The Word Doctor Wants to Help
That wily Frank Luntz. What’s he up to? Last week, the Republican pollster advised enviros on how to sell the congressional climate bill. (Don’t mention polar bears or cap and trade, the bill’s centerpiece. Instead, talk about energy security and jobs.) That’s quite a turnaround from the guy who, in 2002, counseled the Bush Administration on how to avoid taking action on global warming (by, among other things, calling it climate change and playing up the scientific uncertainties).
The only problem with Luntz’s latest climate messaging advice is that Democrats already figured it out. They tried that script before moving on to plan b. No telling yet whether the gang of three will have better luck working from it.
Still, it’s an interesting parlor game to divine Luntz’s motives. Is he a mercenary or a saboteur? Daniel Weiss over at Climate Progress probably could care less but in a guest post he obviously welcomes Luntz’s polling results. CP readers, however, are suspicious (see here and here), as is Osha Gray Davidson, who smells something rotten. While Davidson is mighty suspicous of Luntz’s data and methodology, he doesn’t offer any theories on why Luntz would be echoing what many democrats still see as the climate bill’s strongest selling points–jobs and national security. Does Davidson think that Luntz secretly believes this is a losing strategy? Because it’s not clear to me why Davidson is so frothy over Luntz. Is it just a bad taste he can’t shake, or does he think Luntz is somehow outfoxing the democrats on the climate bill?
I thought some clues might be discerned at the roster of anti-environmental bloggers that specialize in mocking any morsel of good news that climate advocates might put to good use. But slim pickings there. Hardly any mentioned Luntz’s findings or his curious joint appearance with EDF President Fred Krupp at the National Press Club. Notably, there was no Morano link, and no sarcastic jab over at Planet Gore.
So either Morano’s circle is in on the con (unlikely) or they think Luntz is peddling some useful advice, which they’d prefer not to draw attention to.
Hi, Keith; good post. I’m afraid I can’t help with Luntz’s motives, and didn’t want to go into areas that I can’t back up with facts. Not that there’s anything wrong with discussion and speculating — it’s just that I’m an investigative journalist and science writer first and a blogger second. The story, for me, is that a political PR guy is posing as a social scientist and that enviros are embracing him and may follow his advice, because (here’s the speculation) he’s telling them what they want to hear.
I was even frothier about the MSM lending Luntz a credibility he doesn’t deserve. Luntz has been publicly censured twice by profession polling organizations for shoddy and unethical practices. His cardinal sin is issuing “polling results” but not the data to support them. That’s why social scientists disowned him and that’s exactly what he did again with this climate report.
Luntz attacked me while commenting on my article. But he didn’t answer the question reporters should have asked in the first place: Where’s the data, Frank?
The guy’s a huckster — it’s a shame that so many otherwise-thoughtful people accept his claims uncritically. Worse than a shame, actually, because the stakes are so high.
Hey Osha,
I’m afraid I have to disagree with your MSM criticism. It strikes me as a legitimate story when Frank Luntz shows up at the National Press Club with the leader of a major environmental group to tout his climate poll. If anything, it’s Greens that are giving him credibility by embracing his findings, however cynical their motives may be.
That said, your central assertion about Luntz seems worthy of followup, if you can get an assignment. I did read his comment at your site–seems like you struck a nerve there.
Hi again, Keith. I’m not objecting to the MSM covering the story. I’m saying they didn’t cover it well enough. They focused on the man-bites-dog aspect and never raised the basic questions about the legitimacy of the report at the center of the story.
I agree with you — this is no shining moment for Green groups, either. I don’t know their motives, but unless they’ve seen his data and know that the report creditable, it was a mistake to embrace it. It may be costly in the long run.
“They focused on the man-bites-dog aspect and never raised the basic questions about the legitimacy of the report at the center of the story.”
Agreed. But neither have liberal magazine bloggers. See here and here. (On this note, I know you left a comment at the MoJo post.)
Hope you do a related story on all this at some point…