My EMAIL from PBS: Concerning Frank Luntz the Putz Presidential Forum Analysis

[MagickMuffin]

Thank you for contacting PBS. We greatly appreciate your interest in our programming. Like you, PBS recognizes the importance of an informed and engaged citizenry.

The "All-American Presidential Forums," which are moderated by Tavis Smiley, is an historic broadcast marking the first time that a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color will be represented in primetime.

Mr. Smiley, along with journalists Michel Martin of National Public Radio, nationally syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. and USA Today and Gannett News Service columnist DeWayne Wickham, will question candidates on issues ranging from healthcare and housing to Katrina relief, the economy and the environment, among others.

PBS is proud to offer a live broadcast of this event, which is the first major opportunity for the candidates to present a detailed discourse and dialogue on their social agendas.

Regarding your concerns about Dr. Luntz, I would like to clarify that he is not participating in the forum itself or in the live broadcast of the event. Rather, Dr. Luntz was selected by Mr. Smiley to obtain on-the-spot feedback from a group of everyday citizens who will be watching the forum live at Howard University.

Dr. Luntz will appear as a guest on Mr. Smiley's regularly scheduled program on Friday evening, accompanied by the 30 people who participated in the Instant Response focus group to discuss the results of the study. We have full confidence in Mr. Smiley's abilities to produce an intelligent, thought-provoking program and in his skills as an interviewer.

I hope you will watch the "All-American Forum" this evening and tune into the second forum for Republican candidates, which is scheduled to air in September.

Sincerely,

PBS Viewer Services

[ellenfl]

1. ruben navarrette? now there's fair and balanced for you.

anyone know about the others?

ellen fl

[MagickMuffin]

4. Not familiar with any of them but will check out their POV's

And here's Ruben's

Well speaking of Navarrette, here's his take on the DOJ scandals

Which brings me to the contradiction that ensnares Gonzales' critics. These folks have insisted throughout the scandal involving the U.S. attorneys that the problem is that Gonzales was acting as if he were the president's lawyer and not the people's lawyer. Now they're outraged over the hospital visit, which occurred when Gonzales was serving as White House counsel – you know, the president's lawyer. The critics need to make up their mind or admit that they're going to blast anything Gonzales does or ever did in whatever capacity for whatever reason.

As for Goodling, it's worth noting that she asked for the meeting with Gonzales and that it occurred just a few days before she took a stress-related leave of absence. Here was a 33-year-old staffer at the center of the storm who was, in her words, “paralyzed” by the scandal. That adds credence to the claim from the Justice Department that Gonzales was trying to be supportive of a young staffer going through a difficult time. Why not ask Goodling what she thinks Gonzales was up to? One congressman did. And she said that she believed Gonzales was just being kind.

That seems important. I wonder why that part of her testimony didn't make it into more news accounts, or wasn't given more than a passing reference in others.

The same thing happened several weeks ago when the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff. Democrats and their simpaticos in the media pounced when Sampson testified that Gonzales had not been “entirely accurate” in his own testimony to the committee. But both downplayed Sampson's insistence that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were based on performance and not political considerations.

I've said before that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were mishandled. Gonzales has said that he acted like a CEO, delegating responsibility to staffers. But the Justice Department can't be run that way.

And yet, it's hard to keep track of what Gonzales' critics – led by Senate Democrats – believe from week to week. They hear what they want to hear and turn a deaf ear to the rest. They change the rules and toss out whatever criticism suits their ends at any given moment. Still playing “gotcha” politics, the critics are frustrated by their inability to get Gonzales.

Now, in their latest cry for attention, Senate Democrats are threatening to hold a symbolic “no confidence” vote on Gonzales sometime this month. Why wait? I'm ready to vote now. After all the dishonest rhetoric, illogic al arguments and shifting rationales, it's impossible to have any confidence in these proceedings.

More: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20070603-9999-lz1e3navarret.html

Ah, hey Ruben, I think you are confused by which party LIKES to change the rules...

[ellacott]

10. It appears that Luntz has been dropped from tonight's debate

He is still going to be on Tavis'show tomorrow.

I have no idea what the poster Lance_Boyle is talking about. Where he gets the connection between "Travist" and the Republican party is a mystery to me. Why he's an abomination is a bigger mystery.

I wonder if Lance knows Big Darryl.

[MagickMuffin]

9. Some of Wickman's editorials

There are quite a few at link, and I have not read them but from the headlines he seems that perhaps he is left leaning (?)...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/wickham/index.html

[blondeatlast]

2. About as innocent as a Vegas streetwalker, PBS.

"Dr. Luntz was selected by Mr. Smiley to obtain on-the-spot feedback from a group of everyday citizens..."

HE'S ALREADY CAREFULLY SPUN THE QUESTIONS, YOU DOLTS. THAT'S WHAT HE DOES, YOU FUCKWITS.

Sadly, my far more passionate and less carefully Luntzed response was lost as DU went down.

If I get a response from them, I'll share it in this thread too.

[blondeatlast]

3. Edit--dupe. nt

[blondeatlast]

5. So they couldn't find a person of color to provide "on the spot" feedback? Nice try, PBS.

Luntz will sabotage the Dems--that's his damn profession. :mad::mad::mad:

[Lance_Boyle]

6. They already have their republican person of color

Tavist Smiley is an abomination.

[ellacott]

8. Wow

[Forkboy]

12. What in twelve plates of wobbly custard are you talking about?

[ellacott]

7. I was surprised when Tavis said they were using Frank Luntz n/t

[tbyg52]

11. Oh whoopee, he's not participating in the forum itself

He's just interviewing a bunch of citizens and probably trying to put thoughts in their heads and words in their mouths, from what I've heard of him.

[Lex]

13. He steers their feedback and responses.

He did it during past elections when interacting with regular folks.

He knows what he's doing, the jerk.

[blondeatlast]

14. He knows exactly what he's doing and he's aching to get an ounce of

"non-partisan" credibility.

We need to follow his every move. The last few times I've seen him he's trying very hard to put forth the meme that he only contracts for the RRRepublicans, that if the Democrats would fork over the dough he'd be happy to offer them the same sort of advice.


It's BS, of course, but he's damn good with the uninformed masses, I'll give him that.

[tbyg52]

19. Well, I'm going to reply to PBSs email and tell them that

For all the good it will do.

[DemGa]

15. Tavis Smiley is effing clueless it seems

Tavis: Dr. Frank Luntz is a respected political pollster and communications consultant who founded the Luntz Research Company back in 1992. Since then, he has consulted for numerous Fortune 500 firms, and is a frequent TV commentator for “NBC News,” among others. His new book is called “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” And I actually like this book, I like it a lot. Frank Luntz, nice to have you here.

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200702/20070207_luntz.html

[MagickMuffin]

16. Tis a SHAME when there is Peter Hart @ Hart Research Associates

http://www.hartresearch.com/

Their clients:

U.S. Senators
Robert Byrd (WV)
Bob Casey, Jr. (PA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Richard Durbin (IL)
Russ Feingold (WI)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Bernie Sanders (VT)
Chuck Schumer (NY)

Governors
Rod Blagojevich (IL)
Phil Bredesen (TN)
Mike Easley (NC)
Brad Henry (OK)
Martin O'Malley (MD)

U.S. Representatives
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Bud Cramer (AL-5)
John Dingell (MI-16)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
Baron Hill (IN-9)
Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Doris Matsui (CA-5)
David Obey (WI-7)
Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ-8)
Earl Pomeroy (ND)
David Price (NC-4)
John Spratt (SC-5)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-8)

Political Organizations
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Democratic National Committee
EMILY's List
Indiana Democratic Party

I've watched several of his focus groups throughout the years only covered by C-SPAN naturally.
He is very good at what he does. He doesn't frame the question to get the results he wants.

On some of the meetings he has held by members of ALL parties, after he asked a question, and got answers he would often ask WHY people thought or felt the way they do, and let them explain themselves.

It was a very interesting eye opener to see the differences within the group. Kerry supporters had synapses firing :think:, whereas the Mad king Boy George supporters didn't have much going for them upstairs, their neurotransmitters were not present that I could tell. They are :crazy:

Go figure

So, perhaps Tavis doesn't know about Mr. Hart. Since he is hosting the GOP in September we have plenty of time to lobby for Mr. Hart to manage their focus group!!!

[butterfly77]

17. Exactly, who I was thinking of...

I love to see those focus groups with Hart. I get see why some of these people think like they do but, I would like to see a wider variety of people in the groups from different races,religions and economic backgrounds.

[blondeatlast]

18. I couldn't remember his name, but I was thinking about his company when

you posted yeaterday.