Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"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."

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."

ASUMountaineer wrote:Am I the only one that thinks Frank Luntz looks like Patton Oswalt?

As to what he said, he is spot on. Those would be effective measures to help the Republican candidate win. The only change I would make is his last point, "Occupy Washington." I'm 100% with that except when he goes to the White House...Occupy Congress would be the more appropriate action.

CID1990 wrote:Sounds a lot like pro abortion vs pro choice.

I guess the GOP has decided to take one from the donk playbook.

JohnStOnge wrote:One thing I really find distasteful is this stuff in politics of crafting your message even to the point of worrying about which terms you use to express the same thought in order to pander to public opinion. To me leadership is clearly and unambiguously staking out positions and making your case for why you take them. Then let people decide if they want to vote for you or not. If you think majority public opinion is wrong on some matter a leader should be willing to try to change what the majority thinks instead of conforming to it in order to get elected.

There are infrequent exceptions...people who say what they think and make their case...like Ron Paul. But the overwhelming majority of politicians are pretty disgusting in that regard. And the advice offered by Mr. Luntz or however you spell it is disgusting as well. Of course I realize people who do actually try to lead don't normally get elected. And that's why we don't have real leaders in this country.

So in the final analysis it comes back to the pathetic population we have. Almost makes one wonder if representative government where everybody gets to vote for our "leaders" is doomed in the long run. In the final analysis the People deserve what they've gotten in terms of leadership and the People bear final responsibility for the probable failure of the great experiment in self determination and liberty this nation represents.

JohnStOnge wrote:One thing I really find distasteful is this stuff in politics of crafting your message even to the point of worrying about which terms you use to express the same thought in order to pander to public opinion. To me leadership is clearly and unambiguously staking out positions and making your case for why you take them. Then let people decide if they want to vote for you or not. If you think majority public opinion is wrong on some matter a leader should be willing to try to change what the majority thinks instead of conforming to it in order to get elected.

There are infrequent exceptions...people who say what they think and make their case...like Ron Paul. But the overwhelming majority of politicians are pretty disgusting in that regard. And the advice offered by Mr. Luntz or however you spell it is disgusting as well. Of course I realize people who do actually try to lead don't normally get elected. And that's why we don't have real leaders in this country.

So in the final analysis it comes back to the pathetic population we have. Almost makes one wonder if representative government where everybody gets to vote for our "leaders" is doomed in the long run. In the final analysis the People deserve what they've gotten in terms of leadership and the People bear final responsibility for the probable failure of the great experiment in self determination and liberty this nation represents.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:One thing I really find distasteful is this stuff in politics of crafting your message even to the point of worrying about which terms you use to express the same thought in order to pander to public opinion. To me leadership is clearly and unambiguously staking out positions and making your case for why you take them. Then let people decide if they want to vote for you or not. If you think majority public opinion is wrong on some matter a leader should be willing to try to change what the majority thinks instead of conforming to it in order to get elected.

There are infrequent exceptions...people who say what they think and make their case...like Ron Paul. But the overwhelming majority of politicians are pretty disgusting in that regard. And the advice offered by Mr. Luntz or however you spell it is disgusting as well. Of course I realize people who do actually try to lead don't normally get elected. And that's why we don't have real leaders in this country.

So in the final analysis it comes back to the pathetic population we have. Almost makes one wonder if representative government where everybody gets to vote for our "leaders" is doomed in the long run. In the final analysis the People deserve what they've gotten in terms of leadership and the People bear final responsibility for the probable failure of the great experiment in self determination and liberty this nation represents.

I agree on the honesty factor, but here's a fundamental question: in our system of government, are elected representatives supposed to lead or to follow the wishes of the electorate?

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree on the honesty factor, but here's a fundamental question: in our system of government, are elected representatives supposed to lead or to follow the wishes of the electorate?

Good question. I think elected reps should to some extent both lead and follow. It depends on the issue. The important thing is that the rep should be able to explain his position and be honest with the voters.

Some things are unpopular, but must be done sometimes. That's when a representative must lead.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Good question. I think elected reps should to some extent both lead and follow. It depends on the issue. The important thing is that the rep should be able to explain his position and be honest with the voters.

Some things are unpopular, but must be done sometimes. That's when a representative must lead.

Probably, but it seems that most of the big changes have come out of movements.

I agree on the honesty factor, but here's a fundamental question: in our system of government, are elected representatives supposed to lead or to follow the wishes of the electorate?

JohnStOnge wrote:So in the final analysis it comes back to the pathetic population we have. Almost makes one wonder if representative government where everybody gets to vote for our "leaders" is doomed in the long run. In the final analysis the People deserve what they've gotten in terms of leadership and the People bear final responsibility for the probable failure of the great experiment in self determination and liberty this nation represents.

Ivytalk wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Am I the only one that thinks Frank Luntz looks like Patton Oswalt?

As to what he said, he is spot on. Those would be effective measures to help the Republican candidate win. The only change I would make is his last point, "Occupy Washington." I'm 100% with that except when he goes to the White House...Occupy Congress would be the more appropriate action.

It is, and always has been, about how you word the message or frame the question. Every pollster understands that. Every trial lawyer understands that. Every political consultant gets that. Even TTBF probably gets that.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
It is, and always has been, about how you word the message or frame the question. Every pollster understands that. Every trial lawyer understands that. Every political consultant gets that. Even TTBF probably gets that.

Even TTBF?

Of course I get that... message matters above all else.

kalm wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Even TTBF?

Of course I get that... message matters above all else.

When it comes to getting elected maybe, but not neccessarily when it comes to governance.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
When it comes to getting elected maybe, but not neccessarily when it comes to governance.

not true - messaging is PARAMOUNT when governing... you have to sell what you are trying to do...

classic example:
Americans favored the Clinton healthcare reform law by a wide margin - but when the right began calling it "Hillarycare" the proposal lost favor - stalled and died (in large part due to a filibuster by Alphonse D'Amato) - Clinton had lost the messaging - and lost the fight.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
It is, and always has been, about how you word the message or frame the question. Every pollster understands that. Every trial lawyer understands that. Every political consultant gets that. Even TTBF probably gets that.

Even TTBF?

Of course I get that... message matters above all else.

Ivytalk wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
Even TTBF?

Of course I get that... message matters above all else.

Just surprised it took you two days to rise to the bait!

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:One thing I really find distasteful is this stuff in politics of crafting your message even to the point of worrying about which terms you use to express the same thought in order to pander to public opinion. To me leadership is clearly and unambiguously staking out positions and making your case for why you take them. Then let people decide if they want to vote for you or not. If you think majority public opinion is wrong on some matter a leader should be willing to try to change what the majority thinks instead of conforming to it in order to get elected.

There are infrequent exceptions...people who say what they think and make their case...like Ron Paul. But the overwhelming majority of politicians are pretty disgusting in that regard. And the advice offered by Mr. Luntz or however you spell it is disgusting as well. Of course I realize people who do actually try to lead don't normally get elected. And that's why we don't have real leaders in this country.

So in the final analysis it comes back to the pathetic population we have. Almost makes one wonder if representative government where everybody gets to vote for our "leaders" is doomed in the long run. In the final analysis the People deserve what they've gotten in terms of leadership and the People bear final responsibility for the probable failure of the great experiment in self determination and liberty this nation represents.

I agree on the honesty factor, but here's a fundamental question: in our system of government, are elected representatives supposed to lead or to follow the wishes of the electorate?