Barry : Lunz is one of the sharpest minds in the business. He's a regular on Fox. Trouble is, most often he is featured on Hannity, and Hannity has no idea ( at all ) how to make the best use of Lunz's talents, and always wants to make strictly partisan points. OK, that is valid enough maybe 1/3rd of the time, but with Hannity it is 99% of the time. Makes me want to switch channels almost immediately. While Lunz is a Conservative, one thing that makes him stand out is his real effort to always be as objective as possible. Hannity is a fish out of water unless the discussion promotes the GOP. Michael Barone is someone else who is about as objective as anyone gets. Also Charlie Cook , of Cook Reports On the Left there is John King on CNN. His problem is that he has a show that is half commentary. When he sticks to the facts he is Very Good. When he comments it usually ( not always, but usually ) is party line stuff, not as bad as the worst party-liners, but nonetheless.......... None of them will change the world. But at least there are some, now, who serve as examples of objective political analysis. Billy ==================================================== In a message dated 9/27/2010 4:52:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Will it resonate deep enough in the American psyche to make that profound change? Can it make up for decades of dysfunction within Washington or will we, the sheeple enable the status quo? I am not convinced the people are as mad as claimed. Barry W Post > > > Is the 'Pledge to America' a worthy successor to the 'Contract With > America'? > > By Frank I. Luntz > Sunday, September 26, 2010 > > The men and women were so angry that they were actually spitting on me as > they barked out their complaints -- "sickening government spending" and > "lobbyist legislation" and "repulsive corruption" and the "whole stinking > mess." At one point, I wondered whether one guy was going to take a swing > at me. > > > I had come to Denver that Saturday in early September to talk to 31 > undecided voters, hoping to figure out exactly what Republicans needed to > say and > do to win the support of the Angry American. I tried everything -- > "promises," "pledges," "platforms," "agendas" -- but nothing worked. > These people > were mad as hell, and I almost gave up. "Okay, you've told me clearly > what > you don't want," I said in my last attempt. "Now please tell me, in your > own > words, exactly what you do want." > The dam broke. "I want specifics" . . . "Make them write it down on paper" > . . . "They have to sign it" . . . "Make it a real contract. Make it > enforceable." As quickly as their tempers had risen, the thought of a > policy > manifesto listing specific legislative proposals, with a genuine > commitment to > get it all done, soothed their scorned souls. > This was in 1994, and the anti-Washington language so common today was > just > as virulent then. For months, the Clinton White House had labeled Newt > Gingrich and his House GOP colleagues as the party of "no," and Democrats > were > claiming that voters could see how extreme the Republican Party really > was. (Sound familiar?) Yet, under Gingrich's tutelage, House Republicans > offered voters 10 specific proposals to prove that they were unlike the > politicians the public so reviled. > I didn't write the "Contract With America." I didn't even name it. But I > was the pollster who "messaged" it, testing how voters responded to the > language. And I have always been proud of how that document contributed > to the > Republican landslide in 1994 and how it served as an organizing plan for > congressional Republicans in 1995. > > > > This past Thursday, House Republicans unveiled their own _"Pledge to > America,"_ > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092206643.html) > which, according to GOP House Whip Eric Cantor, is meant > to "change the culture of Washington, returning power, control and money > back to the people where it belongs." I wasn't involved with this > document, > but I have moderated almost 50 instant-response focus groups with > thousands > of voters this year, and I do have a good idea of what they really want. > So, how does the Pledge stack up against the Contract -- and might it lead > to similar success? Let's break them down, point by point. > First, their names: "A Pledge to America" vs. the "Contract With America." > I have to give the edge to the 1994 version, though I have an even better > word. Nobody trusts political promises or politicians' pledges, but a > "commitment" suggests seriousness and a willingness to put your > reputation on the > line. I conducted polls on this wording this year, and an overwhelming 81 > percent of Americans preferred a "commitment," while just 10 percent > chose > a "promise" and only 9 percent a "pledge." > The American people in 2010, above all else, want politicians to > demonstrate that Washington works for America, not the other way around. > The > full-page, double-sided, tear-out ad for the Contract With America that > ran in TV > Guide in October 1994 did just that, featuring two simple but powerful > sentences: "A campaign promise is one thing. A signed contract is quite > another." The authors of the 2010 document could have done better than > "pledge." > Second, let's look at the documents' bipartisan appeal. The words > "Clinton" > and "Democrat" were missing from the 1994 Contract and the TV Guide ad > for > a reason. Late at night on Sept. 25, 1994, I sat at a computer at the > Republican National Committee and removed the draft Contract's four > remaining > references to Clinton and the Democrats because voters were crying out > for a > nonpartisan approach to governing. > The 2010 Pledge is more overtly critical of the Democrats in Congress and > the White House, but more important, it is considerably more > anti-government > in its language. Calling Washington a "red tape factory" conjures a > compelling visual, and suggesting that the priorities of the people "have > been > ignored, even mocked by the powers-that-be in Washington" is just the > sort of > red-meat rhetoric that fires up the grass roots. But the most passionate > descriptor in the document, "an arrogant and out-of-touch government of > self-appointed elites," hits exactly what independents think. > Independents > determine who wins elections, so on that score, the Pledge beats the > Contract. > Third, the opening lines. Here, the Pledge wins hands down. "America is > more than a country" is a simple but profound statement that says so much > in > just a few words. By comparison, the Contract began with language that > sounded like it was spoken by Sir Laurence Olivier in some film about > Shakespeare: "As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and > as citizens > seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but > even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and > their elected representatives." Any sentence that has more than 40 words > cannot possibly be effective. And frankly, any opening sentence that > includes > the word "Republican" is spring-loaded for failure. This year, the > authors of > the Pledge understand that it's not about them, the Republicans; it's > about you, the American people. Once again, the Pledge wins. > Fourth, the specifics. The Contract offered a detailed course of action. > In > fact, it proposed eight major reforms, including the first independent > audit of Congress and a cut in the congressional budget and staffing, > that > House members promised to pass (and did) on their very first day in > office. > The Pledge has no equivalent -- a glaring omission. > Fifth and finally, the closing lines. For those who read it, the > effectiveness of the Contract was in the perception that it was a binding > document > with an enforcement clause. "If we break this contract, throw us out. We > mean it." That was written in large, bold letters at the bottom of the TV > Guide version, and it is one of the most powerful statements in the > document. > For the first time in American politics, a group of elected officials > explicitly invited their constituents to toss them from office if they > failed to > do what they promised. (It took Americans 12 years to take them up on > that > offer.) > By comparison, the Pledge ends with a "call to action" -- always a good > approach -- but then it appeals to "men and women of good will and good > heart." Who talks like that outside of, say, Sherwood Forest? Advantage: > Contract. > Of course, campaign documents don't always resonate or have an impact; > just > consider the Democratic _"Six for '06"_ > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262.html) > campaign, which > doesn't even rise to the import of its own Wikipedia entry, and whose > authors > even acknowledged at the time that it was nothing more than an election > gimmick. "It's closing the deal," opined Sen. Chuck Schumer, then > chairman of the > Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, hardly a ringing endorsement. > Officially called "A New Direction for America," it had none of the > legislative detail of the 1994 Contract, none of the intellectual heft of > the 2010 > Pledge -- and no one other than Nancy Pelosi campaigned on it. > The Pledge is different. It's not quite a contract, but it's definitely > more than an agenda. And it addresses the issue that has most incensed > the > American people over the past two years: It calls for a permanent end to > taxpayer-funded bailouts. There should be no room for misin > terpretation here. > From the bailouts to billionaires to the stimulus package that failed to > stimulate to the government takeover of health care, the American people > cried > "Stop!" -- but the Democratic majority in Washington refused to listen. > That alone justifies the Pledge effort. And when examining its other > agenda > items, I can't help but conclude that the similar criticisms that were > leveled at the Contract -- too bold, too timid, too conservative, not > conservative enough -- will fail to sink the Pledge as well. > Ultimately, of course, the success of the Pledge will be determined not by > the results on Election Day, but by what happens afterward. Still, there's > a simple lesson for both parties: The American people aren't just mad as > hell. This time, they're truly not going to take it anymore. They'll keep > changing their government until their government really changes. So > credit > Republicans for putting their Pledge on paper. Now, they will be held > accountable to the standard they've set for themselves -- and it's a good > one. > Frank I. Luntz, a pollster and communications consultant, is the author > of > "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear" and "What > Americans Really Want . . . Really." He will be online to discuss this > piece on Monday, Sept. 27, at 10 a.m. ET. _Submit your questions or > comments_ > (http://live.washingtonpost.com/pledge-for-america-outlook-frank-luntz-0927.htm > l) before or during the discussion. > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
