My email from Frank Luntz

[Ron LOL]

I liked the part where the OP totally missed the very important point Luntz made about SUPPORTERS BEING JACKASSES.

 

[BobTaft]

No fan of Luntz but that wasn't exactly a bad response. Maybe we should devote our energies to getting out the vote for Dr. Paul instead of wasting it on emails to and bitching about Luntz. Just a thought.

 

[davidhperry]

No fan of Luntz but that wasn't exactly a bad response. Maybe we should devote our energies to getting out the vote for Dr. Paul instead of wasting it on emails to and bitching about Luntz. Just a thought.

What?!? No, that's way too rational a response. What are you doing bringing logic in here?

 

[Naraku]

I sent in a little something myself:

I saw someone, a Robert Werden, say they got this in an e-mail from you (presuming this is Frank Luntz of the Fox News focus groups):

Because rank and file republicans dont like him at all.

I shouldnt acknowledge this, but i agree with a lot of what paul says, and i think he's a great congressman. Its his supporters i dont like. They have been rude and abusive.

Sent from my blackberry.

First, is this actually what your response was? Second, if you said this, why shouldn't you acknowledge you agree with Paul? I can guarantee no one is going to think this reflects bias on your part since most I know think you're against Ron Paul. So what is the reason? Surely this is a free country and you can express support for someone in an honest and reasonable fashion, I know some of my fellow Paul supporters need to learn a bit about proper etiquette.

So what is the reason you feel you shouldn't acknowledge agreeing with his positions? Honestly, if rank and file Republicans really don't like him, it's because the media has tried to ignore him and sometimes blatantly attacked him as I witnessed in the Fox debate in South Carolina recently. However, I think most Americans and rank and file Republicans really do agree or would agree with his positions if they had a chance to hear them and truly understood them.

Also, don't let some of the overly passionate Paul supporters offend you, honestly, some of them scare me a little, but for every one that behaves like a rude and aggressive asshole there are about 100 more that are just good simple folk.

In fact, for the record, the person who put e-mailed you to warrant this response got a tongue-lashing from several Paul supporters for being so rude to you. I wish you well.

I'll post here if I get any response.

 

[rwl4]

I think his practices are scum, and he's a complete spinmeister, but Frank is right. We are extremely rude and attack people in a way that Ron Paul would never do. You see Ron Paul on the stage being mocked, and instead of responding in kind, he waits for his moment, then completely destroys the arguments while not directly attacking them. Notice how he turned the "are you electable" question into a really POSITIVE answer that portrayed him for who he is, a strict-constitutionalist who wants liberty for all who doesn't agree with the current policies.

Dale Carnegie was right: A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.

Reading assignment for every RP supporter: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

RP is the master of this. We need to follow in his footsteps.

 

[Marc3579]

I may not approve of Frank Luntz and his focus groups in any stretch of the imagination. But, if you're going to e-mail him. I'd suggest doing something more tactful than parroting Penn "Fuck You, Frank!" Honestly, do you think that's going to make him decide to say "Oh, this person thinks might makes right."

Think about Ron Paul's message to the country, who are his hero's? Non-violent disobedience activists, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi. Do you honestly think, that Ron Paul would be proud to know you, that while e-mailing Frank Luntz on his behalf was laden with that comment?

As has been said in here before, you'll get more bee's with honey than vinegar. But, you'll probably label me as a sheeple. Because, I disagree with your profane message to someone who as he states, he likes Ron Paul...But, his supporters scare him. Do you really think that saying "Fuck You" is really going to bring him to our side? Methinks you dropped the ball on this call.

 

[kaleidoscope eyes]

+100

thought the exact same thing, shouldn't we be following Ron's example of how to behave toward this junk? And I certainly don't think his heroes would act like this either.

jeesh

 

[nosebruise]

i agree that the OP could have used more tact. i wouldnt have dont the F U thing until at least he said something which warranted that as a response. (though if i saw him on the street i would yell "F U FRANK" at him, [unless i was holding a ron paul sign because i wouldnt want to associate that with ron... id only do it if it was a "random" encounter as it would be a personal thing, cause *i* think he's a fucker.])

and that making vague threats was in NO WAY called for and COMPLETELY DETRIMENTAL.






but on the flipside i dont believe a fucking WORD frank said in his response. he doesnt give a fuck about ron paul he was just trying to get some sympathy points. (anyone remember the "you guys are being mean" line from the video?) if he agreed with ron paul at all he would not be doing what he has been and continues to do. the only reason "rank and file" republicans wont vote for him, is cause with your calculated responses and other at fox have painted ron as someone they should not support. if ron got HALF the love any of those other candidates got, we wouldnt even have to be canvassing to get votes, they'd just ROLL in. and the reason you're getting a backlash is because of it, asshole. not that you dont already know this.

frank luntz is pathological. period.


fuck you, frank.

 

[SeanEdwards]

And maybe if we threaten to kill some Iranians they'll like us more.

I don't care if they like us. I want them to fear and respect us.

 

[nosebruise]

why fear?

isnt respect enough?

 

[billyjoeallen]

The more powerful a movement is, the less popular it is at the beginning. We are radicals and that scares some people. In the civil rights movement, MLK got heat from the establishment for being an uppity negro, from the fringes for not being radical enough, and from people who didn't care and wondered what all the fuss was about.

There is a reason why this is the r3vo1ution. We have to love our enemies here and turn them into friends because we are way outnumbered. It worked for Ghandi. It worked for MLK and it is the only way we will prevail. We are angry and we have a right to be, but most of the
public cares more about peace than justice. It is not enough to be right. We have to be smart.

Americans fought off the mightiest empire on earth to win independence and we are right to be proud of that, but Ghandi accomplished the same thing in India without firing a shot! He got the idea of passive resistance from American writer Henry David Thoreau and his esay on Civil Disobedience.

We can win this because our mostly JudeoChristian nation shares our ideals and only lacks understanding of our platform. Frame it this way:
Golden-rule foreign policy
Free will domestic policy. That should resonate with the religious voters and disarm the neocons, but ONLY if we show them we practice what we preach.

Freedom Will win, but it is up to us to determine when. It will only happen when we learn to love our enemies as much as liberty.

 

[SeanEdwards]

why fear?

isnt respect enough?

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

 

[spiteface]

It's kinda funny listening to so many fellow supporters of the peace and liberty candidate talk about using fear and intimidation to keep the media in line.

 

[Charles Wilson]

How can anybody take Frank and his so-called focus group serious? It reminds me of the "Gong" show. We all know that they are paid to say whatever Frank wants them to say, therefore they have no credibility at all. For the Fox network to associate with this kind of obsurd horse shit just goes to show how desperate they are in trying to raise their ratings. Their tabloid format has run its course -- people want real news. I stopped watching Fox a couple of years ago.

 

[UCFGavin]

nobody takes frank seriously....but he is actually right. as much as we say its bullshit that people look at supporters as representatives for a candidate, it is true. we know how weak minded people are, and instead of playing up to that, we hurt ourselves.

 

[noztnac]

What's his e-mail address?

 

[wsc321]

What? You better believe this is personal! NO coffee break with traitors dude! Got it?

This is a revolution, not a play!

I understand your position, but don't assume that because I'm advocating a different approach that I care any less than you do.

Here's another way of looking at it: it's about disagreeing without hating. It's about not passing judgment on someone's heart, though being willing and able to judge their positions. There's a moral line of reasoning that says you or I are not qualified to pass judgment on Hannity, for example, unless and until we've had our own TV/Radio shows, reached the same level of popularity/success, having been subject to all the same temptations to shape (and maintain) our thought.

On a smaller level, of course, I think we accept the idea. Many of us have an acquaintance, friend or family member that didn't accept or believe in Ron Paul initially, but we didn't take it personally, kept on working on them, and eventually they came around.

I realize Hannity, as an example, might never come around (though I think it was obvious he was moderating his positions in the last Ron Paul radio interview, and trying to emphasize his points of agreement, rather than disagreement). I still believe in the principle, though, and I realize some of us fellow RP supporters may have to just agree to disagree.

 

[nc4rp]

Franks right. thats the about same thing a boston globe columnist told me when he replied to my email, however i wasn't quite so blatently insulting to that fellow.

You shouldn't have written "fuck you" in the e-mail. Be more professional, people.

 

[freedom-maniac]

I hate remarks like that. It's like the people who like Jesus but not Christians. Uh, if it wasn't for us loony supporters, Ron Paul would be dead in the dirt. It is because of us Luntz gets to hear his message!

I love Jesus, and I'm a Christian, but the majority of Bible-thumpers tick me off, because they blindly accept what their church leaders tell them, and are to stupid to open up a Bible and read it. If they did, they will find as I have, that most of what church groups put out in their propaganda phamplets is highly contradictory of actual scripture.

 

[scholarpreneur]

Frank, God bless his corrupt soul, is right.

We have a moral obligation to rise above the bickering, threats and BS that permeates the political process in our country.

Some of you think when you react with insults and hate that you're "standing up for yourself." You equate using peace and understanding "being a pussy." But it actually takes more balls to turn the other cheek than to lash out at your oppressor. And it sends a more powerful message.

Gandhi was literally one of the most powerful people in India's history. He wielded tremendous power without ever laying a hand on anyone. He was never elected to any public position, yet he held the entire Indian government under his sway.