AirTalk Blog
AirTalk for Wednesday, August 20
Guest host David Lazarus examines a new study that reveals who frequents hospital emergency rooms the most and why. Then a look at political speech during the presidential campaign. David talks with pollster Frank Luntz about the rhetorical high and lows of this election cycle. Also Chazz Palmenteri joins David to discuss his career and his play “A Bronx Tale” that comes to LA next month. All that and more…
Tools
- August 19, 2008 2:35 PM by Linda Othenin-Girard
- Comments (26)
- Categories: Arts, Health, Politics/Public Affairs
26 Comments
It's good for the Democrats to get nervous about Obama getting elected. A recent sci-fi novel featured an assasin whose mantra was "Confident, cocky, lazy, dead."
We need a little fire and desire.
It's the media !!!
We listen to the media, every day, and we believe what we hear. The media loves an "underdog" and they will move one up and then throw it back down, and so on.
Just watch CNN, for example, it's become a soap opera tabloid news that focuses each day on an outrageously meaningless point, while ignoring the incredible challenges that we face.
For example, todays moto is : democrats are nervous.
And while we talk about this useless piece of information, they don't talk about the important issues.
I'm from Switzerland and I must say that this system of election seems like a Micky-Mouse election, while nobody is telling the public how and why our contry is broke and going broker.
Has there been a recent, or any, poll that asks the question, "Is the country ready for an old man president?" and what are the results? After all, McCain would be the oldest person to take office. When pollsters pose a question, and news talk takes it up, it signals an issue - oh maybe we should be thinking about that - thus tilting the table, as in "ready for an African American?"
I find it disgusting how the repuplican campaign has been venturing into these nasty attack ads. I wouldn't be surprised if republicans across the country change their minds and decide not to vote for mccain.
The nervousness felt by the democrats regarding the "closeness" of the presidential race is a result of the mainstream press's desire to keep the election controversial and competitive. Forget the polls, the pollsters are examining the electorate in the usual ways. Obama will win by at least 10 points with the support of the young and first-time voters. This population is not covered by traditional poll takers.
The polls are done on historical voting patterns, which don't take into account the "historical" nature of this election: the Black turnout will be much higher than usual, and the Dems are much more energized.
Plus, people can't pay their mortgages or fill thier tanks or shopping carts and they are going to vote in the same party again?, after looking in at their wallets?......doubtful.
I believe the reason that McCain is ahead is that the majority of my fellow Americans have very little real information about McCain's - or Obama's - policies. This is clear from the responses on air of those Democrats who are leaning toward McCain. They have to vote on their gut because there isn't anything else to go on.
The reason for this is largely due to the media's coverage of the election - including, I am very sorry to say - NPR and KPPC. Most of the coverage is on the horse-race aspect - who's ahead, what the latest polls say. Almost none of it is about the candidates positions or even the candidates themselves. McCain has a long and mixed voting record. In terms of Democratic beliefs, he has done some good things, which he is now distancing himself from as much as possible in the campaign. Furthermore, his voting record in other areas, such as women's issues or progressive taxes, has been dismal. He isn't on the side of the working man and woman. He urged entering the war in Iraq. He talks tough to Russia, threatening us with another war. Since when is this the man any Democrat or moderate would vote for IF WE WERE VOTING ON POLICIES? PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, KPPC, even if the rest of the media insists on a cult of personality and a boxing ring mentality, could YOU refrain and confine your talk show segments and local news pieces to the issues?
Four years ago (and eight), many Democrats who were staunch supporters of Bill Clinton, and at least some of whom I'm sure went on to vote for Hillary, accused every progressive who voted for Nader of being personally to blame for Bush's presidency. What does that make Hillary supporters who pretend to be concerned with Democratic principles and issues, but who are going to vote for McCain, who is diametrically opposed to those principles and issues, just out of pique?
At least those Nader voters were idealists; how would you describe someone who votes against his or her core beliefs just because their favorite lost?
part of the "safety net" of medi-cal is to provide a higher-risk population with coverage-- when I found out I was pregnant, medi-cal was my only option for insurance, and I know that other chronic sufferers, pregnant and infant patients, and the newly-ill have no other option but to get onto medi-cal for treatment. We have to consider that the high-risk nature of these groups is one reason that they are more likely to visit the emergency room (during my own pregnancy, I was advised to go to the emergency room for certain symptoms, and did go twice.)
Dear KPCC,
I'm afraid once again the idealistic contingent of liberal Democrats, who look at life through rose-colored glasses, have chosen as their candidate someone who exemplifies style over substance, and though wrapped in a pretty package lacks both the experience and wisdom to lead this country. Hopefully, someday this side of the party will truly "see the light" and back a candidate, who professes their ideals but also offers specifics and a pragmatic solution to the nation's multitude of problems.
Such a candidate was Hillary Clinton, who again on a state by state basis reflecting the electoral college process, had a much better chance of beating McCain than Obama. These Dems ony have themselves to blame given the golden opportunity we had to elect a Hillary/Obama ticket which could have given us 16 years in the White House. As is, these idealists have chosen someone who talks a good talk and is quite savy and slick, but in truth lacks the qualities and again experience to lead and truly bring about change.
One more thing......if you guys are going to do a McCain commercial I hope he's paying you:
"There you have it. Democrats not as confident as there were a few weeks ago"
The callers were actually mixed in their views.
No other legit news source has framed poll tightening like this: "Has the election already slipped away" from the Dems?
This kind of GOP framing is why I don't donate to KPCC anymore but am very happy to be an angel for two other NPR stations.
Mr Lazarus: If the LA Times ("I hear this all around the halls of the LA Times") lays you off maybe the Biloxi Bugle or the Couer d'Alene Crock is hiring? Their standard of objectivity is probably a little closer to yours.
I am Respiratory Care Practitioner with many years of Emergency room experience. Medicare and MediCal patients are often chronically ill, elderly, disabled or all of those. they are the sickest of the sick, so of course they are the heaviest users of the Emergency room.
The ER Physician made a valid point---although many visits to the ED are not real emergencies, people are uncomfortable and scared.
Your first guest hit the nail on the head.
I have Medi-Medi and I need to see a gynecologist for irregular bleeding. I made the appointment last week, and it is not until September 24th, 2008. It is the criminally low payouts to medical providers that leave those like me with little or no options, other than the ER.
And this may seem somewhat off topic, but it is not, in that it leads people on MediCal to forgo treatement until a medical condition becomes so severe that an ER is required. It's the "Share of Cost" under MediCal, which discourages me and others in the same situation from going to a primary care doctor (or getting check-ups that others with private insurance would regularly get, like mammograms). The way a Share of Cost works is a de facto monthly deductible, if I use medical services. For instance - my income is 1,200/month, and if I go to a doctor, in any given month, I am charged up to $580.00 for medical services received, leaving me with a remainer of $620 - the Federal Monthly poverty line. These costs accrue to the person on MediCal, regardless of also being coevered by Medicare, each and every month a person uses services.
I could go on - this issue really burns me up. I am severely disabled, but cannot afford to go to the doctor because of this Share of Cost issue. I haven't had a mammogram in 5 years, because of it, and I am 45 years old.
I'm a huge fan of the show (and KPPC in general) but I'm disappointed that the station would legitimize Frank Luntz by putting him on the air. He is not an academic expert or a reputable pollster. He is a political hitman that has twice been censured by professional organizations for manipulating or dishonestly reporting polling data. If KPPC wanted to do a show on the power of language in political discourse, why not interview someone reputable like Geoffrey Nunberg, George Lakoff or any number of other non-partisan observers?
RE: Frank Luntz
Given that it has been established that "Unfit for Duty" and now "Obama Nation" by Frank Corsi contain untruths, half-truths and slurs of a reprehensible nature; aren't the "Shadow words" Luntz creates (e.g.: death tax, school choice, et al) just another, similar stratagem of obfuscation and prevarication foisted upon the body politic?
@Tom,
Sorry you're the only one looking though rose colored-glasses, that you don't understand how important this election is For America. Mrs. Clinton lost the Primaries due to her awful message and sadly negative campaigning. If her support choose to be nothing more than sore losers then they only have themselves to blame for Mr. McCain Presidency. For dividing the parting instead of uniting it.
For the entire show today, most excellent, I completely agree that the candidates need to stop hitting one another and talk substance. I wanted Hillary, and am now not sure what to do...yet I hear nothing but attacks from both candidates...
Re Frank Luntz
Luntz just made the comment "the media needs to hold people accountable." It would seem that MSNBC did just that when they fired Luntz in 2004 because he was using totally bogus polling methods.
OMG! LOL!
"hour and a half to watch 60 minutes..."
I'm gonna have to steal that.
Your current guest is manipulating the host and using Air Talk as part of his "Words That Work" strategy to sound just reasonable enough to give undecided voters "permission" to vote for McCain and against Obama. This is part of a concerted strategy of the right. They have their attack dogs, and then they have spokespeople like your current guest who describe Obama as "having something to contribute to the conversation" which is code for "not qualified to be President". This makes them sound less fanatical, certainly not rascist, which makes swing voters feel comfortable, and encourages them to decide that its now ok to support McCain and reject Obama.
WWhy does KPCC give him such an unchecked forum to spout his propaganda unchecked by other voices? Shame on you!
It seems Mr. Luntz can speak out of all sides of his mouth at once, and doesn't take to being called on it. His views on "effective communication" don't resonate with me at all. Everyone calls Mr. Obama a wonderful orator, but I disagree. I find his speeches (as does Mr. Luntz) almost devoid of content, and heavily laded with platitudes, politically correct seeming profundities and nods toward the "common man" dragged in by main force. This is in the tradition of his book The Audacity of Hope, which read like nothing so much as a seminar paper prepared by a clever graduate student asked to write an advertisement for himself which might lead top the White house. This is not to say that Mr.McCain's speeches are better, being endless repetitions of the same simplistic positions. Of course, compared to George W. Bush they are both up there with Demosthenes of Cicero.
And I hate to burst Mr. Luntz's bubble, but knowledge does not necessarily come with age, and "experience" is not always the best qualification for office. One need only look at the brilliant conduct of our wars in Viet Nam and Iraq, led by the most "experienced" officers in our military, to see the falsity of that old chestnut.
re: ER use by Medi-Cal recipients
As an uninsured person I wouldn't go to an ER unless my life depended on it, and possibly not even then - for financial reasons mostly.
When I was "insured" my carrier made it clear that if you went to an ER without authorization and it was found that your life wasn't threatened at the time, you'd be on the hook to pay.
A relative got off Medi-Cal 2 years ago. Her coverage was provided by Blue Cross. Blue Cross told her she had no Urgent Care coverage and she was to go to ER when she couldn't wait for an appointment with her PCP. She went to ER (private hospital) at least three times/year while on Medi-Cal.
This isn't due to lack of Urgent Care facilities in our area. Maybe it's due to a decision on Blue Cross's part or a decision on the part of local Urgent Cares not to contract with Blue Cross under this plan. It's surprising that the County or the State doesn't require Blue Cross to address this issue in their coverage, isn't it?
Regardless, it's an important aspect of the problem being discussed, and I never hear it mentioned when ER usage and strain are being discussed in the media. It seems to me a serious attempt to investigate this problem and find specific solutions should include looking into what Medi-Cal's coverage providers are telling their enrollees. Absent that, I'm not sure a serious attempt is being made.
I called, but didn't get to talk. I'm hoping that someone will read this and at least ask the question and investigate the answer.
I am from Studio City. I must call out Mr. Luntz for dismissing the caller who brought up McCain's "Bomb Bomb Iran" gaffe. While that is not the full extent of Senator McCain's foriegn policy platform, it is a gaffe that is indicative of a dangerous trend, begun by the Bush administration and likely to continue under McCain. To make such a thoughtless and insensitive joke about a very real and present danger, that is, a possible war with Iran, is a sign that a McCain presidency would be just as arrogant, impulsive and presumtuous as Bush's. While white American men may understand that frat boy type of joke, how is an Iranian citizen, leader or diplomat expected to take it? Along with his statement about 'we'll just kill them with cigarettes', McCain shows an obvious contempt for diplomacy. Diplomacy is desperately needed now, at a time when our military is so overburdened that another war front, even if I supported it, (which I certanly do not,) would be dangerously difficult to sustain. Shame on John McCain and on folks like Mr. Luntz who don't understand the nuances of effective diplomacy.
The Zogby poll has McCain up by five points.
I am a lifelong democrat who was just re-registered decline to state. I have never voted for a republican for president.
Obama has no executive experience, no legislative accomplishments and no core principles. I kept an open mind about him until he became the presumptive nominee and has tried to be on both sides of so many issues: FISA, public financing of campaigns, NAFTA, the death penalty, gun control, offshore oil drilling and many more.
Is he a centrist who masqueraded as a progressive to win the nomination or the other way around? Who can tell?
He's been the beneficiary of an unprecedented amount of benevolent projection by the media. For his supporters to be whining about negative attacks is laughable. Those of us who have been resistant to his magic have been called racist, uneducated, old, irrelevant, bitches all over the blogoshpere. The "progressives" at Daily Kos have welcomed a purge of bad democrats, since they have been sure they can win with their shiny new coalition.
Why do retired police officers have badges and guns. with the concerns regarding training etc all they should have is a gold watch
While Mr. Luntz' criticism of Obama is about the way he presents himself, my criticism of McCain is about the way the media presents him. If Obama had McCain's baggage: admission to flight school despite lousy grades (an affirmative action legacy admission), his destruction of five aircraft and other reckless behavior, reports from Navy personnel of McCain's sexism and racism (McCain won't release his military record) etc., the right-wing noise machine would have created such an echo, everyone would know that McCain is unfit for the job of commander-in-chief.
Leave a comment
Please be civil, concise, and on-topic. Notes:Please read our full Terms of Use before posting.