It is in the interest of autocratic Arab nations to note the mood in Egypt and effect change Days of rage in Egypt signify the end of days for Hosni Mubarak’s repressive and bankrupt regime. For 30 years, the president has held his country down through fear, secret police, emergency laws, American cash subsidies and a lamentable absence of vision and imagination. His crude, Gaullist message: without me, chaos. Now the chaos has come anyway. And Mubarak must go. Five days of rage on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and dozens of other cities have transformed the way Egypt sees itself. For years, they said it was impossible. The regime was too powerful, the masses too apathetic, the security apparatus too ubiquitous. Like eastern Europeans trapped in the Soviet Union’s cold, pre-1991 embrace, they struggled in the dark, without help, without hope. Movements for change, such as Kefaya (Enough!), were brutally suppressed. Courageous dissidents such as Ayman Nour were harassed, beaten and imprisoned. Yet all the time, pressure for reform was rising. Every day, higher prices, economic stagnation, poverty and unemployment, political stasis, official corruption and a stifled, censored public space became less and less tolerable. Every day, impatience with the regime’s insulting insouciance bred more enemies. Hatred seeped like poison through the veins of the people. Until, at last, in five days of rage, as if as one, they cried: “Enough!” And now, Mubarak must go. Fittingly, Egypt’s youth led the way against the old order, using not guns or bombs but the arsenal of 21st-century information technology: social media, mobiles, texts and emails. The Paris mob of Bastille notoriety became, through peaceful evolution, the flash mob of Tahrir Square. They espoused no leaders. They wrote no plans. In fast-moving, separate but interconnected street offensives, they out-thought, outfoxed and outran the police. With the once omnipotent security forces looking beatable, Egyptians of all backgrounds rose to join the fight: students, trade unionists, women, rights activists, Islamists and, crucially, the great workers’ army of Egypt’s employed and unemployed. Here, truly, was people power in all its magnificent might. Here was democracy in the raw. Here was the legitimacy of an Egypt freed of its old fears and suddenly alive to its changing destiny. In five days of rage, they seized control of their country’s future. And so, inevitably, Mubarak must go. It is clear that Mubarak does not share this view and that the army, for now, is backing him. The 82-year-old’s television appearance on Friday night only underscored how little he understands the causes of the tumult. Like Tunisia’s recently deposed president, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Mubarak chided the demonstrators, insisted stability was all and shifted the blame to others, sacking his cabinet and promising another. He gave no assurances about this autumn’s elections, made no mention of his intentions or those of his purported heir, Gamal, though his selection yesterday of his old henchman Omar Suleiman as vice president hinted at a new succession strategy, and offered no vision of reform. He made plain he would not go. This impasse is not acceptable, this deadlock cannot be sustained. It is damaging to the region, to Egypt’s western friends and, most of all, to Egypt itself. All concerned now have an urgent duty to think afresh. For unreformed Arab regimes that look to Egypt for leadership, the message is clear. Several, following Tunisia’s example, have been rattled by attempted uprisings. In Jordan, in Yemen, in Algeria, a common theme emerges: demands for inclusive, open, honest governance and for economic opportunity and social freedom. These demands may only be addressed by a root-and-branch reconstruction of governance. As a string of UN reports in the past decade has illustrated, the Arab world is being left behind by other regions, whether the benchmark be literacy, educational achievement, private enterprise, healthcare or women’s rights. These trends, if allowed to continue unchecked, promise only more days of rage, more instability and more grief. A good start would be the renunciation by Arab leaders of objectionable dynastic succession plans that, in Libya, Syria and elsewhere, have seen favoured sons follow, or be selected to follow, their fathers into power. In Egypt, Gamal Mubarak must state publicly he will not seek the presidency once his father has gone. For western countries, particularly the US, the paymaster of the Mubarak regime, a radical new approach is also now required. In recent days, Barack Obama has increased the pressure on Mubarak. But he has not, as yet, withdrawn his personal support. That should change. Obama, David Cameron and EU leaders must tell Mubarak that his time is up, that the appointment of an interim government of national unity, the release of political prisoners, the suspension of emergency laws and free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections is the only way forward they will support. Other autocratic Arab regimes must hear the same message. The west’s postwar dance with Middle Eastern tyranny is ending. That it would end in tears and teargas is wholly unsurprising. But end it must. The regimes must reform from within, with help from without. There is no sane or safe alternative. For sure, it is a fraught proposition. But what great reform moment is not? In place of Mubarak and men of his ilk, western leaders fear the rise of militant Islam, the ascendancy of groups such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, and a general loss of influence and stability in a Middle East made free for democracy. As Palestine fractures under the weight of revelations about secret negotiations with Israel, as shaky Lebanon faces a new Hezbollah-led government, and as Iran crows over what it hopes will be the domino collapse of the “apostate” regimes, the US takes fright at a world unravelling beyond its control. Courage and vision are required in Washington as well as Cairo. The US, Britain and other western governments that have wrongly valued stability above freedom should take inspiration from the brave people of Egypt. They have shown the way. In five days of rage, they overcame their fears, broke with the old ways and made a glorious, chaotic yet purposeful lunge for a future full of hope for all. They made a reality of democracy. Now they must make their choice freely. So, first, Mubarak must go. Egypt Protest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Mango wood: the new bamboo? Fast-growing sustainable hardwood used for bowls to tables. Mentos wrapper bowls, mango wood tables, upcycled hydrogardens, Haitian textiles, and 2,800 other exhibitors’ products are on display at the International Gift Fair this weekend at New York City’s Javits Center. Packed with stuff from housewares to furnishings, décor to jewelry, there are plenty of green housewares and gifts in the mix. We may think twice before consuming more of anything, but we don’t … Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …
Egyptian soldiers secured the Egyptian Museum in Cairo from looters on Saturday, as anti-government protests continued in the capital in defiance of a curfew. (29 January 2011)
Continue reading …
‘The youth are motivated to keep going, and the old political leaders have been left behind’ HAGGAG HAMD Agricultural supplies company employee and kung fu coach, 28 I was beaten yesterday by security; you can see where they broke my rib. But I don’t care – just look around you. The energy of the Egyptians is amazing. We’re saying no to unemployment, no to police brutality, no to poverty. We saw how scared Mubarak and his regime was; they’re being forced to listen to the people. Now the army is with us too, I’m sure of it. The job isn’t completed yet but we’re not losing any momentum. These protests will continue day after day until every bit of the regime falls. The psychological barrier between us and our president has been broken by teargas; the government created this uprising, and now they will face the consequences. MARIAM HAZEM HASSAN Student, 27 It’s the young who should be leading the nation; it’s our ideas that will shape the future. I go to an international school, and am part of a well-educated generation that was told that if we worked hard we would be able to influence things when we were older. But before today that never really seemed possible, all the doors were closed. Then we saw Tunisia, and now everything’s different: the youth have started this movement in Egypt, the youth are motivated to keep going, and the old political leaders have been left behind. I saw Mubarak’s speech; he’s trying to make us scared, fearful of the chaos. But actually they’re scared of us. People are still furious, and they want Mubarak to leave. I think that fury is going to culminate in something big in the next few days unless he does. AFAF MAMDOH Commerce student at Cairo University, 22 I watched [Mubarak's] speech and it was basically him saying screw you to the people. Well, guess what, we’re saying screw you to him too. We won’t stop sitting here until Mubarak gets on a plane. I’m going to have all of this week’s chants ringing in my ears for ever – down, down Hosni Mubarak – it’s not just enough for him to leave, we want him arrested by Interpol. It’s exhausting to sit through a whole night while gas and rubber bullets and live ammunition rain towards you. But it was also exhilarating, because this is a revolution without individual leaders; the Egyptian people are leading it. This is nothing to do with ElBaradei or the Muslim Brotherhood or any of the other political parties; they are absent. We are all just Egyptians, and we are standing together. MARWAN DJEDAOUNI Retired manager for Texas Instruments, 74 At my age I couldn’t go out but of course I support what is going on. I stayed inside and watched it on the BBC. Things have gone backwards in this country in the last 30 years. The current regime are thieves. You know it has just got much, much worse because there is so much more greed. We are all so sick of what is happening. Part of the problem is that people talk about opposition politicians but there are no opposition politicians in Egypt any more. I remember in the 1950s we had no political rights. Now we have rights but they are not worth anything. But if you ask me the question “Has something changed with the protests?”, then I have to answer, “No!” I cannot be an optimist in a country where out of 85 million only 8.5 million are doing well. MOHAMED EL-GAZZAR Works in marketing for a telecoms company, 37 I respect Hosni Mubarak; he’s our leader and he carries our nation’s history with him. But it’s clear there’s no future for him, and I only hope now that he leaves peacefully. We’ve had 30 years of emptiness and stagnation from one man, and now the demand for change is unstoppable. I didn’t come out on to the streets yesterday because it was a mess . But today feels different. The new regime will ensure our voices are heard. We mustn’t forget the role of the US and the UK in all of this. The hypocrisy of [President] Obama was amazing; your western capitals have supported this regime from the very beginning – now suddenly everybody is concerned for our rights and economic security. Where were they before? ATEF SEIF EL-DIN Electrical engineer, 47 I’ve never had any love for Mubarak or his system before, but my mind – like everyone else’s – has always been sealed from the possibility of change. And honestly, when I began chanting for my rights and the government security forces fired teargas at me, that seal was broken for ever. I’m here picking up the debris from Tahrir Square today because it is my duty. We’ve taken control of our streets from the police and whereas they threw bombs around, the people want to prove they can look after it better. This is our country; we’re not thieves, not looters, we’re just taking back what is ours from the forces of corruption. Trying to keep the square clean is a symbol of that. Interviews by Peter Beaumont and Jack Shenker Egypt Middle East Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The outcome of the wave of protests that has shaken Egypt remains unclear and discernible political leadership is yet to emerge What’s happening in Egypt and how serious is it? Since Tuesday student and opposition groups have been staging protests across Egypt inspired by the uprising that toppled the former president of Tunisia, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, a fortnight ago. On Friday, such was the intensity of the protests that President Hosni Mubarak, in power for 30 years, sacked his cabinet and made vague promises of reform. But, as the fifth day of protests showed yesterday, the gesture did nothing to placate the crowds. Like all Arab countries, Egypt has a large youth population which has grown angry about unemployment, poverty, rising food prices and an autocratic leadership seen as corrupt and stagnated. Who are the opposition? Almost everyone. In an unprecedented display of unity among disparate wings of Egyptian society, middle-class students and internet-savvy young people are protesting alongside older, hardened activists and those from less privileged backgrounds. In terms of official political opposition, however, the picture is less clear. The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest – and banned – opposition group, has kept a low profile and chosen not to fully endorse the protests. Former UN nuclear chief and Nobel peace prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei is viewed by many as the strongest opposition candidate for this year’s presidential elections. He returned to Egypt on Thursday and called for Mubarak to stand down – only to be placed under house arrest. Is there a danger of an Islamist takeover? At the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood is playing catch-up with a young, leaderless protest movement. But chaos always opens opportunities and years of oppression by the government has angered and frustrated ordinary people. The brotherhood has enormous support among the poor, encouraged by the network of charities it runs. Observers have been debating the sincerity of the brotherhood’s apparent moves towards real political reform, and point to its inability to directly challenge Mubarak’s government. What are the implications for the Middle East? Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and, as the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel, a major Middle Eastern player. A change in regime could have a big impact on the fragile peace process. But the biggest fear is of a domino effect, similar to what happened in eastern Europe in 1989, when a successful uprising encourages other “people power” movements, leaving Arab autocrats nervous and oil prices in flux. And for the west? As reflected in the mild comments from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Friday, western politicians need to achieve the right balance between backing the people’s legitimate demands and protecting their own interests. It is not good for western powers to lend their support to autocratic regimes. But it is in no one’s interest to have a political vacuum in countries where extremism and violence can flourish and where much of the world’s oil reserves are managed. Egypt Middle East Israel Middle East peace talks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Photo: Flickr/ C Jill Reed Super-sized meals and sedentary living don’t seem to be the only contributing fat-factors present in American and UK lifestyles. New research published in the journal Obesity Reviews points to a link in increasing average indoor temperatures over the last several decades– and similarly rising rates of obesity. Frankly put by TIM… Read the full story on TreeHugger
Continue reading …
New visuals from Jessie J for her new single ‘Price Tag’ which features rapper B.o.B. I have a feeling radio is going to love this track, think the charts will too. Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : PinBoard Discovery Date : 30/01/2011 01:02 Number of articles : 4
Continue reading …‘Mubarak must fall’ – all across Cairo the protesters’ message is the same
January 30, 2011 No CommentSacrificing government ministers is not enough: for the people to be satisfied, the president must be deposed As evening fell across central Cairo’s Tahrir Square, a black cloud of smoke welled in the distance from close to the interior ministry. The sound of shots rang out. First one. Then bursts. Then more shots: live rounds, rubber baton rounds, and gas. If it was intended to frighten the crowds who had milled around the square all day, it seemed by early evening to have failed. “I’ve just been hit. They’re shooting live ammunition at us. I can see blood on the floor,” said veteran Egyptian activist Ahmed Salah, who had been hit by pellets and spoke to the Observer on the phone. But he remained undaunted: “If we persist, then Hosni Mubarak will surely leave.” Yesterday, just as it has been for the past five days, Tahrir Square was the new centre of the surging revolution that has seized the Arab world. Far from being cowed or placated, the thousands of protesters were instead determined to hold their ground. Determined – as they have been for days – to insist on the removal of Mubarak, Egypt’s president for three decades. In Cairo it was scrawled across walls and written over statues: “Mubarak must fall.” As Egypt erupted in a fifth day of dissent and popular anger, the square nursed its wounds of revolution – as did the people, bandaged and bruised, who turned up to fill it again. Streets were littered with debris, glass, rocks and shotgun casings. Charred fire engines and two army scout cars, torched on Friday night, were towed away with the help of the crowd. And throughout the day, a vast pall of smoke hung in the sky over the capital: set alight the night before, the headquarters of Mubarak’s National Democratic Party were still blazing despite the efforts of firemen. For the protesters, Mubarak’s address to the nation in the early hours, in which he announced that he was firing his entire government but not himself, meant little. Indeed, for many, it merely rubbed salt into their wounds. “All he said was empty promises and lies. He appointed a new government of thieves, one thief goes and one thief comes to loot the country,” said Mahmoud Mohammed Imam, a 26-year-old taxi driver. “This is the revolution of the people who are hungry, this is the revolution of the people who have no money against those with a lot of money.” Mubarak’s broadcast was almost surreal in its lack of awareness of the crisis that is engulfing Egypt’s creaking 30-year leadership: a crisis that, while it has many points of tension, is held together by a single issue – the desire of so many to depose him. It was an address filled with vague promises of social reform, an attempt to cling to power by disposing of everyone below him. And, for many of the people who have suffered under his regime, it only confirmed the nature of the man: a self-interested and ruthless authoritarian concerned only with his survival. Bizarrely, perhaps, given what the moment called for, he defended his hated security forces and accused demonstrators – who come from every walk of Egyptian life – of plotting to destabilise the country and undermine the legitimacy of his regime. “Mubarak’s announcement did not reflect the will of the Egyptian people,” said an incredulous Hossam Hareedy, an activist. “We want to get rid of a tyrant. Firing the cabinet was not what we had in mind. What we want is for Mubarak to be cut down. But not just him. We want the corrupt members of his government to go, as well as members of parliament who we did not vote for,” he added, referring to last November’s elections which were widely viewed as rigged. In the state of flux that has suddenly seized Egypt, however, no one knows what the final outcome will be. People are unsure about where the police and army stand. And while protesters such as Kamal Maurice, a recent graduate of the American University in Cairo, believe that Mubarak must go, they are not sure how it will happen. “I think the military will push him out, otherwise the people will just keep going – every day until he goes,” he said. “Because the Egyptian people have proved themselves to be brave.” Mubarak, incidentally, was not the only world leader to be the focus of rage. “We want to send a message to Obama,” Maurice said, venting his fury after the US president’s restrained comments on Friday. “We’ve seen CNN and the BBC. Our message is that he has to stop kissing Mubarak’s arse. America has to understand that Egypt is against him. America should be so too.” In this violent limbo strange scenes were being played out. One army captain, holding a single daffodil given to him by the crowd, joined the demonstrators, who hoisted him on their shoulders while chanting slogans against Mubarak. The officer had ripped up a picture of the president. “We don’t want him! We will go after him!” demonstrators shouted. They decried looting and vandalism, saying: “Those who love Egypt should not sabotage Egypt!” Near Ramses Street another army officer stood atop a tank with a loudspeaker to tell the crowd that they had to secure the city and stop the looters – not fight with them. And, as volunteers picked up rubbish, handed out water or sat in small groups, the protesters vowed not to leave until the regime does the same. “Do you know what this means to us,” shouted Karim Kamal, who teaches political science at university. “Do you have any understanding of what this means for us? I’m not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, I’m an ordinary Egyptian and if we have the will to keep up the pressure Mubarak will go, but it will depend on our defiance and the numbers who come out.” For many, the role of the army was seen as a crucial indicator of the way things are going. “The army has traditionally been a neutral force here in Egypt,” said Kamal. “It is the police and the central security forces that the people hate. They are the ones who have oppressed us. We are trying to bring the army on to our side against Mubarak.” How successful that exercise has been remained open to question yesterday as police fired on demonstrators and the army stood back. Another pressing question is one alluded to by Ahmed Salah: quite who is leading this revolution and what direction it is going in? “The greatest thing about our uprising is that it is truly an uprising of the people,” explained Salah. “The formal opposition parties and Muslim Brotherhood are nowhere to be seen. We have proved there is another way that is not Mubarak or Islamists. There is another option.” Caught out by the pace of events, opposition figures such as Mohamed ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood have so far been sidelined – a fact that even Egypt’s biggest, and banned, opposition party seems keenly aware of. Anaf Alqaffaf, a senior Muslim Brotherhood member in Cairo, tried to define the organisation’s position. “We are participating with our people. We are calling all Egyptians to join us. To join us in Cairo. But we are participating as citizens of Egypt – in political activity, in assisting neighbourhoods that have been afflicted by violence – but not formally as members of the Brotherhood,” he said. He added that senior leaders within the movement were still waiting to see how things played out. Reflecting a widespread view, he added: “Egypt is moving very fast, from variable to variable. All the political movements have complex decision to make. The speed of events overrides quick decisions. But when Mubarak leaves, of course, we have a key role to play in Egyptian politics.” Last night, as dark fell on Tahrir Square, Egypt was an unanswered question. A place of violent uncertainty where the only sure thing was that the discontent was not going away soon. Meanwhile, spurred on by protests in the Arab world’s most populous country – and by the revolution seen in Tunisia a fortnight ago – protesters in the Yemeni capital clashed with security forces during demonstrations calling for the resignation of long-time President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Witnesses reported that at least nine protesters were set upon by police with batons as they attempted to march to the Egyptian embassy. “We will stand next to our Egyptian brothers. Your problem is our problem as well,” the protesters chanted. They urged Saleh: “Leave while there is still a chance.” Egypt Middle East Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Frank Luntz gets called out for his phony Obama-bashing ‘focus group’ after the SOTU
January 30, 2011 No CommentClick here to view this media It really isn’t any news to our readers that Frank Luntz is one of the most ethics-challenged “pollsters” out there, particularly since he really has had so much influence on our national discourse by his significant role in shaping right-wing talking points. But as Ellen at NewsHounds observed the other day , he really reached new depths with his dog-and-pony “focus group” on Fox News with Sean Hannity that followed President Obama’s State of the Union address — because it was so obviously larded up with Obama-haters: Given that 53% of the country voted for Barack Obama, 15 or 16 people should have been Obama voters to make it a representative sample of Americans. Furthermore, given their level of hostility to Obama, especially when he is enjoying a resurgence in the polls, you have to wonder how many of those 13 were Obama-voting Republicans or Tea Partiers. Luntz also repeatedly asked his group questions designed to elicit negative comments about Obama. Today, the L.A. Times’ James Rainey lowered the boom with a devastating critique: The kangaroo court convened with Chief Justice Hannity declaring Obama “flat,” redundant and out of touch. Luntz didn’t even bother to stifle a smile when he told the 29 members of the focus group, “I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said.” Luntz asked those seated in the front row to give a word or two to assess Obama’s performance. Seven of 10 let him have it. “Platitudes,” said one, followed by “empty, redundant, political, not connected with America, hyperbole and Obama conflicting….” Never mind trying to find neutral language — the goal of any truly nonpartisan pollster — so as not to taint the subjects. In one question, Luntz allowed the panel to say only that the speech had exceeded or fell short of expectations. No chance for the panelists to stake out the likely middle ground. Lo and behold! Most of them said the speech fell short. Perhaps the slipperiest of Luntz’s tricks played on the most important question of all: how Obama has handled the economy. First noting that the president called the “worst” of the recession over, Luntz later said: “How many of you believe the recession is over, raise your hands?” He then relayed the result: “Three of you. So obviously that must have undercut credibility when he said it?” Of course, when you misstate what a politician says — in this case taking out the all-important qualifier that Obama referred to the worst of the recession ending — it’s not hard to make that politician look woefully out of touch. In an exchange of e-mails the next day, Luntz defended his claim. He said his panel had “dialed downward” (with hand-held devices for keeping running tabs on the speech) at the moment Obama spoke about the recession. “It’s what they heard,” Luntz said. “I realize Obama said the worst of the recession is over, but they heard the recession is over.” The day after our little e-mail chat, Luntz clearly intended to keep mangling Obama’s message. “The president said the recession is over,” he said on the Fox Business Network’s “Imus in the Morning.” Naturally, people are too “angry” and “agitated” to hear that kind of talk, he said. Indeed. As you can see from the video above, Hannity sets the tone from the outset, clearly advising the “focus group” on what the tenor of their remarks should be — though Luntz lamely tries to tell them not to pay Hannity any mind: HANNITY: First of all, I thought a lot of this was flat, surprisingly so, inasmuch as we’ve heard a lot of this before — earmark reform, transparency, for example. It almost seemed like the “Yes, we can” magic disappeared a little, maybe because we’ve heard it before. But the thing that struck me Frank, and I’m dying to find out what your group says, is the disconnect. I did not feel the president had the sense of urgency, how bad unemployment, the debt, the deficit is, when he called for $400 billion in savings, when he accumulated $3.4 trillion in new debt since he’s been president. It seems like he’s trying to sell the same policies. FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Let’s fan out what our 29 people in Atlanta had to say. And I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said. I want a word or phrase to describe what you thought of the speech. And it just goes quickly downhill from there. Nice schtick you’ve got there, Frank. It’s obvious you’re addressing those concerns about not getting as much airtime on Fox as you used to, as Rainey notes: He has suggested that his airtime has previously been cut on Fox because his findings didn’t comport with the outlet’s orthodoxy. All “fixed” now, eh? Full transcript below : SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening welcome to the special edition of Hannity. President Obama addressed the nation tonight in his annual State of the Union address. Unlike his previous addresses this came before a divided Congress with Republicans now in control of the House. The speech ran 62 minutes during which the president vowed to keep America competitive, called for a five year domestic spending freeze, and pushed for bipartisanship. But did the speech resonate with Americans? We turn now to Frank Luntz. He’s standing by with a live focus group in Atlanta tonight. Frank, I don’t know what your focus group has to say. I’m going to give you a few of my thoughts. First of all, I thought a lot of this was flat, surprisingly so, inasmuch as we’ve heard a lot of this before — earmark reform, transparency, for example. It almost seemed like the “Yes, we can” magic disappeared a little, maybe because we’ve heard it before. But the thing that struck me Frank, and I’m dying to find out what your group says, is the disconnect. I did not feel the president had the sense of urgency, how bad unemployment, the debt, the deficit is, when he called for $400 billion in savings, when he accumulated $3.4 trillion in new debt since he’s been president. It seems like he’s trying to sell the same policies. FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Let’s fan out what our 29 people in Atlanta had to say. And I don’t want you to feel under pressure because of what Sean Hannity just said. I want a word or phrase to describe what you thought of the speech. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Optimism, platitudes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Empty. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Redundant. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Political. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not connected with America. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hyperbole. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Obama conflicting and Ryan was speaking just like every American I meet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hopeful on Obama, but not compelling. LUNTZ: I want to see a quick show of hands of everyone in this room, did he exceed or fall short of your expectations? Who would say he exceeded, raise your hands? Two people. Who would say he fell short? A lot of you. Sean, I want to go to one clip we did, because Obama talked a lot about bipartisanship, and yet the Republicans didn’t respond too favorably to that. The red line is Republicans, green line is Democrats. Watch how high the green declines and red falls when Barack Obama appeals directly to partisanship. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together or not at all, for the challenges we face are bigger than party, bigger than politics. (END VIDEO CLIP) LUNTZ: So the question is, what is it about this appeal to bipartisanship that those of you on the Republican side don’t like? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t believe it. LUNTZ: Explain it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He said that before. When he first got into office he was going to be the president to change everything, come across the aisle. It never happened. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is phony. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is bipartisan? Is it if you agree with me? I mean, we’ve got two sides here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t want to use one of those curse words we can’t use. The Republicans didn’t. The first thing he said was I’m not going to work with him. I’m not going to work with you. That’s like throwing down the gauntlet. LUNTZ: Hold on one second. Sean, you’ve got a question? HANNITY: Yes, I do. Somebody said it. He said all of these things before. He said it last year, during the campaign. And this whole campaign it was only a couple months ago when he was calling Republicans enemies. They can sit in the back. For two years Republicans weren’t invited to the table. So in that sense are we just reading words from a teleprompter or has he lost the ability because he has two years experience for people to belief him? LUNTZ: So here’s the question, is it politics or principle that you heard tonight? Who would say politics, raise your hand. Who would say principle? You said principle, tell me why? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This president is doing the best he can at this point. He’s trying to be in the center. He’s not being — it is not that he’s trying to cause problems with the economy. He’s doing the best job he can do. I think he’s doing a great job. He’s brought unemployment down. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Experience, experience, and we are not making any progress whatsoever. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In 2000 he said Bush is not the real president. And then they are yelling at him for the same thing. Everyone is saying the same things again, it’s 10 years later, the same thing, but we are worse off. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two years of railroading legislation in Washington, rolling over Republicans, accusing them of being cynical. Now saying let’s come to the table, have a drink and work together. It’s nonsense. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like getting romantic talk from Tiger Woods. Are you going to put your trust in him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They got a lot done this lame duck session. When they did come together and pass bipartisan support, things got an accomplished. You have people probably to the far right who don’t want to see any time of compromise. When you have compromise, things get done, you get bills passed. LUNTZ: Again, what is wrong with compromise? I want to understand. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to have some compromise. Give a little on both sides. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There’s nothing wrong with compromise. People have to talk about what is good for each side and take the good together. Not everybody is going to be happy. LUNTZ: Is Barack Obama sincere about bipartisanship? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don’t know. (CROSSTALK) LUNTZ: One at a time. Is Barack Obama sincere? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he is. And I think it should be the American people what they want. We are all-American, not Democrat, not Republican. LUNTZ: I get it. Sean, the State of the Union is supposed to bring people together. It is supposed to appeal to all Americans, not just the Americans from your political party. I don’t think that has happened tonight. They are just as divided now as they were an hour and a half ago. Back to you. HANNITY: Well, Frank, you can’t forget the two years. It’s a big difference. All right, we have a lot more with Frank Luntz coming up in just a minute and his focus group. Tomorrow night, by the way, we’ll have Mitt Romney, his reaction. Also Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove. There’s plenty more with Frank coming up right after this break. HANNITY: Welcome back to this special edition of “Hannity.” And we check in once again with Frank Luntz standing by in my old hometown in Atlanta with a focus group of voters. Frank, you have another dial I believe you are going to run? LUNTZ: Yes. Once again, watch the lined as the Republicans, green Democrats the higher the more favorable reaction. Barack Obama said the worst of the recession is over. Let’s see if your people agreed with him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Now the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same. (APPLAUSE) (END VIDEO CLIP) LUNTZ: So I got two questions now for you all. How many of you believe the recession is over, raise your hands? Three of you. So obviously that must have undercut credibility when he said it? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think with inflation at risk still and unemployment the highest it has been it is worse for us still. With the debt, it is kind of everyone is still worried. There’s too much uncertain ground. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. He’s talking about cutting spending, are you kidding me? All this guy does is spend. He said we need to live within our means. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re a small business owner. Do you feel the economy is starting to turn around for people like you? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, I’m afraid of the economy for people like me. I don’t feel like that at all. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s talking cutting spending, but he wants to freeze spending for five years and that’s two different things. LUNTZ: And then one other question for you all. He does say that he wants to cut spending. How many of you by a show of hands believe him? Now, 13 of you voted for him. Sean, all the questions I’m asking, only three, four, five of them feel comfortable with the things that he said or how he said them. HANNITY: One thing, it is very interesting. I paid close attention to what the president was saying. And I find the word “investment” to be code for an increase in government spending. He gave two very specific examples about the one company and another example. And he’s talking about investment in education, investment in green jobs. It all means more spending from my point of view. As one of your guests pointed out, he’s had two years, $3.4 trillion he accumulated in new debt. He wants to freeze spending but freeze at the inflated levels that he began. So it doesn’t seem like any significant cut, in my point of view. Do they think so? LUNTZ: OK, do you think Barack Obama is serious? Do you think the cuts he’s talking about are significant? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No! Let’s look at the facts. LUNTZ: One at a time. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were not told the truth from the time he game president. Why should we believe him now? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s disguising what he spent using words like investment as opposed to saying he’s spending. He’s not reducing anything. He’s just transferring how it is spent. LUNTZ: Did you support him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I did. LUNTZ: And yet you have problems with what he said about cutting spending? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because everything he has said thus far hasn’t been true. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If both sighs come together — he was talking about both sighs coming together — and then determine what they can cut. It both sides come together then it will be true. It can happen if both sighs work together like they did in the lame duck session. LUNTZ: Sean, last question? HANNITY: Frank, of the 13 you say in the room that voted for Barack Obama, would — are they leaning towards reelecting him? LUNTZ: How many of you are definitely or probably voting for Barack Obama in 2012? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without knowing the alternatives? LUNTZ: Without knowing the alternatives, who is pretty well behind him? Seven of you. Why are only seven of you who voted for him still most likely to be voting for him now? What did he do that was wrong? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is the other candidate, is it you Mr. Luntz? LUNTZ: You might not vote for Obama? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you run I’ll vote for you. (LAUGHTER) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How can you ask a question like that. Is the gun green or blue when it goes off? LUNTZ: Because what that teaches me is even in his base, there are people such as Lawrence who may not vote for him. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, because the things that he had to do, he had an opportunity. He didn’t do it right. So now he has — someone else has to come in and clean it up. LUNTZ: Sean, great group. If I were Barack Obama watching this tonight, I would be a little bit nervous. And if I were Paul Ryan, I would be pretty excited. HANNITY: Great focus group. Thanks to everybody, and that’s all the time with have left. We have Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Karl Rove tomorrow.
Continue reading …