Letters To The Editor, June 17, 2009
GOP Coverage Was Out of Dems Playbook
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Regarding the newspaper's coverage of the Virginia Republican convention, "Cuccinelli, Bolling Join GOP Ticket": In recounting Bob McDonnell's acceptance speech, the first item mentioned in the news story is McDonnell receiving applause when he commented on "innocent human life" and the right to bear arms -- as if that was the main thrust.
McDonnell's speech covered many pressing issues. He talked about taxes, energy, bailouts, tourism, small business, jobs, retirees, card check, and the skyrocketing cost of college tuition. Every speaker at the convention talked about the Republican belief in individual liberty and self-reliance as contrasted with the Democratic belief in social welfare and government dependence. There is not one word about any of this in the news article.
The article tried to convey the message that the convention attendance fell short of expectations. The 8,000 attendees were the most to attend a Republican state convention in Virginia in the past 15 years -- far beyond expectations.
There is space in the story to mouth the Democratic line that "Republicans turned down stimulus money for expanded unemployment benefits," but no space to explain the Republicans' stated reasons for doing this.
There was no mention of the remarkable speech by Adnan Barqawi, former Regimental Commander of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, about his life and what it means to be an American. He received two standing ovations and the loudest applause. The paper didn't showcase this accomplished ethnic minority who is a proud Republican.
This type of biased, skewed coverage of Republicans to fit a template is a page straight out of the Democrats' playbook. So, congratulations to this newspaper for fulfilling its role as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
Jessee Ring.
Pulaski.
Many Question Global Warming
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In a reply to my letter, "Climate Change Needs DeBunking," Rod Elser wrote, "Climate Debunking Was Bunk Itself." Let me assist him in understanding global warming.
I'll begin with the following from Science (http://www.theregister.co.uk/science): "Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred. The UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies HadCRUT data . . . shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998. According to Hadley's data, the Earth is not much warmer now than it was in 1878 or 1941."
On Jan. 14, 2008, John L. Casey, director of the Space and Science Research Center (http://www.spaceandscience .net) wrote the following: "The Earth has been in a long-term cooling trend technically for 11 years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people."
In a March 2, 2009 letter Casey sent to President Barack Obama, he expressed his concern about the uncertainties of attempting to regulate the environment, especially "now that global warming has ended, the attempt to legislate and then impose cap-and-trade schemes on the American taxpayer and their businesses can only be described as highly speculative."
Some additional facts: CO2 is not a pollutant -- it is necessary for all life on Earth. Human activity produces only .038 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere, with 96.5 percent of greenhouse gases derived from the oceans -- of which water vapor is the largest amount. Last, during the past millennium, levels of CO2 were often at higher levels than the current levels.
William Ryan.
Midlothian.
Can the Government Beat this Health Care?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Two months ago, I wrote letters to Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb, and to President Barack Obama.
The letter outlined my health-related issues over the past two years which have included two surgeries, an extended stay in intensive care, numerous tests, X-rays, doctor visits, and hospital visits for pre-admission and other testing. During this time my care was tremendous. All of my doctors, health care professionals, administrators, even the insurance companies, have been great.
My question to my legislators and president was: How would the new health care plan suggested by the Democratic Party improve my health care? To my great disappointment, none of these men gave me the courtesy of a return communication. Either they don't know the answer -- or they don't want me to know. So much for transparency.
Ed Nugent.
Chesterfield.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Truth - Should drug companies operate at break even? Should they lose money even after going through multiple stages of FDA approval and years of development? If not, what do you believe is an acceptable profit margin for a drug company to make once one of their products, after years of development, investors and approvals and no incoming revenues on the development item?
I know Bush has you all upset. I’m sure you can buy a drug from Canada to calm you down about that too.
Are you aware that you can contact these drug companies and they will work with you on making the products affordable? Check out a few web sites.
Studebaker - My thinking levels are just fine, thank you for your condescension. I stated that I hadn’t read the memo - so, I did not have any working knowledge of it’s specific content. I was asking for your assessment of the memo (similar to what others have offered on this thread) - so, if right and wrong are the incorrect parameters and the memo being what it is - do you agree with the contents of the memo or disagree with the contents of the memo? Your answers can range from, Luntz offered up a palatable repackaging and articulation of principles to this is nothing but propaganda based on lies that would make Machiavelli vomit. Put simply, what do you think of the memo? Do you think democrats do the same thing as Luntz? Do you consider Luntz’s work on behalf of the Republican party contemptible? If so, do you consider the work performed by his opposite numbers in the democrat party equally contemptible? If not contemptible, how would you describe what both parties are doing?
As for not watching TV for over 20 years - I’m certain you have a principled reason for not doing so, but, it also lead to your mis-characterization of a very public Republican pollster who makes no attempt to hide in the shadows.
David Axelrod has no equal in the “astroturf” business.
His firm ASK specialized in “Providing campaign management, communications strategy and advertising to private sector and nonprofit organizations to influence stakeholder opinion.“
His job was/is to help companies or entities to advocate publicly unpopular issues.
Luntz is a rank amateur in comparision.
We are all being manipulated every day by think tanks and political consultants who promote people and policies that are just smoke and mirrors and empty suits..
We thank all those who provide whatever they provide.
Getting back to Luntz 28-page memo, it still does not state facts with back-up references as to: thousands from Canada who come to U.S. for treatments, unless all much smarter than I (about all), can so find.
Again, regardless of what/what, why is there an issue in added option of a national non-profit insurance pool; yet to be finalized? If you don’t like it, don’t op for it. Stay with current insurance plan, even if higher in cost.
One thing for sure not on the table that ought be. Drug price negotiation. 90-day supply of Lipitor through private insurer, covered with Medicare Plan D, costs $327 ($87.50 copay + $239 Medicare, meaning our taxes). I just ordered 90-day supply with extra 10 tabs (100 total) from Canada mail order and to ship from Germany at $109 for generic. Would have been $149 brand name. Shipping is $10. So, Pfizer can sell same brand name at 143% higher in states under Medicare Plan D than they sell retail in Germany. Why? Cost of “research”? Well, increase foreign prices and give us a break. Nope. The “why?“ answer is “cause they can”. Way to go Bush with your Plan D. Did a heck of a job, for your “base”.
studebaker - c’mon, we’re not supposed to have heard of Frank Luntz? He’s on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News on a regular basis….
Sorry Randy….my bad. But forgive me as I haven’t watched television in over 20 years.
“The Luntz Choir? Your suspicions are incorrect. I’m a libertarian and Luntz is a moderate republican. I was just asking, since I hadn’t read the memo - if you thought Luntz’s work was incorrect, his political affiliation notwithstanding. I don’t know if the guy is right or wrong. If something is factual, I don’t care if it comes from a guy who dresses up like a goose - he can be a republican, democrat or libertarian - facts are facts. Does political affiliation automatically discount the accuracy of someone’s work?” ***
Randy: The fact that you consider Luntz’s work to be something meant to be correct or incorrect as pertaining to the issue at hand suggests you may be susceptible to being influenced at unawares by his real work. Whatever Luntz’s own politics are has nothing to do with his profession. Luntz would pat himself on the back to hear that you identify yourself as “a libertarian.”
I don’t mean any disrespect, but you are not thinking at the level necessary to comprehend the nature of Luntz’s work.
Mr. Luntz’s focus is not on facts, correctness or incorrectness; but on context, framing & demographic specific messaging—and response.
“It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear.”
studebaker - c’mon, we’re not supposed to have heard of Frank Luntz? He’s on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News on a regular basis. While I appreciate the background information you’ve given, the covert tone you’re taking regarding Luntz’s existence and role is overly dramatic - like REALLY, excessively, dramatic.
Do you recall the democrats talking about repackaging their message after the 2002 and 2004 whipping they took? Probably not, of course, but, Luntz is simply the opposite number to guys like Carville, Olbermann and Paul Begala - he’s just not as hysterical in his presentations.
“I’d never heard of the Luntz fellow…bachelor’s degree U.of PA; then, bang, PhD from Oxford? That memo sure does not resonate with one w/Phd from Oxford. Regardless, there are no facts w/references as to thousands from Canada who come to U.S. for treatments…surely no one has issue in (1) keeping current insurance plans & docs anyone now has; (2) adding non-profit insurance plan w/o penalty for ever being sick, and funded by participants as a whole. So, what’s the beef?”
Thetruth: You are not supposed to have “heard of the Luntz fellow.”
“A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.“ Frank I. Luntz
The language in the memo is not supposed to”resonate with one w/Phd from Oxford.” The key is the science of linguistics applied to a target demographic so that the Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research Clients’ messages are expressed in “the words your customers use and the words that speak to them.” This way the target demographic is more likely to consider received messages as their own idea.
The “Words That Work”
http://www.luntz.com/what_we_do.html
We find the EXACT words and phrases to help you succeed – the messages that will frame the debate and generate support for your side of the issue. The words your customers use and the words that speak to them. This is about more than identifying the strongest language and talking points – it’s about figuring out how to reframe the debate. We can say, with complete confidence, that NO ONE ELSE can provide you with the language and strategy that will give you a greater chance to dominate your market.
Areas of Expertise
http://www.luntz.com/where_overview.html
In the political arena, our CEO, Dr. Frank Luntz, is known for helping change the public vocabulary – he transformed the “estate tax” into the “the death tax,“ moved the public debate from “school vouchers” to “opportunity scholarships,“ and re-cast “drilling for oil” as “exploring for energy.“ He is the researcher behind one of the most quoted survey of the last 20 years (a survey that found that more young people in America today believe in the existence of UFOs than believe Social Security will exist when they retire).
INSTANT RESPONSE
http://www.luntz.com/how_instant.html
We are a marketing, consumer and public opinion research firm with a specialty in language and message development. Instant Response dials, also known as “the People-Meter,” generate our distinguishing product, because of both the analysis and the presentation. A few polling firms in the United States use some variation of Instant Response, but no one utilizes the technology and the session as we do. Instant Response is more quantitative and projectable than a focus group (and three times the size), and more conducive to extensive language, visual and concept testing than a traditional survey.
I’ll try this another way:
If the objective is to make health care available to everyone, but, not everyone can afford to pay into the system, the money to sustain the program comes from…....who?
This is what is meant by the participants are not paying into the system.
Who pays for the coverage for participants who cannot afford to pay into the system?
Do you understand the question now? Do you know the answer, now?
“The government plan is not funded by participants - remember?“...Oh! I thought I’d have to pay for my wife’s participation. Great! It’s free! Before I get too giddy, exactly where does it say in the gov’t plan that it will not be funded by participants? I thought the plan was still in development stage.
Also, I do remember, again & again & again, Obama & other Dems have said they want a plan that allows anyone to stay with current private insurer plans. So, what’s the beef from current participants and private insureres?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement