Frank Luntz is back at it, regurgitating the same old advice in a "new" memo aimed at defeating health care reform. Under the tagline "It's not what you say, it's what people hear," Luntz begins:

I was there in 1994. I saw what happened when a once-popular president tried to push healthcare legislation that Americans didn’t want or appreciate. I witnessed the electoral implications when his administration tried to expand the role of government against the wishes of, well, almost everyone. And it’s happening once again.

Yes, Barack Obama was "once-popular." But he's also still popular. Just look at the polling data the top of this site. Or pollster.com's composite data. Perhaps Frank meant "Once and still popular"?

Moving on:

Let me be clear: this memo isn’t meant to be partisan and it’s not just for Republicans. It is my hope, in fact, that they will share the contents of this document with their moderate Democrat counterparts – those who care more answering to the people they represent than answering to their leaders who are, quite frankly, pushing them off a cliff.

The only reason Luntz hopes Republicans share this memo with Democrats is that at least until 2011, Republicans are completely irrelevant to the actual process of governing this country.

Now let's see what Luntz has to say about the public option:

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s recent insistence on including a massively expensive "public" option (in reality, it is a "government" option) has been met with a resounding thud by a majority of Americans. For some reason, advocates of government-run insurance are intent on including it in health reform even if its inclusion brings down health reform altogether. Whether this insistence on public/gov’t option is driven by ideology or by a misplaced belief in some of the more recent superficial polling on this issue is hard to know – and it’s just plain wrong. One thing is for sure – anyone who would place their political future in the hands of a single survey question purporting to show that Americans want Washington to jump into the healthcare business probably deserves to lose.

Um:

The public option is not "massively expensive." It cuts the deficit. In fact, the more robust it is (Medicare + 5), the more it cuts.

"Met with a resounding thud"? What planet is Luntz on? The public option is one of the most popular elements of health care reform. (See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the oodles of data showing the public option is popular.)

"Its inclusion brings down health reform altogether." Uh, he's right...in reverse. Multiple polls show that not only do people want the public option to be included in health care reform, they want it even if it means no GOP support. (See here, here, and here.)

Does Luntz really believe the popularity of the public option comes from "a single survey question"? If you don't believe the data cited above, how about this: the public option is so popular that Fox won't even poll on it.

On the public option, Luntz concludes:

Yet while the public/government option is getting all the attention it is becoming a side-show to the real issues driving this debate for most Americans:

He turns next to a page of bullet points purporting to show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to the health care reform initiative as proposed by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

With the exception of two polling questions cherry-picked from the most recent NBC/WSJ survey, Luntz claims to base all his conclusions on research conducted by his own firm. Because because he doesn't actually cite the source of his firm's research (or the poll it has conducted, if it has conducted one), it is difficult to evaluate whether or not he is pulling his conclusions out of thin air. Based on his treatment of the NBC/WSJ numbers (explained below) and his treatment of the public option, however, it's hard to give Luntz the benefit of the doubt.

The NBC/WSJ numbers Luntz cites show that a plurality believes that (a) health reform will worsen their own care and (b) will drive up the cost of their own care. Luntz extrapolates from these two datapoints the idea that Republicans are winning the health care reform debate -- but in so doing, he ignores data that undercuts his thesis.

For example, the very same NBC/WSJ poll that he cites shows people want health reform to pass, despite their concerns about it. Moreover, the latest CBS poll shows that people give President Obama higher marks on health care than Republicans and they believe Democrats represent the interests of seniors and young people better than Republicans when it comes to health care. The CBS poll also shows that by wide margins Americans would be disappointed if health care reform does not pass. (Just 29% said they would be pleased if it does not pass, while 61% said they would be disappointed.)

The mistake Luntz is making is assuming that people who think health reform won't impact them personally must therefore oppose health reform. In the CBS poll, 45% said they thought health reform wouldn't impact them, while 31% thought reform would hurt them personally and just 18% thought it would help them personally. Nonetheless, as I noted above, 61% would be disappointed if reform doesn't pass.

The explanation for that is simple: most of the 45% who think reform wouldn't impact them believe it is important to pass reform because they believe everybody should have health insurance. Of course, Republicans can't wrap their minds around what is motivating these people because Republicans hate empathy.

Well, newsflash: most Americans aren't like Republicans. Empathy matters. Americans aren't selfish. And above all else, that's why the GOP is having problems winning their support on the health care issue.

Despite the huge chasm between Republican goals and Democratic goals, Luntz argues that his research shows Americans want bipartisanship more than anything else:

The bottom-line is that pushing through major economy-altering legislation in the absence of any bi-partisan support is a recipe for disaster – either now or later. The fact that for most Americans the result of the legislation is expected to be higher taxes, higher premiums, and/or reduced services is not likely to engender great good-will after the fact.

That's total hogwash.

In general, people don't give a damn about bipartisanship. From the same NBC/WSJ poll:

As you know, the president and Congress are dealing with many issues facing our country such as the economy and health care reform. I'm going to read you two statements about these and please tell me which one comes closer to your point of view. Statement A: When considering issues facing our country, it is important to have unity and compromise between the two political parties to ensure that the country comes together. Statement B: When considering issues facing our country, it is important to have debate and differences between the two political parties to ensure that all options are considered. Statement A/unity and compromise .........38

Statement B/debate and differences .......56

Depends (VOL) .............................5

Not sure ..................................1

Case in point: the public option. Polling consistently shows that voters would rather see Democrats pass the public option get passed on a partisan basis than to give it up in order to win Republican support. (See here, here, and here.)

Cases in point #2: Medicare and Social Security. Both programs were passed on a partisan basis, but they are now so popular that Frank Luntz -- in this very memo -- accuses Democrats of trying to cut them, claiming (without offering any evidence):

Seniors are soundly against the current plans. They aren’t buying that $400 billion in cuts aren’t really cuts and they really don’t like the idea that Congress appears to be paying for health reform on their backs.

Regarding Luntz's claim about taxes, he should also keep in mind that both Medicare and Social Security are funded by new taxes. People might not like taxes, but they like Medicare and Social Security a whole lot more than they dislike those taxes.

Having dispensed with his "research" analysis, Luntz moves onto his recommendations...which sound eerily familiar to his recommendations from April. In a nutshell, he tells Republicans that they must "acknowledge the need for reform" while standing firmly against the current round of health care reform. He offers a series of examples of "words that work" from the likes of Eric Cantor. For example:

The American people have the right to expect a few guarantees from Washington as it works for healthcare reform. Number one, Americans expect a guarantee that the decision making between patients and their doctors won't be taken over by the government. Second, the public wants to make sure that there won't be any kind of government rationing that delays or denies treatment based on some bureaucrat’s bottom line. And finally, the public wants Congress and the President to guarantee –

credibly – that we will be responsible with taxpayer dollars. That we're

not going to break the bank. Unfortunately, when we hear that a

program costing more than a trillion dollars will be "deficit neutral,"

Americans have trouble believing that the supposed guarantees they’re

getting from Washington are truly credible.

Of course, these "words that work" were recommended to Cantor by Frank Luntz, so Luntz is basically quoting himself. Talk about a feedback loop!

More importantly, these words aren't working. The most recent CBS poll shows President Obama has a 47/42 approval rating on health care. Congressional Republicans, by contrast, have a 17/67 approval rating, a whopping 55 points worse than President Obama on net approval. Moreover, 69% of voters -- including 47% of Republicans -- think the GOP is not serious about health reform. Meanwhile, 53% believe the system needs fundamental changes and 31% believe it needs to be completely rebuilt.

Luntz simultaneously argues that all the intensity in the health care debate is on the side of Republicans who oppose reform while telling Republicans that they need to say they are serious about reform. As you can see above, outside of the GOP, nobody believes Republicans are serious about reform, and even inside the GOP, only half believe it. The problem is, the one segment where anybody believes the GOP is serious about reform (inside the GOP) is also the one segment of the population that really, really doesn't want to see any reform.

The net result of Luntz's argument is to have Republicans offer a message that nobody outside their base believes -- and worse, it's a message that nobody inside their base wants to hear.

The tagline of Luntz's firm is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." Fair enough, but Luntz's problem is that he has no idea what people really want to hear.

Maybe the best way of describing Luntz's new memo is like this: "Take my advice from April, which hasn't worked, and keep on doing it, even though there's no indication that it will work." Finally, something Democrats and Luntz can agree on!