A fascinating insite into the Bush message machine

[Silicon]

From Talking Points Memo

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_16.php#004503

As we told you earlier today, even though Karl Rove has been telling Republicans for two years to stop using the word "privatization" and to try to bully reporters out of using the word, like every other Republican until about two years ago, "privatization" was always his word of choice to describe a private-accounts-based Social Security phase-out plan.

...
Let's be frank about what this is all about. Turning Social Security into a private accounts system has always been called 'privatization'. It was the privatizers' word of choice. That is, until they did some polling in 2002 and found out that using that word made their phase-out plan very unpopular. So, not only did they decide to stop using the word themselves, which is fair enough, they decided to try to stop anyone else from using it to describe their plan.

And here's the relevant snippet from the Washington Post interview where the President tries to say that the word "privitization" itself is editorializing in the question.

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12570-2005Jan15.html

I find this passage EXTREMELY illuminating. For example WHY are newspaper reporters arguing with the RNC about which word they get to use ANYWAY?

I mean Orwellian comparisons aside, the sheer fact of the telephone call that is made before you get to interview the President where the RNC tells you which words you are allowed to frame the question with. I mean, that's a phone call that any journalist should refuse.

But then, there goes your "access."

 

[American]

I mean Orwellian comparisons aside, the sheer fact of the telephone call that is made before you get to interview the President where the RNC tells you which words you are allowed to frame the question with.

Don't use Orwell, use the Holocaust.

These are conservative we're talking about, people who want 20-somethings to move out of their parent's house and get full-time jobs.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Didn't the exchange go on further?

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

The Post: Your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

The Post: Your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

The Post: Your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting.

The Post: So have you talked to Senate Democrats about this?

THE PRESIDENT: About what?

 

[a_unique_person]

The new PC.

 

[Vorticity]

Didn't the exchange go on further?

“You remind me of a man.”
“What man?”
“The man with the power.”
“What power?”
“The power of Hoodoo.”
“Who do?”
“You do.”
“Do what?”
“Remind me of a man.”
“What man?”
“The man with the power.”
“What power?”
“The power of Hoodoo.”
“Who do?”
...

 

[valis]

This is indeed disturbing. After all the years of straight forthright talk from Washington the evil nazi baby eating bush regime comes along and tries to spin things!

They should try something the left finds more comfortable. How about 'we are pro choice on Social Security'.

 

[Nova Land]

Update:

In Frank Newgent's extended text of the Bush interview, it is clear that Bush is going to just keep the reporter going in circles until the reporter gives in and uses Bush's poll-tested spin-phrase in preference to a more objective description. (And even if Frank's post may have been slightly invented, I think it provided a good representation of what Bush and other Republicans were actually doing.)

Well, according to one media watchdog group it worked .

The media coverage and analysis of President Bush's February 2 State of the Union address and the Democratic response indicated that the Bush administration's pressure on reporters -- to use the term "personal accounts" rather than "private accounts" in discussing Bush's social security privatization plan -- is working. As Media Matters for America has noted, polling shows that the public responds less favorably to the term "private accounts," a term that Bush himself has used in the past.

A Media Matters analysis found that 18 media hosts, correspondents, and commentators used the White House-approved term "personal accounts," while 13 referred to "private accounts."

On the network news broadcasts, only one correspondent used the term "private accounts," while 8 hosts, correspondents, and commentators adopted Bush's preferred term, "personal accounts." On the cables, 10 used the term "personal accounts," while 12 used the term "private accounts."

Media Matters for America is a biased source, so it's possible their method of counting was not a fair one. (That has often been true in the past of counts done by groups such as AIM. I'm not aware yet what MMA's track record for reliability is.)

I did not hear the media coverage of the speech myself -- have done extremely little TV or radio listening the past few weeks -- so can't vouch for the accuracy of the MMA report that way, either. MMA does provide a chart detailing how 6 of the networks covered it on their programs, but these things often sound different in the actual broadcast than when reduced to a chart to prove a point.

Still, I thought this was worth mentioning. [Plus it provides a reason to bump this thread, in case Frank's post gets included in the language awards poll this month as I am hoping.]


edited because I posted and then realized I had forgotten to provide the link

 

[hammegk]

This is indeed disturbing. After all the years of straight forthright talk from Washington the evil nazi baby eating bush regime comes along and tries to spin things!

They should try something the left finds more comfortable. How about 'we are pro choice on Social Security'.

Oh, you must be a bad, bad, person to say such a thing!

I don't think they've started banning non-lefty-pc'idiot-libs yet though.

 

[varwoche]

This is indeed disturbing. After all the years of straight forthright talk from Washington the evil nazi baby eating bush regime comes along and tries to spin things!

Is there such a thing as a status quo fallacy?

 

[corplinx]

The main reason they aren't using the word privatization is because there is no privatization plan.

Allowing people to put 4 percent of their SS tax into a govt approved portfolio isn't anything resembling privatization.

Why then does the american democrat party continue to lie and call it a privatization plan?

Moreover, why does the press who has the same information that we plebians have access to continue calling it a privatization plan?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Allowing people to put 4 percent of their SS tax into a govt approved portfolio isn't anything resembling privatization.

Corplinx, you fell for one of Rove's tricks. It's not 4 percent "of" your payroll taxes, but rather 4 percentage points "off of" the 12.4 percent of wages. That means you're really diverting (4/12.4) or approximately 32 percent of your payroll taxes. You dig?

 

[Bjorn]

If it was privatization a year ago, why isn't is privatization now?

 

[corplinx]

Corplinx, you fell for one of Rove's tricks. It's not 4 percent "of" your payroll taxes, but rather 4 percentage points "off of" the 12.4 percent of wages. That means you're really diverting (4/12.4) or approximately 32 percent of your payroll taxes. You dig?

Thats even better!

 

[Batman Jr.]

Thats even better!

I don't know how anyone could possibly think that for anything other than ideological reasons. It's 3.5 percentage points of wages more contributing to the budget hole and going toward people's "Social Insecurity" in retirement.

 

[WildCat]

OMG! Republicans actually plan political strategy?! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!

And what's that Dem SS plan again? Oh yeah - higher taxes, less benefits, and later retirement! Don't that just make you warm and fuzzy inside? Guaranteed to be worth diddly squat 40 years from now, but it will still be "solvent"! Hooray! The Dems keep on fighting for the common folk...

 

[shecky]

The PC police decided that "private" is a bad word. Simple as that. I'm sure they did some polling and found folks were turned off by the word, prompting the change to "personal".

So far, the whole scheme sounds like a plan for bigger government. Or a really crappy way of starving the beast.

 

[varwoche]

Corplinx, you fell for one of Rove's tricks. It's not 4 percent "of" your payroll taxes, but rather 4 percentage points "off of" the 12.4 percent of wages. That means you're really diverting (4/12.4) or approximately 32 percent of your payroll taxes. You dig?

It goes to show, Rove-speak is very effective.

 

[Dorian Gray]

There will be fewer people receiving Social Security benefits in 40 years, so I really don't see how this is a crisis.

 

[Bjorn]

OMG! Republicans actually plan political strategy?! STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!

And what's that Dem SS plan again? Oh yeah - higher taxes, less benefits, and later retirement! Don't that just make you warm and fuzzy inside? Guaranteed to be worth diddly squat 40 years from now, but it will still be "solvent"! Hooray!

According to the president, the system will be solvent for more than 40 years, even with no changes to the existing system. It would pay about 70% of the 'promised' benefits after that, still with no changes to the system.

Something needs to be done about the piggybank that might be empty in 50 years, but I haven't seen any good reason to believe privatization is the answer. Or nest-eggs, whatever.

(Privatizing used to be a great word, describing everything the conservatives were for. It's sad to see that when a poll shows people don't like the expression, even the pres is in denial 'Did I ever say that?').

 

[WildCat]

According to the president, the system will be solvent for more than 40 years, even with no changes to the existing system. It would pay about 70% of the 'promised' benefits after that, still with no changes to the system.

Something needs to be done about the piggybank that might be empty in 50 years, but I haven't seen any good reason to believe privatization is the answer. Or nest-eggs, whatever.

(Privatizing used to be a great word, describing everything the conservatives were for. It's sad to see that when a poll shows people don't like the expression, even the pres is in denial 'Did I ever say that?').

70% of what? Of what I put in, or what they promise in return? Problem is, even if the system can still pay 100% of the promised benefits, it's still roughly 50%-80% of what I put into it (depending on lifespan, of course). And it doesn't take into account the time value of money, which is critical to making investment decisions.

I'd like to get an actual return on my investment. You know, so if I put in $360 a month for 35 years it will be worth $409,000 after that time, as opposed to the $151,200 it would be worth if I had stuck it under my mattress. And that's assuming a conservative rate of return of 5%.

Of course, SS as currently constructed, given an average lifespan, will pay ~ $100,000. And this, apparently, is the best the Dems can do? Pardon me if I'm not impressed. I'd trust my future to a good mutual fund rather than a gov't bureaucratic black hole any day. And I'd bet most of those here criticizing the Bush plan have their own 401(k) plans, which are apparently fine for them but not for anyone else. What about those working paycheck to paycheck who would rather take that money going into the black hole of SS and invest it instead? Aren't these the people the Dems claim to be working for? I really do wonder if the goal of the Dems is to keep as many people as close to poverty as possible, and thus dependent on the Democrat-sponsored welfare state.