Outstanding !!!

There is no reason that Luntz should be in this role on PBS. He is a discredited GOP hack.

I applaud MMFA for admitting that in its view, liberal bias is great, but conservative bias should not be tolerated.

If I were this intolerant of other's views I certainly wouldn't admit it in public. 

Max

Where in this story do you get that idea that MMFA is saying this? Could you be more specific ?

No, he couldn't be more specific Doris,

If he was more specific, he'd probably say something even stupider than his original post.

Wrong again lassie.

And exactly which part of the word "discredited" do you not understand?

It's interesting to note that you have no problem with a conservative hack who distorts.

MAX:

If I were a Rightwinger like you, I certainly wouldn't admit THAT in public.

But then, using a screenname on a website isn't really going public, is it? So you're safe, MAX. 

It’s a crime to be a Republican now hack or not?

JERRY:

A CRIME? Nobody has suggested anybody be arrested. What are you talking about? 

Certainly admire the restraint evident in this letter! When I write, such phrases as "committed liar" and "dedicated tool of the Repugnants" seem to appear as if by magic, even though I have no idea who could be writing such offensive things.

In other words, we (MM) don't want any substantial criticism of Democrats coming from someone with an opposing point of view!

Pretty weak, MM.

Not at all. Luntz however is a fraud, at one time a claimed pollster who was on the GOP payroll. Have him on PBS in another capacity, not in this role

Gotta love the irony in a complaint that someone is on a party's payroll, since this site was founded by a guy who's been on both party's payrolls and is now struggling, and failing, to regain relevance in politics.

Why not just admit that in your opinion, conservatives shouldn't be allowed anywhere near news organizations? 

What debate is Brock moderating?

David Brock is a moderator of the PBS Debate?  Link?

"...his site was founded by a guy who's been on both party's payrolls and is now struggling, and failing..."

So Max... If Brock is struggling and failing, why are you even concerned about what's posted here? Maybe I'm missing something here, but if this site and/or Brock is what you claim, why not leave it alone to fail on its own merits? Could it be that you, like most right-wingers, have a pathological fear of the truth?

Methinks you doth protest too much, my man. 

Opposing points of view are acceptable. So are fair critiques of the Democratic Presidential Candidates.

Luntz is not and never has been a commentator. He is a salesman and PR man for the Republican Party.

What would he bring to PBS other than his ability to manipulate public opinion for the Republicans?

Shoes, with that attitude, why don't you just invite Sean Hannity to host? Luntz is no less Faux "News" inclined.

Luntz is a "truthiness" expert. Do your homework. He doesn't technically lie, he just is a genius at ambiguity.

Tough to sell that honed ambiguity to a numbers profession: see the 2 chastisements issued therefrom (well-warranted, and at leeast one notch too mild, I might add).

No Shoes,

We just want a pollster who is a real pollster,

instead of just a right-wing hack.

Would you guys be opposed to the idea of each debate, across the networks and hosts, having a non-partisan host but two oppose-side partisans also co-hosting?

 I think some of you are saying you would be OK with it, but just not this guy. I think it'd be a great idea, at least maybe one or two of them per election year.

sounds good to me.   i just think allowing this guy to be presesented as some disinterested party is fraudulent. 

presesented?  ok presented.

Well, I've gotten my letters off. And I too was constrained in my language, however I couldn't resist the labels "professional liar" and "unethical GOP PR man."

PBS moves in the direction of losing still more audience...

I sent my e-mail off too Parcival...

I'm about done with PBS, and it was not a very nice e-mail, although the worst I said was that they disgusted me.

Damn right!!!!

Whoops, guys. There is no Martin Michel. There's a Michel Martin. She's a journalist for NPR who is contributing to the forum...

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I good with Frank Luntz as the Democratic analyst if they have John Podesta as the Republican analyst, role reversal would be fun!!

But; as Republicans have shown themselves, they need to change the subject when they are on the wrong side of an issue, as they never entertain the other side of an issue, they think they are allways right.

When time comes for them to step into the batters box, they can't hit the umpire, never mind a curve ball! When time came for them to govern, they drive our nation into oblivion.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

No Shoes 89, we want critique of democratic candidates coming from someone who will be objective and not someone like Luntz with a proven record of dishonesty.  It's known as fairness. A concept alien to right-wingers.  Further, another mark of the "irrelevancy" of MMFA is that I couldn't get my comment through to Tavis Smiley because his inbox for taking viewer feedback is full. Way to go, fellow liberals. We'll defeat these lying right-wing sacks of manure yet.

A further mark of "irrelevacy" arises from the fact of MMFA's 2004 letter concerning Luntz, and the reaction at MSNBC that year.

Is there one left that Media Matters hasn't smeared?

Do you think a letter from David Brock on this topic is a little hypocritical?

No smear at all to recite the lies, cite the lines, note the censures from the professional organizations. Maybe if Brock had jumped in with "implied" malfeasance, as it appears someone in a leather helmet may have, I could go with you on this?

Having Luntz analyze a Democratic debate would be as ridiculous as having Keith Olbermann analyze a Republican debate.  Hey, wait a minute....

That's it. You are Worst Person in the World.

Leather,

Now if KO passed out some real gold with this award, I would not mind the "humiliation" at all...

Missouri- 

Beautiful analogy;

Who is Billy's little George Stiffy working for?

Somebody forgot to tell Luntz that he was "discredited"  b/c MMFA thinks he is.

I would LOVE to see an interview of Hillary Clinton conducted by Sean Hannity, but with a MODERATOR who is an expert on proper debate techniques. The moderator would analyze each "question" Hannity asked, and dismiss any part of the question that included such things as false premises, loaded questions, appeals to emotion, strawmen arguments, ad hominem attacks, or any of the recognized "logic fallacies" which render a statement or question invalid.

My guess is, Hannity could not conform at all. Hillary would not have to answer a single question the way Hannity poses them: he is incapable of asking a simple and relevant question, and is also incapable of letting the person ASKED a question answer it without interruption.

In short, America would gain a seminar in "propaganda", and Hannity would be reduced to a quivering mass of jello in frustration.

But I digress. Having LUNTZ presented as anything other than a partisan hack who wishes for NONE of the Democrat candidates to win (and thus will engineer to the very best of his ability NEGATIVES about each of them), would be a FRAUD on the viewing public. Let FOX hire Luntz to do his "analysis and commentary", because his comments will then be properly positioned as Rightwing PARTISAN responses on a Rightwing PARTISAN forum. To have him AT the debates in real time would confer on him a credibility and respect which he DOES NOT DESERVE. And he would certainly use that opportunity to advance his personal agenda (and who the hell is HE? Is HE running for president? NO.) 

The vehemence with which right wingers can argue against an issue like this never fails to amaze me.All Democrats are asking for is an honest debate and a level playing field.Why should anyone as obviously partisan as Luntz have anything to do with this forum?How about Michael Moore or Al Franken provide "analysis" on the Republican side?I'm sure that would go over just gang busters.

I wonder if it would have helped to send a copy of this to the President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In case you didn't know, she is Patricia de Stacy Harrison, a former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Should we really be surprised that they tapped Luntz for this duty?

Luntz is a crook.

He's a crack a shut.

Luntz, background in tow, raises serious questions about American public television becoming another instrument of their foreign propaganda.  Quaint old intimidator is always jiffy with yet another drama for PBS, of course it's centered around the premise of cold blooded murder--prehistoric reflex that has lost whatever charm it ever had.

When they're not celebrating murder they appear to corner the market on wherever the concept or use of the word 'magic' appears.  They're the magic people, aren't they swell?  And no doubt it does take strenuous witchcraft to make the republicans even falsely appear to hold a 30% following in the polls, then 'in for a penny in for a pound' it's time to just steal the elections and get on with it.  The sooner the better because at the rate the spotlight of national media driven concern is swept around, it's just as easy to get away with it in broad daylight so long as the media has the ability to change the subject, what crime?  It's like one of their devilishly clever little mysteries...oh goodie!

Nothing to keep them busy at home obviously...

Someone should bring this to the attention of Bill Moyers.   Now that would be real interesting, Moyers doing a report on the degradation of PBS into another propaganda wing. (Some will argue that it already was, i know..)

I could see PBS firing Bill Moyers and just doing "Best of Jerry Falwell" episodes.

Economically, the British have vested in a theatrical strength I don't think they should feel ashamed of, they're trying to sell product in different markets sure. But like all good things, soon it's a saturation that seems to promote antithetical morale to our American independence--like showcasing monarchy, or so frequently. Are Americans incapable of putting together thoughtful suspense for public tv, while their daytime soap opera leading roles are being thrown to British actors? Mabe the market aggression will eventually work toward some equilibrium. For example, years into the Harry Potter/Elf-King and dragons onslaught, we see a little movie based on the Nancy Drew books. American children will now be reintroduced to something thoughtfully representative of who they are, not that they're entitled to any cultural identity. Another shocking example is how delayed English skills are futher crippled in American high schools with the belaboring of Shakespearean plays (which is another monarchy promotional) when it should be elective study for select theatrical interest in college. To add insult to injury, they read Salinger's 'Catcher' instead of modern American authors of any critical esteem, if you actually go back to read the literary reviews from world experts--then further monkey-biz infiltrates in a mock censorhip book banning scare when 'Catcher' is never taken off the shelves of any bookstore anywhere. So the schools are a riot zone of propaganda wars, adversely possessed by ulterior agendas staking out early complex literacy development. This finally caves in to 'Channel One' tv (under the weight of cumulative illiteracy in America) like the mandated Orwellian screen in every classroom, bombarding a regurgitated spin just as the real news is, only with an MTV teen pulchritude and fashion flaunt as well as commercial ads for things young adults should want to buy. Wildlife adventurer/explorer for cable documentary, PBS and Animal Planet are another concentration, it does suggest a certain dominion, Even the History Channel's latest ufo program. It is paramount to appear the expert for the good of the trademark, fund productions with a blank check to force the media primacy everywhere like it were an empire, and to appear to have the American's most secret document originals along with some other interesting photographs just to prove who can be more daring with classified intelligence, or who owns and has access to all of it at their own discretion, supervising all affairs, even extraterrestrial ones. It's the Roswell 'day-bree' you see.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that it was Luntz who coined the term "Partial Birth Abotrion."

I can't believe PBS is using Guilianni's point man for the last three elections to provide analys of the Democratic forum.

What is going on with the decision making at PBS??

Well done. I e-mailed a similar message to Ms. Kerger.

You idiots, he's working for us now! See?

"now he's got a 25 page PDF out that he's touting as a recipe for Dem success."

[link to images.dailykos.com]

/weird