The Diane Rehm Show

D'oh! Diane! Soooo close!

When Luntz asserted "Limbaugh is held accountable," and you (incredulously) asked "When?" I wish you'd stuck to the question! We could hear Luntz stagger under the weight of the lie he had just told... we wanted to hear the rest!

I am a professional communicator, and propose that Luntz be kicked out of our club for the following reasons:
1) He is guilty of the crimes of which he accuses others. He says "Don't use the word lie, because that is offensive." "Don't use the word 'transform,' because it's a STUPID word (emphasis is his) and no one knows what it means." Mr. Luntz, who is being offensive now?
2) He is nonsensical. He says "The American people don't want statistics, they don't want evidence, they want facts." Please Mr. Luntz explain to me how it is possible to determine a fact without evidence or statistics?
3) He is hypocritical. Later, after making the statement in #2 above, he claimed "These statistics I give you are true." Mr. Luntz, do you believe that NPR listeners are not a part of "the American people" since you claim the latter are uninterested in statistics?
4) He needs a course in third-grade English grammar. Examples: "That is a problem for Anita and I." "If you respond back."

I will not buy his book, even at a garage sale, for a quarter.

In not conceding that the Republicans do a far better job of messaging than the Dems, Anita Dunn is in denial. Of course they do and of course they have for most of the last 3 decades.

As for Frank Luntz’ point (paraphrasing) that the best-designed message can’t work for bad people, history teaches otherwise. Edward Bernays, known as father of public relations, and NOT a Nazi sympathizer, was shocked to discover that Goebbels had one of his major books in his library and that his techniques were used to spread Nazi propaganda.

Diane, you need to do better.

Luntz was not shy about his agenda -- promoting his book.

It is possible his suggestions would work with people who are genuinely interested in solving problems in a practical way, for the common good.

But that is not our Congress. Our Congress is bought and paid for by big corporations and wealthy individuals. And the famous Upton Sinclair quote applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

More and more of the rightwing Republicans in and out of Congress engage in magical thinking, just plain denying facts. Newt Gingrich has been the poster boy for that for many years.

What? Diane needs to do better? She did what she always does. Let pompous mouthed people paint themselves into a corner and then expose them with simple questions like, "How so?", "When?" or "Really, give me an example?" You can almost hear the word "Bull." in her sincere tone.

Diane, consider yourself hugged!

Diane is doing as well as ever. She is polite and picks her confrontations while letting clumsy guests muddy their own shoes.
Recently callers have been (or been allowed/screened to be) more confrontational with bullies and magical thinkers on DRShow. I think the turning point came when Gasland (the fracking movie) was discussed. Clearly Diane is nonpartisan, and since there are only two parties, both untruthful and corrupted by corporate wealth, this presents a big obstacle. Coincidentally, Diane's voice has been stronger and her demeanor more confident recently as she has demanded integrity in her show. She knew she must work hard because the kind of fact oriented discourse NPR sometimes exemplifies was under siege.
But the situation remains that the dissatisfied majority of American citizens lack a coherent movement or party in which to express themselves. Where is the American Spring?
Chris Hedges believes it was sold for spoils by those who considered themselves liberals over the last 60 years. The category of changes our government and economy need are not even on the negotiating table. We have a careerist Executive with secrecy and unusual powers, a bought Congress and an extremely backward Supreme Court. How we will educate and agitate ourselves out of our powerless hole I do not know. Where public education will revive itself I cannot say. (Word games are wasting time.) But if we don't get relief soon our civilization will go down. It will begin with a functional collapse as in the USSR in 1990. When you can't provide medical care, dependable food, or elderly pensions that signals the end. Paul Paul Paul, and Paul Paw Paw and Pol Pot Zeroyear are about to bring the house down like Sampson. Cutting yourself is a pathological behavior.

Here's the bias in public radio - put up a right wing heavyweight against a left wing lightweight and watch as she constantly capitulates even on the issue of public radio funding. Give me a break! We don't need to give people like Luntz more attention.

Thanks for the show, great as always!

After 37 years, many of which were spent in futile arguments with people of opposing viewpoints, a couple of things are clear. People either see nuance in the world around them or they don't. If you're going to try and change someone's mind about a serious topic you should know which type you're dealing with. Arguing nuance with one who sees the topic in black and white is futile. Just walk away.

This is the prime reason that progressives fail when framing the debate. In terms of today's show, Ms. Dunn proved the point. There may well be a valid debate regarding government funding of NPR, but you will never hear a conservative conceding the space for discussion. Ms. Dunn's comment provided that space and I get it, she sees the shades of color, the nuance. It is likely that many conservatives see this too, however, unlike Ms. Dunn their ability to frame the argument in black and white terms means that they win. They win because while Ms. Dunn is at the kitchen table waiting to start the discussion, they are outside burning the house down.

How were your guests selected for this show? Putting the weak, mushy, "ya-know, ya-know" remarks of Anita Dunn against messaged-to- the-hilt Frank Lunz. Again, the progressive point-of-view poorly defined. She often deferred to Lunz, agreed with him etc. while I never heard him do that. Get someone like Donnie Deutsch (sp.?) who works in advertising, messaging, etc. and has a well-articulated viewpoint to offer a decent counterbalance. This program was a perfect example of what's wrong with the progressive movement today.

Frank's main technique is to convince folk that there is parity where parity does not exist.

I can't say for certain that I heard Mr. Luntz correctly because I'm in a rural area and my local station cuts in and out. However, I believe that I heard Luntz state that integrity is more important than even truth and honesty. If he did indeed say this, then what he did was provide the perfect formula for what the Republican Party, aided by the likes of Fox News and other rightist pundits on the radio and TV have been doing now for the past several years. They have placed "winning" above everything else of value in America. If integrity (rigid adherence to a code of behavior) is more important than truth and honesty, then we must assume that the likes of Mr. Luntz have the utmost integrity, regardless of how much they might manipulate, mislead and ultimately harm the American People and, ultimately, the American political system.
Apparently, as long as someone like Luntz rigidly adheres to his political beliefs when he lies, misleads and obfuscates, he has integrity. And because he has integrity, truth and honesty are of no real import.

I went to one of the Fox "News" focus groups shown on Hannity. Luntz shamelessly rehearsed and prompted the group for him to say what Fox wanted them to say. Though he during Rehm's interview that Republicans' calling Obama a socialist is "dumb", that is what he encouraged the group to do.
I had to laugh out loud when, during the interview he said that he would not accept any assingment that was dishonest--that's exactly what this show was.
I interjected about these process to him personally--I told him that this was not a representative sample--of the 35 or so attendees, at least 30 were Republicans or Tea partiers. His response was "When was the last time any Republican was on Rachel Maddow?" Of course he knew the answer--his job is not to get truth, but get the answer he wants.
I told him, "Rand Paul, in May" His response was, "What about Keith Obermann?" Of course he was pushing to get what he wanted. I didnt take the bait and, said, "I answered your question."
If I'd had a lighter I would have burned the $100 bill they gave each of us.
Shameless? Shill? Whore? Which word best describes Luntz in one word?

He wasnt wrong--he was just lying, as usual. As my comment says, in the Fox focus group I went to, this was encouraged, rehearsed and then broadcast live.
I assume that he was additionally trying to lower the defenses of his educated and skeptical audience.