh? God, I have to add video-editing capabilities to my list of New Year's resolutions. I got a kick out of that one.

###



Before getting to my comments, the clip above is worth a look - it's of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann did a quick review of Bush's past SOTU speeches.

Okay, on to Bush's real speech, delivered a little over two weeks ago. Better late than never, right?

Bush's last SOTU address that even matters (next year’s will be an irrelevant lame duck speech, and his '09 goodbye will be a yawner, just like Clinton's was in January '01) should have aired on Comedy Central, because it was about the funniest speech I've ever heard him deliver.

First, I laughed out loud when I heard Bush intone that he's ready for bipartisanship and to work with Democrats. Anyone who's paid attention to five minutes of Bush's Presidency knows that line is fit for the B.S. Hall of Fame. Bush and his speechwriters must really hold the American public in low regard, if they think we are this frickin' stupid.

A few things about Bush's bipartisan olive branch, and I'll move on to other topics of his speech. When you include the '00 presidential primaries and election, Bush and his Rasputin, Karl Rove, have spent the last seven years doing their best to divide, conquer and scare the American electorate, and they've been mostly successful.

During the Bush Presidency, whenever it's an election year, the playbook has become all too predictable – terrorism, 9-11, terrorism, 9-11, abortion and its first cousin - stem cell research, terrorism, 9-11, gay marriage, terrorism, terrorism, 9-11, Iraq was a danger *cough cough Al-Quaeda – hey we didn’t say that!*, terrorism, 9-11, ban flag burning, terrorism, 9-11, etc. You get the idea. And they've been able to get away with it, because, up until the '06 election, voters have not given this administration a proper check and balance in the form of Democratic control in one or both Houses of Congress. But, all that’s changed now, and Bush is putting on his bipartisan face, a face that even a passive follower of politics knows is about as genuine as Pamela Anderson’s bust.

So, he comes before the American people, congratulates Nancy Pelosi (that must have reeeeeeeeaaaaaalllllllllly hurt) and then proclaims he's ready to work with Democrats. Like he has a choice! I would have given the president credit had he sounded a note of magnanimity when Republicans were still in control of Congress, but for him to say that now is the sound of a desperate man. And I like seeing him desperate. It's a face I wish he had to wear long before now, but history's history – nothing to be gained by looking back now.

Anyway, the one thing that really irked me from jump was how he referred to the Democratically controlled Congress:

"Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate, and I congratulate the Democrat majority," said Bush.

How childish. One may expect a certain level of churlishness (and sometimes, vulgarity) from a progressive, liberal blogger *ahem*, but not from the President of the United States.

(Oh, and before Bill O'Reilly, six months from now, gets on the air during his Fox News Show and declares, "Bush never said it! Never said it!" click on the link of the transcript from the Washington Post Here.)

This is the kind of stuff that makes me truly despise people like Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who rates a close second behind Karl Rove on my political hate meter. It's people like Luntz who make me ashamed that I teach public relations. I really mean that. To people like him, it's not the policy or the position that's important, it's how you say it. One could imagine him working for Adolf Hitler and advising him: "It's not the Final Solution, Mr. Hitler. Let’s call it Jewish relocation." I mean, really? Could Luntz (and Bush, by his use of this phrase) be any more petty or spiteful about the Democratic victory last November?

After the speech, there were even traditionally strong conservatives were on TV poking fun at the president's having said "Democrat Majority": Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, to name a few.

Seriously, can you imagine if Clinton had done that during his presidency? I truly believe Fox News would have been calling for Congress to go to Defcon 2. Well, I don't mean to keep repeating myself, but it was petty and stupid (and don’t think for a second it was unintentional), but there were even better laughers in the speech, for sure.

The president's health care initiative is dead on arrival, as it should be. The last time Bush tried to sell us something this disingenuous, it was the privatization of Social Security. Now, the president wants to find another way to award his corporate buddies (Read: political donors), while simultaneously sticking it to the middle class, right where the sun doesn’t shine. Sorry, Mr. President – I know the difference between you-know-what from Shinola.

It's truly amazing that even a president with the set the size of Bush's could bring this before Congress and the American people. He now wants people who are lucky enough to have medical benefits through their jobs to have those benefits taxed? He must be joking, right? Someone please e-mail me and tell me when his real State of the Union speech is, because this has got to be April Fool's Day, but earlier. Wait, maybe we were all being Punk'd?

I admittedly won't pretend to know all of the fine print of the Bush's health care proposal, but so far, from what I've read, I’m less than impressed, as are most experts. It's amazing how hard most Republicans fight against doing the right thing on Social Security and Universal Health Care. I've previously blogged about Social Security, so I won't get into it much here, other than to reiterate once more that there was never anything urgently wrong with Social Security in the first place. It wasn't due to go broke for decades, yet GOPers saw that as a great excuse to try and mess with a system that has worked for nearly 70 years, all the while promising that "current recipients will receive no reduction in their checks." It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines in that statement: "If you're years away from retirement, count on getting a lot less than you thought."

I've been paying into the system since I was 15 years old, and now you’re telling me I'm going to see greatly reduced benefits so your buddies on Wall Street can get some of my money to play with under the guise of "private accounts?" Dream on. I've done plenty of reading on what Bush wanted to do with Social Security, and it was just another way to award his big political donors – stock brokers, big business, accountants, and a whole slew of other people who are just dying to get their mitts on some of the billions in the Social Security trust. No sale. And thankfully, the American public wasn't buying it, either. Funny how I haven't heard Bush mention Social Security recently. He knows it's DOA, just like he knows his new scheme for health benefits will suffer the same fate.

As far as universal health coverage, I don’t think I'll ever understand why our government just cannot or will not get it done. As wealthy of a country as we are (at least in theory – actually, Bush is bankrupting us, but that's another post), it's stupefying how politicians can sleep at night knowing that tens of millions of Americans lack health care.

Oh well, on to other topics.

I loved his comments on balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes. One could audibly hear the laughter when the president uttered that doozy. In the name of political ideology, Bush would rather bankrupt future generations than get the government back on the right course by repealing his ludicrous tax cuts from earlier this decade that were enacted in the first place on projected surpluses that no one really believed were going to come to fruition, anyway. (And those rosy predictions were before 9-11 and the contemporary War on Terrorism.)

Fast-forward to the president’s radio address from yesterday, when Bush warned that there will have to be domestic spending cuts to keep the budget in "balance," or his version of balanced, anyway. Bush calling for "fiscal discipline" in Washington during his SOTU speech is analogous to Mark Foley chairing the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. Oops.



One of my favorite parts of his speech, though, was his calls for energy independence. Coming from a president and his party, both of whom have done nothing to that end in nearly six years, it rang pretty hollow. Even more hilarious was Vice President Dick Cheney, who visibly snickers from behind the president’s shoulder. (See the YouTube clip above.) It was almost as if Dick was snickering to the rest of us, "I know something you don’t know." When it comes to the Big Oil, there's plenty that Dick knows. Big Oil hasn’t been performing energy exploration, it's been exploitation.

I do give Bush at least some credit in a few areas, though:

1. Taking a stand against fossil fuels at all, since he’s done little more than lip service during his presidency. We'll see if this is more of the same, or if he really means it.

2. Calling on increased nuclear power production. No question about it, this is a critical part of our energy solution. However, we need to find a way to safely store the waste. Yucca Mountain appears dead in the water, so proposing increases in the number of nuclear plants requires a solution to this problem, too, and there aren't any easy answers.

3. Bush acknowledged global warming, which is no small admission by this president. But, I'm sure this will prove to be hollow, but I pray it doesn't. I’ll be writing lots more on global warming in the next day or two – it's been in the news quite a bit this past week.

As usual, his speech contained plenty of fear mongering about the War on Terrorism. His rehashed bravado about stopping a plot to fly an airliner into the tallest building on the west coast is older than old news. That one I knew about, but Keith Olbermann discovered plenty of other instances, too. Check out the YouTube clip above.

The president's call to increase the size of our active armed forces by 92,000 over the next five years is seems like small potatoes to me. If I were president, I’d double that, and while I was at it, I'd damn near double the pay of what our soldiers are getting now, which isn't much. Sure, the cost would be high, but you know what would cost even more, in terms of money and blood? Restituting the draft. And if we keep going the way we are, that's precisely what we are going to have to do.

Most incredible is not one word in his speech about New Orleans or Hurricane Katrina, despite the fact that the city isn't even close to being where it was before the storm about 18 months ago. (I mentioned this in an earlier post yesterday.)

And then there was Bush's call for America to continue to support the "cause of freedom in places like Cuba, Belarus and Burma," and to "continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur."

Two things – 1. Thank God we've got Belarus, Burma and Cuba covered, and 2. What in the world has the president done for the people of Darfur? It sounds good for the press to mention it, but what has Bush really done?

I do give Bush credit for increasing U.S. funding to combat AIDS in Africa, and other humanitarian aid, too. Bush remarked:

"We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger and poverty and disease. And that is precisely what America is doing. We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa. Because you funded the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. And I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries."

Again, it's a start, but we could and should be doing so much more. Too bad Bush is so ideologically driven and that this administration won’t fund family planning in Africa, which would also go really far in helping combat AIDS. I know what many religious people believe, too: "Don’t have sex and you can’t get AIDS." I'm not going to get into that too much now, other than to say that it’s as myopic as it is unrealistic.

Even better than Bush's speech is some of the coverage after it. Here are two clips of coverage that I found entertaining – Keith Olbermann (of course!) and a pretty ignorant clip from Fox News, with college drop-out Sean Insanity and another rube named Karen Hanretty. Pretty entertaining.



Above, Keith Olbermann ticks off the lies from Bush's SOTU speech. Take a listen (above).



Here is the Fox News piece I referred to above. Can't you just feel the hatred?

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?