The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

How Republican Are Being Taught To Talk About Occupy Wall Street (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html)

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz's suggestions include:

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But  "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'

"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'

"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."

"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

Is Luntz the one responsible for the utterly retarded "job creators" thing? As in "GE, the job creators, laid off 22,000 workers last week..."

Did they use human megaphones to teach this?

Really, I don't think we need any schooling on the matter, the Occupiers write the derogatory material so well for us.  Just like the outliers of the Tea Party does for the libs.

I just want to add again, how happy I am that the OWS movement has been adopted as the new symbol of the left. What a gift.

Just because you see it as a symbol of the left doesn't make it so. I could just as easily say that frontrunners Newt Gincrich and Herman
Cain having extramarital affairs shows republican values. If you support either of these, you are probably cheating on your wife too.

It's OK RM, I'm guessing the new symbol of the right is 'wishy-washiness'.  Or as most people call it -- flip-flopping.

You are right, but the difference is that leaders on the left are adopting them as a symbol.  Pelosi, President Obama, Biden, and nearly every publication and media outlet on the left is trying to embrace, co-opt, and capitalize on the message and symbolism.  

It's the entitlement movement coming home to roost. It is not a symbol of liberalism, it is the actual product. Adam Corolla had an interesting take on the whole thing that I enjoyed (language). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQpXybTnGVg

No, they are not. They are not "trying to embrace, co-opt, and capitalize on the message".

You see everything not like you as some failed group conspiring against you. The Occupy movement has resonated with many people in America. Civil disobedience often does that. See Martin Luther King for more details.

Maybe the Occupy movement has some good ideas and liberal leaders are willing to listen and discuss. Conservative leaders must already know everything and be unwilling to admit others have good ideas as well.

I'm loving how the OWS crowd becoming a symbol for the left is making Dems like you squirm.  Especially as bad as many of you have typified the Tea Party by the worst wing nuts on the right. 

Let's face it, every family has it's weirdos.  Yours are just far weirder than mine.

You say weird, I say extraordinary.

I'd say both sides have their fair share of the extraordinary.

Extraordinarily weird.....

Extraordinarily eccentric. At least that's what we used to say about crazy Uncle Rupert.

Actually, they are just trying to make themselves more acceptable to the more liberal voters in this country.
 
 ;D

Was he wealthy?  You have to be rich to be eccentric.  Otherwise you are just crazy.

If that were true, that would be funny.

Extraordinarily primitive!  

I like the contrast in eccentricity that the two movements offer.  

I'm curious how long you could go tit-for-tat naming a busted conservative and then a busted liberal.  They'd need to be well known.

Televangelists would take a considerable amount of time if you don't consider them an act.

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  The right has an exceptional structure built for that, while the left is still struggling.  This article was interesting to me because it showed in striking detail how some of the verbiage and ideas get created and disseminated.  And to whom.  What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.  What that tells me is that the right in this country is able to package their ideas and get them to people on the ground almost immediately.  There may not be a sense of where the argument originates -- it may be Luntz, or the National Review, or Fox News, or Neil Boortz, or XYZ -- but folks who are generally conservative will hear them, fit them in immediately into the general right worldview, and then start arguing them in chat rooms and lunch rooms across the country.  

The left has much less of that kind of structure built out.  The so-called liberal media is still a group of outlets put together explicitly as news organizations, and so the messages that they put out aren't necessarily marketable. Even the folks who you'd think would be liberal message people -- aren't as tuned into the general leftie psyche as you'd think.  Olbermann left his perch at MSNBC (which, in viewership still pales in comparison to Fox News) and went to an even more obscure network; Michael Moore had his 15 min and is now only barely listened to.  Maddow and Krugman are probably the most popular thought people on the left, but even they have a really limited reach compared to talk radio + Fox News.  

Perhaps if the left could find more credible messengers than Algore, Olberdoosh, Madcow, Stewart Smalley, Alec "YOU PIG!" Baldwin, and Jeannie Garafalo they might gain traction.

The politically conservative crowd support group?

Well, see . . . all of those folks are just as credible as O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc etc but for whatever reason the talk radio/TV folks on the right have been able to keep a strong core audience and remain pivotal launching points for how the message is disseminated.  The folks you named on the left aren't coordinated, aren't pushing out a singular message, and are in some ways isolated to their small parts of the leftie firmament.  

Also, IMO:  the left tires of its messengers a lot quicker than the right does.  Case(s) in point:  Michael Moore, Janeane Garafolo, Cindy Sheehan, even Olbermann to a degree.  In general most of the leftie folks that were active during Bush II are nowhere to be seen.  

Sure, there's a singular message: SoaktherichglobalwarmingblameBush.

That's, like, three different things. And it's not even a sentence. 

There's a difference between simply stating a single policy belief and being able to successfully market those beliefs.  One of the things that interested me about OWS is that it's been very active in marketing its ideas -- rather than simply stating them.  It's one of the other reasons that Obama's presidential campaign (as distinct from his administration) was fascinating:  it crafted messages and marketed them very successfully.  (FWIW, I think he's completely dropped the ball on the marketing/messaging end of things during the last 3 years; his brand is mostly trashed at this point, partly because of the GOP and partly because of his own failure to engage). 

Another is the acceptance of those ideas once they've been marketed.

You forgot Gogreenatanycostregardlessofthebenefits.

"Once they've been marketed."  

EDIT:  Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with marketing.  As Luntz proves, it's crucial to define yourself in simple terms for easy consumption. 

You either missed or intentionally are ignoring the implied message that even a well marketed idea can be rejected. 

You could make an advertisement for liver and onions that would have some people drooling in anticipation. I don't care for liver.  I would not buy your liver and onions.  I do like onions.  I would not buy onions cooked with liver though.

It's that 'script' that I keep talking about.  Now we have the concrete example of one "how-to" class they offer.

Think you can make it work for you?

I love it. The "have nots" telling the "haves" how to make the economy work. I love Carollla's point: Occupy a name tag, vest, hairnet and start paying taxes. Lazy@ssed failures.

I'm not intentionally ignoring anything.  I'm discussing.  You know.  Free flow of ideas and all that.  

The holidays getting you down?  You're pretty snippy lately.

You personally may not like nor buy liver and onions.  But renamed, rebranded and reflavored, you might.  And even if you don't, liver and onions might be more palatable to an increasing share of other people; and so long as liver and onions (in whatever shape or form) is more electorally palatable than, say, anchovy pizza (in whatever form), you've done your job.  

As Luntz says in the piece, referring to "government spending" as "government waste" changes the complexion of things entirely.

Nope.  I can't bring myself to lie and cheat to the extent needed.

I think conservatives on the national level are just better hypocrites. Then they can use their FoxNews channel to give them fake credibility.

One example is to attack the poor by finding examples of fraud with food stamps, then attack the left by saying they are engaging in class warfare when they mention rolling back the 2% tax breaks on the wealthiest.

Newt Gingrich attacks Barney Franks for his role on the Senate committee overseeing Fannie May, but when Newt was confronted that he was paid $1.8 million, he answered that he was paid for advice they didn't take.  

I also think that the national republican party is good at coming up with examples of little things that piss people off and making them fake attacks on America.

Two decades ago they argued over and over again about flag burning. They wanted a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone burn a flag in person (except for Boy Scouts during it properly). I have never even seen on TV anyone in America burning an American flag, yet when the anyone from the left argued about freedom of speech, all democrats became anti-American.

More recently, gay marriage in Massachusetts was used by Oklahoma republicans against Oklahoma democrats during campaigns. Even if the local politician had never spoke a word on the topic, republicans sent out mailers saying that because their opponent was a democrat, they must be for gay marriage and it would ruin Oklahoma. Frankly, gay marriage has now been legal in Massachusetts for many years now and I can't say it has any impact on my life in Oklahoma.

Don't forget that pack of clowns down the turnpike who also want to add Sharia law to the prohibitions we enjoy in this state.  Even though it never has been relevant.  It's all about the button push!

**COUGH** Hang on let me put my joint down.... Okay now how are the occutards marketing their ideas rather than stating them?  All any of us know is this group chant stuff, holding signs, or the more coherent of the bunch being interviewed.  Is that really marketing?  I thought that was just the exercise of free speech.

Why should you be surprised about Obama?  He didn't drop the ball.  He never had a plan to start with, just a bag-load of focus group tested slogans.  The whole objective appears to have been for him to win the White House, not actually lead the country.  I'd say he's been a smashing success on that objective, so go easy on him, would you?

Pffft on both counts.  OWS was definitely marketing itself . . . just not to you.  In fact, as a nationwide protest, the whole thing was marketing.  From the idea of occupying a public space (and use of the word "occupy," rather than "invade," say), to the 99% idea, to the use of social media to organize and broadcast, to the purposeful nonviolence of the entire project.  It was strong enough to inject the whole concept of inequality back into "the national discussion," and that's pretty impressive considering that before OWS hit its stride, the national discussion focused on deficits and austerity. 

You and I will  just have to disagree about Obama.  You seem to think that he's a moron stuffed shirt, as well as a complete and total political naif.  Or maybe simply a talented master manipulator, depending on the day. I don't think any of that is true . . . He's a smart man, has nuanced opinions, and when he turns it on he's an excellent communicator.  But he's missed opportunity after opportunity to mobilize the group he brought together to elect him.

But aside from that . . . the way he marketed himself during his campaign -- especially in the last couple of months -- was really well done. 

I could listen to reflavored but haven't seen any that appeals yet.  Renamed and rebranded does nothing for me. 

Here's the thing, polls consistently show majority support for basically all of what Gaspar would define as the pinko commie liberal agenda. Except when they're described using marketing terms the Republicans came up with. Describe them with neutral language, people love it. Describe it with Republican language, people hate it.

People don't reject the liberal agenda, they accept the conservative marketing. That sounds like the cleanest possible example of a message problem.

What people do reject is this milquetoast half-Republican BS that well over half of the Democratic Party is presently engaging in. They want to see bankers prosecuted. They want to see stronger regulation of systemic risk. They want a lot of things that neither party is giving them. That's the danger of Luntz and his fellow travelers. They define the debate in such a way as to forestall discussion of what it is that the public wants and instead define it in terms of what Republicans want or what Democrats want.

It's yet another example of how a small part of our society has coopted government and business both for their narrow interests by highlighting where the rest of us are divided and refusing to talk about the things we all agree need to be changed.

Exactly.  For a lib, you are by far the most observant and reasonable.  Again, you hit the nail on the head, but swerved around the point a bit.

It's not that the liberal movement is somehow too young, immature, or unstructured to have a handle on marketing.  That's an insult.  Liberalism is a very mature political flavor, who's members include the pioneers of modern marketing, PR, and message packaging.  

The problem is not with liberal "marketers," it is with "Marketing" itself.  

The very concept of marketing is to use communication techniques to generate value for people. Success in marketing is generated by satisfying needs and wants.  Standard marketing technique fits for any product or service that can deliver consistent value and satisfy needs.  

The reason that conservative concepts and initiatives are easy to market, and represent a "well developed" or mature structure is because they are fairly static, and based on very old principals.  The creation of Prosperity and opportunity rooted in individual responsibility, freedom, innovation and hard work are the basis for all Conservative initiatives and programs.  These are as old as time, and when applied, deliver value consistently.

Liberal concepts and initiatives are typically rooted in developing equality, or freedom-through-equality, reflecting on the prosperity and the disparity of the target audience.  To put it bluntly, most liberal concepts revolve around some proposition of envy; Rich vs poor, old vs young, healthy vs sick, black vs white, gay vs straight, etc.

Liberal concepts are indeed marketable, but requires non-conventional marketing techniques, because of two factors:
1. They are progressive and therefore the value proposition is constantly changing.
2. They must be aggressive, so an antagonist must always exist for them to be successful or the value proposition dies.

Number two is easy, but number one is the hardest because a moving target is difficult to consistently market.  Your observation was spot on because Conservatives have been marketing the exact same ideals for over a hundred years, but liberal ideals are consistently progressive, so most never really get the chance to mature, and those that do require the constant antagonist, enemy, or subject of envy, to be sustainable.

(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/36579/693448.jpg)


Liberals are worthless and stupid and naive - until a Republican needs to be a victim. Then we're smart enough and evil enough to control all
media, all education and have a plot to discredit all true (Republican) Americans.

Well, since you have been reduced to strawmen, here ya go:

(http://disruptthenarrative.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/biden-cries.jpg?w=413&h=310)

(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/fredgraph-unemployment-openings.png?m=1322867553)

And the other 11 million for whom there are no job openings?

Still in denial I see.

I don't think he's a stuffed shirt, I said "empty suit".  He's a great campaigner, probably one of the best American campaigners there ever has been.  The problem is, he never transitioned from campaign mode to leadership mode.  He's even refused to offer strong leadership to Democrats in Congress, preferring instead to rely on Pelosi and Reid to carry the mantle on his initiatives.  I don't know if it's a detachment issue or he believes smart delegation of duties means shifting leadership roles to others.  Great leaders are always great delegators.  However, the most successful are ones who will still provide leadership to those they count on.

So what Nate? If companies are not hiring, or they are shipping jobs overseas, who's fault is it? Wall streets? Or is it our problem, created by onerous taxation (in the company's opinion-not yours), union/employee demands, litigation, environmental controls, etc...In any case, the jobs which do exist in this country belong to employers/corporations. If the under/unemployed/pee partiers want better jobs--create them.  

No, I still believe that pollsters aren't consistently off by more than 20% in their polling. As I said, when you describe liberal ideas and programs in neutral terms, people still love them. When you use words that Republicans have turned into four letter words, they don't. Clearly, nobody likes "death panels," to pick one example. They do like experts helping to keep health care costs under control by only covering procedures proven to work. They don't like "soaking the rich," but they do like a progressive tax system. They don't like big banks and large corporations, but they sure love "job creators."

The Republicans have turned themselves into the party of Orwell, and many Democrats are stupidly wanting to follow in their footsteps.

You're the one that told them to occupy a hard hat and a job, not me.

Besides, if the problem is taxes, why is the energy industry doing so well? Why is Germany doing so well despite their higher tax burden? Why have the billions of dollars in tax breaks since 2008 not made a difference? Why is the downturn affecting the entire world and not just high tax countries? How about some evidence for your claim?

The fundamental problem is a lack of demand, pure and simple. Why invest in anything but cash when we're staring down the barrel of deflation?

Oh, and where was that big tax increase in late 2007 that took the job gap up by over 10 million?

I told them to occupy a name tag, vest, and hair net. And if demand is the problem, then I guess the pee party has wasted its collective time. It ain't Wall Streets fault, it's the main streeters that don't want anything. Time to occupy my house I guess.

Why would the main streeters want anything, since it'll be cheaper next month?

Who is behind the deflationary environment? Wall Street. Hoarding money and refusing to lend it, even to creditworthy borrowers, reduces the effective amount of money in circulation, which in turn reduces prices. Package that up with the uncertainty surrounding the Euro and the even greater uncertainty surrounding the essentially-secret derivatives market and it's no wonder most of us are eating smile sandwiches.

It's everybody in the world's fault there are no jobs. As for lending money, since when are they required to do so? And why should they? We saw what happened last time money was handed out like Halloween candy.

Now, you'll excuse me. I was given a huge loan recently for a new house I haven't picked out yet and I have to plan my next cruise. Loving life right now.

Sure, it's the shadow government on Wall Street, Nate.  Always blame the unseen bogeyman or the previous administration.  Certainly this would have nothing to do with sustained high fuel prices the last three years, nor Americans refusal to protect jobs in the U.S. by paying more for better goods which could still be produced in the U.S. 

Probably the biggest failing of the Obama administration is understanding that high fuel prices have robbed every other segment of the consumer economy this entire time.  Rather than cracking down on traders doing nothing but swapping paper which falsely inflates the price of gas, or giving oil companies the green light to go for much easier energy to harness, they have pandered to the darlings of the left like solar, ethanol, or bio-diesel.

It's not really the ideals and goals that are rejected. Even Republicans don't really want to stave poor people and so forth.   It's the methods to get there that are usually rejected. You (liberals) won in 2008.  Not so much in 2010.  We will see in 2012.

You seem to think I believe there's a conspiracy afoot. I don't. I believe rational actors are each doing what appears to individually be the correct course of action. (at least in most cases, the ECB may be an exception) It just so happens that the combination of these individually rational actions are leading us to a bad end. That's what happened in the Great Depression and it's what has been happening in Japan for much of the last two decades.

I agree that energy costs are being driven up by useless speculation, but I don't think that's having so much an effect on the broader economy. I'll investigate further, but at first glance there doesn't appear to be a (recent) significant correlation between energy costs and broad economic measures. Maybe there will be something in the more specific data.

Well, I should note that there are in fact conspiracies afoot, but the money hoarding thing isn't one of them. There is a conspiracy in several large banks to illegally foreclose on homes. There appears to be a conspiracy in both the banks and much of government to let the banks get off lightly for this bad behavior.

RA, 2012 will probably be bad for all incumbents, regardless of party.

For the most part, I hope so.

I saw that Perry's message is that Obama has a war against religion.  Some commercial for his campaign this morning.

What a stupid dumbass.

I believed he also accused Obama of having cut defense spending. It must be nice to be so insulated from reality that you can't even tell when one number is bigger or smaller than another number.

What do you expect for a guy who can't remember three things at once?

He alienated a large voting block in the first ten seconds with the comment about gays in the military. "BANG" What was that? Perry shot himself in both feet with one shot.

Is Perry even still running?  I thought he and Cain were banging hanging around together or chasing skirts.