Buzzwords you're going to hear again, and again, and again.

<p>The guidebook for the Republican Party for the 2006 elections, prepared by Frank Luntz, a consultant who has been hired to help obscure the actual policies being discussed, has been published on the Internet. The whole publication (160 pages) is fascinating in itself, but a brief except of what Republicans are being told to say and not say probably gives a snapshot of buzzwords we’re all going to hear over and over for the next year until we want to stab ourselves in the ears with icepicks:

</p>

<p>If you find yourself using any of these terms in the specified manner, go to a bar and drink until you can’t anymore.</p>

<p>At least they have a plan, Kluge…at least they have a plan.</p>

<p>Where can I buy the flashcards? Are they in a bilingual package also?</p>

<p>Yeah, a plan to seize power rather than actually govern. </p>

<p>Where was Bush’s plan for finding Bin Laden, for winning the war in Iraq, for managing FEMA and the Katrina disaster, for managing the skyrocketing deficit, etc. etc.</p>

<p>

And Liz provides the corresponding Dem buzzword playbook.</p>

<p>I don’t need a playbook - Bush is messing it up all by himself - we don’t need to spin, hide reality or provide an alternate reality. Bush hasn’t found Bin Laden, Iraq is a mess, Katrina was mismanaged and the deficit is ballooning under Bush - them’s the facts Driver.</p>

<p>A PLAN!!! HAHAHHAHA</p>

<p>is a list of terms, its not a plan- its newspeak!!!</p>

<p>that is sooo funny, soon it will be Katrina Event, not Distastor</p>

<p>It will be working hard, not poverty</p>

<p>remember this is the President who thought the woman who had to have THREE jobs was a good example of the good things about the economy, the she has THREE JOBS!!</p>

<p>If you want to read a good book, try
don’t think of an elephant by george lakoff</p>

<p>I’m sure I saw that same guidebook before the 2004 elections.</p>

<p>The rumor is that Luntz is now persona non grata with the Republican leadership. He and Boehner have a long-standing feud. He may be switching to the Democratic side. The question is whether we want him.</p>

<p>The Liberal version is in its final stages. The illustrations are ready;they only need to find the gifted froebel educators to produce an age adequate language. </p>

<p>The former version is still available: NO, George, NO! The Re-Parenting of George W. Bush</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.claytowne.com/No_George_No_Political_Satire_Book/George_W_Bush_Political_Satire_Comic_Cartoon_Book.htm[/url]”>http://www.claytowne.com/No_George_No_Political_Satire_Book/George_W_Bush_Political_Satire_Comic_Cartoon_Book.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>How is that going to work when the Republicans have controlled the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court for the last six years? Or, is the idea to blame Mayor Berry for the nations problems?</p>

<p>Good humor Xiggi.</p>

<p>This spin ain’t cheap, either.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996193[/url]”>http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996193&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>WOnder what could have been done with that money and who the people at those companies know…gee, I can just imagine</p>

<p>A.S.A.P. Your post was a good example of the different language used by Republicans and Democrats. The Department of Defense spent the great majority of the money mentioned in the article. Democrats apparently classify advertising for military recruits as “spin.” </p>

<p>Perhaps that is why Hillary is so confused as to where she stands on the war. Jay Leno had a joke in his monologue about a week or so ago that JOHN KERRY told Hillary that SHE needs to stop waffling on the Iraq war.</p>

<p>At this point, waffling would be an extremely positive development! ;)</p>

<p>NEVER SAY: “domestic surveillance”
RATHER SAY: “terrorist surrveillance”</p>

<p>NEVER SAY: “shot”
RATHER SAY: “peppered”</p>

<p>NEVER SAY: “program cuts”
RATHER SAY: “means tests”</p>

<p>This could go on forever, but I’ve gotta get back to work.</p>

<p>At least the examples you cite have the advantage of demonstrating increased accuracy. Which is a good thing, IMO.</p>

<p>Recruitng? No, that’s not the “spin” part. No mention of recruiting.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s what I was considering spin. I don’t think the Dems consider recruiting spin. At least this article doesn’t mention it pafather.</p>