{"id":4059,"date":"2007-01-22T23:21:51","date_gmt":"2007-01-23T07:21:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=4059"},"modified":"2007-01-23T11:29:39","modified_gmt":"2007-01-23T19:29:39","slug":"frank-luntz-is-a-liar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=4059","title":{"rendered":"Frank Luntz is a Liar"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>Treacherous Republican wordsmith\/pollster\/spinman Frank Luntz sinks to new depths in pretending to offer “advice” for the Democratic Party in a condescending little screed<\/a> posted at Huff Po on Sunday.<\/p>\n

I’ll let you make what you will of the bulk of his self-serving nonsense. But setting aside Luntz’s apparent inability — rather transparently, I’ll add, for someone whose business is supposedly language — to keep himself from using the pejoratively intended “Democrat” when he means “Democratic,” I’ll focus on only one major point.<\/p>\n

For a man who damned well understands the importance of words he sure did manage to drop one huge rhetorical and<\/i> literal LIE<\/em> smack-dab into the middle of his editorial. He writes:<\/p>\n

Senator Barbara Boxer can’t really<\/em> believe that a single woman without children is totally incapable of feeling emotional loss just because she hasn’t had any children in combat, can she? Yet that’s exactly what she said to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.<\/div>\n

Of course, that’s not “exactly” what Boxer said to Rice at all. Nor is it even close<\/i> to what she said. What she said was EXACTLY:<\/p>\n

BOXER: Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families. And I just want to bring us back to that fact.<\/b><\/div>\n

Further, Luntz twists his disingenuous knife by adding:<\/p>\n

Boxer could have been a constructive opponent. Instead, she chose to poke Rice straight in the eye with a stick sharpened by a crude personal attack. It was a cheap shot that made even the most hardened Washington insiders cringe.<\/div>\n

Speaking of “cheap shots”, if Luntz doesn’t know by now that the phony non-incident he describes as having “made even the most hardened Washington insiders cringe” is little more than the Luntzian creation of White House spokeshole Tony Snow as aided and abetted by both the wingnut media and the NYTimes<\/i> then he shouldn’t be allowed in public, much less on Huff Po.<\/p>\n

For the record, we covered the disingenuous brouhaha from the get-go as it sprang from a call we made<\/a> for a Congress member to ask the White House about the casualty estimates for their Iraq “surge plan” (a Luntzian turn of phrase if we’ve ever seen one). As it turns out, they didn’t bother to make any. Or so Condi claimed<\/a> during the Senate hearings. (More relevant links to the notable points in our coverage are below.<\/i>)<\/p>\n

Shame on Luntz for purposely misleading readers. Shame on Huffington Post for giving a platform to an out-and-out liar. I don’t care how much undeserved “celebrity” the man can claim, nor how much “the other side” should be heard from. If “the other side” is going to simply lie, then there is no reason that anyone, much less Huffington Post, should give them a platform to do so.<\/p>\n

UPDATES:<\/i><\/p>\n