What Republicans really think of Rush

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

BS Hires Frank Luntz, The Man Who Reportedly Shepherded The Plan To Defeat Obama

BEN DIMIERO/Media Matters for America

CBS News has reportedly hired Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist and pollster best known for helping Republicans craft often-deceptive messaging to torpedo liberal policies. In his post announcing the move, Politico media reporter Dylan Byers writes that Luntz will "make a number of appearances across the network between now and Election Day." Luntz's hiring comes only a few months after New York Times Magazine contributor Robert Draper reported that Luntz orchestrated a 2009 meeting where prominent Republicans formulated a plan to win back Congress and the White House.

In his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives, Draper reported that Luntz "organized a dinner" on Obama's inauguration night featuring a handful of "the Republican Party's most energetic thinkers." The attendees -- which included current vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan -- reportedly emerged from the nearly four hour dinner "almost giddily" after having agreed on "a way forward." 

According to Draper, the Republican plan involved showing "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies," with an eventual goal of defeating Obama and taking back the Senate in 2012:

Luntz had organized the dinner - telling the invitees, "You'll have nothing to do that night, and right now we don't matter anyway, so let's all be irrelevant together." He had selected these men because they were among the Republican Party's most energetic thinkers - and because they all got along with Luntz, who could be difficult. Three times during the 2008 election cycle, Sean Hannity had thrown him off the set at Fox Studios. The top Republican in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner, had nurtured a dislike of Luntz for more than a decade. No one had to ask why Boehner wasn't at the Caucus Room that evening.

[...]

The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:

Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: "Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it - please?")

Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama's economic stimulus plan.)

Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

"You will remember this day," Newt Gingrich proclaimed to the others as they said goodbye. "You'll remember this days as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown." [Do Not Ask What Good We Do, pp. xvi-xix]

The inauguration night dinner was also reported in Election 2012: The Battle Begins by Real Clear Politics reporters Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon.

Now, less than four years after this meeting, CBS will be inviting Luntz onto their airwaves as an "analyst."

Luntz's influence in GOP politics isn't limited to organizing high-level strategy dinners -- he's been credited with coining some of the most infamous lines from conservative media figures and politicians.

In their article naming Republicans' labeling of health care reform a "government takeover of health care" as their 2010 "Lie of the Year," Politifact credited Luntz with spreading the phrase:

In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a "government takeover."

"Takeovers are like coups," Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. "They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom."

Luntz has been a regular fixture on Fox News for years. His appearances have featured him praising dishonest conservative ads and asking focus groups questions about whether Obama is a socialist. During a 2010 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Luntz praised the Chamber of Commerce for having "done some of the best advertising across the country" without disclosing that the Chamber was one of his corporate clients.

Fox Regular Frank Luntz Advises GOP To Use Fox-y Language

From Media Matters

Frequent Fox News guest and "word doctor" Frank Luntz has reportedly advised the Republican Governors Association on how to discuss taxes and the Occupy protests, using phrases like "government taking from the rich" and urging protesters to "occupy the White House." This language is nothing new to Luntz's regular Fox hosts, who adopted the Luntz-approved language weeks ago.

Luntzspeak: Don't Say Taxes, Say Government Is "Taking" From The Rich

Luntz: Don't Talk About The Government "Raising Taxes On The Rich." Addressing the Republican Governors Association annual meeting, Luntz reportedly urged GOP officials to avoid saying "taxes on the rich." Yahoo News' Chris Moody reported:

"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." [Yahoo News, 12/1/11]

Fox Regularly Uses Luntz-Approved Tax Rhetoric

Sean Hannity: Liberals "Will Empower Their Government To Take It From The Greedy Rich."While discussing Occupy Wall Street protests, Sean Hannity said the protesters wanted to empower the government to take from the rich:

HANNITY: Look at these pictures. This is the heart and soul of modern liberalism and I would argue the decline of America that people feel they have the right to other people's money and they will empower their government to take it from the greedy rich, a narrative that the president himself started. [Fox News, Hannity, 11/15/11, via Nexis]

Hannity: Occupy Protesters "Empower The Government To Take Everybody's Money And Redistribute It." Claiming that the Occupy movement lacks precise demands, Hannity argued that the protesters want government to "take everybody's money and redistribute it":

HANNITY: If there's one, I guess, common theme that runs through I guess the narrative that they are advancing down there is that, they hate corporations, they hate capitalism, and in the end, ultimately, they want statism over free markets. So, they really don't like freedom. But they empower the government to take everybody's money and redistribute it into programs they want, right? [Fox News, Hannity, 10/3/11, via Nexis]

Hannity: Occupy Protesters Are "Begging The Government To Take Other People's Money."Discussing the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Hannity said protesters are "begging the government to take other people's money":

HANNITY: If they wouldn't stay up all night making signs and staying down there for weeks, they could actually be working instead of begging the government to take other people's money. It's an interesting concept. I'll go down there and lecture them. I'll give a speech. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/30/11, via Nexis]

Stuart Varney: Occupy Protesters "Want To Take It Off Those Who Are Successful." Fox Business host Stuart Varney said Occupy protesters have the "entitlement mentality" and claimed:

VARNEY: These people could just as well be in London protesting their cuts there, they could be in Athens, protesting austerity, they could be in Rome. They are just like Europeans. They have the entitlement mentality. They want to take it off those who are successful and have it and spread it around in the hope that somehow it. [Fox News, Hannity, 11/15/11, via Nexis]

Bill O'Reilly: The "Income Equality Group" Wants "Governments Around The World To Take Money Away From The Affluent." Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Occupy protesters want government to take money from the affluent:

O'REILLY: Now, the President's use of the word justice is interesting. What's the definition of justice? Some folks believe that it's making sure everybody has the same amount of money. That's the income equality group. They want governments around the world to take money away from the affluent and business and give it to the quote, unquote, "people." [Fox News,The O'Reilly Factor, 10/17/11, via Nexis]

O'Reilly: Occupy Groups "Want The Government To Take Money Away From The Affluent And Give It To Them." O'Reilly also said:

O'REILLY: But again, what do these people want? The common thread seems to be income equality. Groups like the Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for all Coalition are basically socialistic outfits. They want the government to take money away from the affluent and give it to them. Nice deal if you can get it. And you can get it in places like Cuba and Zimbabwe. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/5/11, via Nexis]

Luntzspeak: Say, "You Should Occupy The White House"

Luntz: "Tell Them, 'You Shouldn't Be Occupying Wall Street, You Should Be Occupying Washington.' " During his session with RGA, Luntz reportedly stated:

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." [Yahoo News, 12/1/11]

Fox: "Why Don't They Protest In Front Of The White House?"

Hannity: "Why Don't They Protest In Front Of The White House?" Discussing the Occupy protests, Hannity asked: "Why don't they protest in front of the White House? [Fox News, Hannity, 10/14/11, via Nexis]

O'Reilly: Occupy Protests "Would Be In Front Of The White House" If They Were Against Crony Capitalism. O'Reilly questioned the Occupy movement's motives, saying if it were "a spontaneous demonstration against crony capitalism," protesters would be outside the White House:

O'REILLY: OK. Crony capitalism, that's interesting. Then why aren't they in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House? Just today --

CAROLINE HELDMAN: I would agree.

O'REILLY: -- just today the White House issued a statement, Leslie that said they are now investigating the Solyndra crony capitalism case. And you know why? Because a congressional committee is going to issue subpoenas next week to the White House to show why they wasted half a billion of taxpayer dollars in Solyndra.

So this is far more. This isn't a spontaneous demonstration against crony capitalism. If it were, they would be in front of the White House. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/28/11, via Nexis]

Eric Bolling: The "Real Place To Occupy" Is The White House. Fox News host Eric Bolling pointed to protesters disrupting a speech President Obama gave in New Hampshire and claimed that it showed that Occupy protesters "finally found the real place to occupy" -- "the White House":

BOLLING: They finally woke up and realize everything you're against, corporate greed and all that, cronyism, is going on from the White House directly to all the Obama cronies, whether it's the congress people who are trading illegally or all the transfers of payment of our money to green energy program that aren't working. That's what you need to occupy. Good job.

[...]

BOLLING: They found the real place to occupy. It's the White House. [Fox News, The Five, 11/22/11, via Nexis]

Bolling: Protesters Should Be "Marching On The Capitol Or The White House." Complaining that Occupy protesters were marching on the Chamber of Commerce, Bolling claimed:

BOLLING: Occupy Wall Street now occupying D.C., the anti-capitalist demonstration spreading beyond New York, but instead of marching on the Capitol or the White House, they are descending on the Chamber of Commerce. [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 10/6/11, via Nexis]

Luntz Regularly Teams Up With Fox To Promote And Test Conservative Messages

After Luntz Appearance, Fox Exec Bill Sammon Directed News Staff Not To Use Phrase "Public Option." At the height of the health care reform debate in 2009, Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon sent a memo to Fox News journalists directing them not to use the phrase "public option," but rather "government option" and similar phrases. Sammon's directive echoed advice from Luntz on how the GOP could turn public opinion against Democrats' reform efforts. [Media Matters, 3/29/11]

Luntz Chided Fox News Focus Group For Saying They Would Vote Against GOP. Conducting a focus group on Hannity's Fox News show, Luntz discussed the debate over raising the national debt limit, asking whether voters would vote against Republicans if they voted to raise the debt ceiling. After several members of Luntz's focus group panel raised their hands to indicate that they would vote "as a protest" against Republicans who "cast a vote to raise the debt ceiling," Luntz chided them: Oh come on. Seriously?" [Fox News, Hannity, 7/13/11, via Media Matters]

Luntz Asked GOP Focus Group If Obama Is A Socialist; Group -- And Hannity -- Said Yes. In May, Luntz went on Hannity to speak with a focus group about a GOP debate. He asked focus group members if they believed that Obama was a socialist. Hannity agreed with the group that Obama met "the dictionary definition of what a socialist is." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/5/11]

Republican strategist ‘frightened to death’ by Occupy movement

By Eric W. Dolan/Raw Story

Conservative governors were advised on how to deal with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement during the Republican Governor Association meeting this week in Florida, according Yahoo News’ Chris Moody.

The protest against political and economic inequalities started in New York City on September 17, and later spread across the country and even to other parts of the globe.

Although the movement has faced recent setbacks due to their encampments being dismantled by police, and negative media reports of drugs and violence, many have noted that the protesters forced to nation to focus its attention on unchecked corporate power.

Republican strategist Frank Luntz gave numerous tips on how to rhetorically deal with the protests, and counter their message.

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death,” Luntz said. “They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

Using the phrase “taking from the rich” rather than “taxing the rich” was one piece of advice from Luntz. Another was to talk about “careers” rather than “jobs.”

He also suggested that Republicans should stay away from the word “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.”

Luntz said the Republicans governors should sympathize with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, by claiming they “get it.” But they should respond to the frustration of the protesters with Republican solutions.

Many Republicans have already criticized the movement for directing its ire against Wall Street rather than Washington, and Luntz thinks they should continue to do so.

He advised the Republican governors to tell the protesters: “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.”

Texas Tea Party Leader On Obama: He ‘Might Be Muslim’

By George Zornick

On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews hosted two representatives of the Tea Party to analyze its influence in Washington: FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe and Phillip Dennis of the Texas Tea Party. Matthews asked Dennis if he thought President Obama is a Muslim, and Dennis immediately launched into a diatribe that ranged from offensive to confusing, but was outlandishly dishonest throughout. He first replied that he “didn’t know” if Obama was a Muslim, but then criticized Obama’s attendance in the Christian church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dennis then complained that Obama has a “soft spot in his heart” for Islam because he “changed our history saying that Islam has always played a major party in this country.” Dennis noted he had a “big problem with Islam” and concluded by saying Obama “might be Muslim”:

DENNIS: One thing is that President Obama certainly has a soft spot in his heart for Islam. You know, he’s gone back — his first speech was in Egypt, he’s reached out to the Muslims moreso than any other President in the history of the world. He’s even changed our history saying that Islam has always played a major part in this country, when everyone knows that’s not true. You didn’t see our Founding Fathers — weren’t Muslim, they weren’t breaking for prayers five times a day. But this is the type of thing that he’s done, is reaching out. Bowing to the leaders —

MATTHEWS: Where are you on Islam?

DENNIS: … Oh, I have a big problem with Islam. I think that it, uh, they call itself the religion of peace, when every day around the world it continues to show itself to be anything but. So I think those people have a right, certainly it’s understandable that they might have a problem that our President might be Muslim. Absolutely.

Watch it:

Dennis is a fairly major player in the Tea Party movement. He founded the Dallas Tea Party and is the Texas state coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. He is also an adviser to the National Tea Party Coalition. Aside from frequent appearances on Hardball, hewrites for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government site and has also written for CNN about the “real Tea Party.” He has previously said that “the Tea Party does not focus on the pigment of people’s skin,” but apparently it does focus on people’s religion, as his bizarre rant indicates. (For the record, President Obama has never said that James Madison faced Mecca five times a day.)

UPDATEDuring a segment on Hannity earlier this week, GOP strategist Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of Republican voters in Iowa, and half said they believe Obama is a Muslim. Watch it:

M.C.L Comment: Let me translate tea bag here

Phillip Dennis: I don't like Obama because he's a Negro. And Iowa Republican voter: Having a black president makes me feel funny.

They should be honest their main beef with President Obama is due to the fact he's black and he's not that stereotypical black man that lives in their heads. Ask your tea bagger friend did he supported George W.Bush? Be warned some of them are smart enough to know this is a trap question and they may change the subject, if that question fails ask Mr. or Mrs.Tea bag what did they thought about Ronald Reagan? These people didn't care about government spending or taxes when their guys were in charge, the tea party movement is about hating a black president nothing more and nothing less.

GOP Warms To Breaking Up The Big Banks

By Ryan Grim With additional reporting by Sam Stein When it comes to opposing the Democratic Wall Street reform plan, Republican leadership has a logic problem: If the Democratic idea to wind down and liquidate banks that are currently deemed "too big to fail" is no good, then what's the alternative? The obvious answer, of course, is to break the banks down in size so that failure doesn't jeopardize the entire system. That might sound like an unusual position for the GOP to adopt but, slowly, Republican senators are beginning to embrace it. The GOP faces an uphill battle to defeat the plan -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does not have the votes to block Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from going to the floor with reform legislation next week, because Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is refusing to sign a letter committing to block any bill Reid puts forward, reports The Hill. A senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed the report to the Huffington Post. A top-ranking party strategist, meanwhile, relayed plans by the White House to make McConnell's position all the more untenable by launching a tough new attack accusing him of parroting talking points authored by noted GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "We're not about to let them get away with planting the seeds of these bogus claims with the public the way they did for a time on health reform," the source said. "McConnell's arguments that the Democrat's plan for Wall Street reform will perpetuate bailouts is pure fantasy cooked up by Frank Luntz in a right-wing focus group... If Mitch McConnell wants to look foolish and to look like the bag man for big banks that he and his colleagues are - we're glad to help." The first piece of "help" came Thursday evening when the Democratic National Committee put out a web ad titled "Luntz Led."

WATCH

Even earlier in the day, however, an onslaught against McConnell was taking place on the Senate floor, where Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) ripped Republicans who sign the Minority Leader's letter, saying they did so for purely political reasons without having read it.

Last week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with 25 top Wall Street executives in New York City to hear their concerns regarding reform. Both say they oppose the Democratic plan as a perpetual bailout. "By creating a fund, that's an invitation to Congress to spend that money just as we have in the highway trust fund and the surplus in Social Security," Cornyn said.

HuffPost asked Cornyn what his alternative solution to the Democratic plan would be. "I think we need to look at the concentration of banking in just a handful of entities that threaten our economy if they go under," Cornyn said. "They need to be smaller in order to avoid that problem and I would support efforts to move in that direction."

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, McConnell described it as "a permanent taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks," "an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks" and "a perpetual taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks."

Making those banks smaller, said Cornyn, would reduce the risk. "Sixty percent of all the banking assets are concentrated in ten banks in the country," said Cornyn. HuffPost asked if he'd support what's known as the Volcker Rule, an administration plan to split off risky trading done by banks for their own gain from standard commercial banking activities.

"Yes," he said, "I think that's one approach."

Without prompting, he added: "Glass-Steagall, we need to look at that."

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990s, which allowed banks to greatly expand in size and scope of operations, is often cited as a cause of the crisis, as banks used insured deposits for risky investments that went bad.

"We all -- I say we all, but almost all of us -- made the mistake of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999," Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) told HuffPost. "Some of the problems of the big banks were brought about by the blurring of the restrictions on where they could go. And they went into brokerage and they went into derivatives they went into lots of other things. Maybe we need to look back to that, but it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle."

The suggestion to break up banks has been called "very radical," but it's embraced by mainstream economists, including three presidents of Federal Reserve regional banks. On Thursday, James Bullard, president and chief executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, joined Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher in pressing for a break-up of big banks.

The GOP, in pushing for tougher bank regulation, should be careful what they wish for, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Thursday. "He wants to toughen up the provisions so the taxpayer isn't on the hook? Good. We welcome it," said Schumer of McConnell's objections.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the highest-ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, was asked to explain this week just how it is that the Democratic plan amounts to a perpetual bailout. He said that regardless of how the bill is written, if there is a perception that a big bank will be bailed out, then the "too big to fail" problem continues.

"Well, I could sit down with you if we had a couple of hours and had the sheets spread out you know, a lot of pages, but I think any perception -- not just reality, but the perception -- that you're creating a fund here to be used, could be used or misused for bailouts is a mistake," said Shelby of Alabama.

How do you eliminate that possibility as long as big banks exist, Shelby was asked. "I think as Dr. Volcker has said, if they're too big to regulate properly, maybe they're too big to exist. I know there's a lot of talk on both sides of the Atlantic to deal with that. I never thought that being too big by itself was bad but I believe that being too big and believing that you're going to be bailed out is horrible. And you've got to remember, the government never bails out the small and medium-sized banks or companies, it's always the huge" banks, Shelby said.

Sensing news in the water, reporters continued to circle: Should they be broken up? "That is an argument and I think they're talking about it. Merv King has talked about it on the other side of the Atlantic," he said.

Is it an argument Shelby agrees with?

Shelby smiled broadly. "You're looking at somebody [who was] the only Republican who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall," he said.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said that McConnell objects specifically to the creation of a $50 billion fund that would be used to wind down big banks. "Rather than letting banks know that they'll be bailed out no matter what, they need to be disincentivized from getting themselves in that position in the first place -- part of that is taking away the potential of a bailout," he said.

Stewart cited testimony from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner a few months ago:

The third element of effective reform is making sure that taxpayers are not on the hook for any losses that might result from the failure and subsequent resolution of a large financial firm.

The government should have the authority to recoup any such losses by assessing a fee on large financial firms. These assessments should be stretched out over time, as necessary, to avoid adding to the pressure induced by the crisis.

Such an ex-post funding mechanism has several advantages over an ex-ante fund. Most notably, it would generate less moral hazard because a standing fund would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses. In essence, a standing fund would be viewed as a form of insurance for those stakeholders.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Ala), who, with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), negotiated the provision that McConnell calls a permanent bailout, told HuffPost Thursday that he would be okay with eliminating the $50 billion pre-fund. "Whether it's a pre-fund or post-fund is not central to the resolution," he said. "What I've said is, 'Let's do away with it. Let's just post-fund everything if that's a problem, if that's what everybody thinks is problematic."

House Republicans, meanwhile, say their alternative to breaking up the banks is to make big institutions go through the bankruptcy code.

"Republicans are proposing a new chapter to the bankruptcy code to make it more efficient and better suited for resolving large non-bank financial institutions," said a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio.). "The proposed chapter will facilitate coordination between the regulators of these institutions and the bankruptcy system to allow regulators to provide technical assistance and specialized expertise about financial institutions. Bankruptcy judges would also have the power to stay claims by creditors and counterparties to prevent runs on troubled institutions."

While that may not be remarkably different than what Corker and Warner agreed to, it might not end the possibility of bailouts either.

"In ordinary bankruptcy you can get debtor-in-possession money if companies have assets, and through a bankruptcy court or through a resolution court, they can do that," Shelby noted.

Senate Republicans will find a receptive audience in Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) for their proposal to break up banks.

"Our hopes are that banks will be able to separate the risky aspects of what they do from the vulnerability [of the system]," Lincoln said Thursday, adding that she may have legislative language ready by Friday morning. Lincoln, chair of the Agriculture Committee, has jurisdiction over derivatives regulation. "I'm going to certainly make sure that people understand that when there's risky businessm, there's going to be regulation."

The White House is pushing hard. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, leaving the Capitol on Thursday, told HuffPost he is happy to have Republican support for a tougher bill.

"There's a bipartisan bill to be had here. And the fact is it's all about whether we're going to be comprehensive, even with the derivatives section," he said. "Warren Buffet spoke about it: 'This is where, in fact, future crises can occur.' And whether we're going to have a tough, comprehensive, transparent... section on derivatives, is where, in fact, the whole issue is at."

Frank Luntz to GOP: Tout ‘Washington’s incompetence’ to kill financial reform

By Sahil Kapur/Raw Story WASHINGTON -- Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz turned many heads this summer when he penned a report detailing how the GOP can sink health care reform. Now, a new document indicates he's at it again, this time plotting to kill financial regulatory reform.

Like his health care paper, Luntz' new 17-page memo dated January 2010, titled "The Language of Financial Reform," -- obtained by the Huffington Post's Sam Stein -- focuses on framing the issue in a way that generates distrust among constituents toward President Obama and Democrats' reform proposals.

The central advice Luntz offers Republicans is to exploit voter distrust for government and create the impression that any financial reform legislation would lead to "bad decisions and harmful policies" from "Washington bureaucrats" -- rather than solutions.

"This is your critical advantage," Luntz writes. "Washington's incompetence is the common ground on which you can build support."

Luntz cites various polls illustrating Americans' disillusionment with Congress, one of which shows that 81 percent believe that it regulates financial markets "somewhat ineffectively" or "very ineffectively".

Still, Luntz declares -- as he indicated in his health care memo -- that "the status quo is not an option" so Republicans shouldn't say they implicitly oppose any effort at all. "You must be on the side of change. Always... The Pain felt by the crisis is real and omnipresent."

He also suggests Republicans to "broadcast" any "lobbyist loopholes" and liken any financial regulatory overhaul effort to the Wall Street bailout. "Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout," he writes.

Luntz zeros in on how the GOP can kill the Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- a new program passed in the House reform bill that's designed to protect customers from predatory lending -- which consumer advocates and progressives strongly support and conservatives oppose.

He suggests they portray it as an example of "government excesses" rather than market excesses. "We don’t need another Federal government agency. We don’t need bigger government," he recommends Republicans say.

"Ordinarily, calling for a new government program 'to protect consumers' would be extraordinary popular," he writes. "But these are not ordinary times. The American people are not just saying 'no.' They are saying 'hell no' to more government agencies, more bureaucrats, and more legislation crafted by special interests."

Luntz' approach to undermining Obama and Democrats reflects a common theme in Republican ideology and the conservative movement: anger and distrust for government.

So effective has Luntz been at GOP messaging that President Obama publicly slammed him for using political "tactics" that aren't helpful in "solving problems," in last week's nationally televised Q & A session with House Republicans.

"I see Frank Luntz up here sitting in the front," Obama said. "He's already polled it, and he said... I've done a focus group and the way we're going to really box in Obama on this one or make Pelosi look bad on that one."

"But that's how we operate. It's all tactics, and it's not solving problems."

Rep. Blackburn pushes false myth that health reform will ‘diminish’ Medicare benefits.

By Faiz Shakir

Republicans have been trying to defeat health reform by scaring seniors that their Medicare benefits will be cut if the bill passes. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Whip Eric CantorFrank Luntz-approved talking points before making this statement: (R-VA) have made the false argument in recent weeks. Today, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) repeated the myth in a phone interview with Memphis’ ABC affiliate. She offered a host of vacuous,

Our seniors are saying, look don’t diminish Medicare. We have been paying into Medicare. That is pre-paid for us. It’s been coming out of our paycheck for 40 years. And they don’t want that Medicare to be diminished.

Watch it:

Of course, it’s ironic that conservatives who have long argued for killing Medicare are now proclaiming to be the protectors of it. “Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits. I just want to make that absolutely clear,” President Obama has said. The health reform bill would not “diminish” Medicare benefits. “To the contrary, reform would simply eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies.” In addition, The Gavel notes several provisions in the House bill that strengthen Medicare:

Phases in completely filling in the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at certain levels), potentially savings seniors thousands of dollars a year.

Eliminates co-payments and deductibles for preventive services under Medicare.

Limits cost-sharing requirements in Medicare Advantage plans to the amount charged for the same services in traditional Medicare coverage.

Improves the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, such as by increasing asset limits for programs that help Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing.