Want to understand how they did it (and plan to do it)? There is no better source guide than the Frank Luntz playbook which is now making its rounds on the web.

Example: If the other side talks deficit, you talk 9-11.

There’s much more. And you can even download the playbook for some deep reading.

I guess it’s nice that Luntz finally made the internet scene (although I’m sure it stings a bit that Paris Hilton’s cell phone beat him to it). I’m not sure that there is that much in the GOP playbook that hasn’t become pretty obvious by now. But today, they are like the old Packers. You know what play they are going to run and you still can’t prevent them from moving the chains.

As for Luntz, now that his playbook is completed and out there, maybe it’s time to move onto bigger and better things. I’d like to see him as the genius behind a new dating site. If you can sell the Bush Social Security plan, you ought to be able get the digits at a singles bar.

During the election, playing on people’s hang-ups about homosexuality and attacking the patriotism of those on the other side of any issue both proved to be somewhat effective at the polls. So why not use the same tactics again? Why should effective attack ads be issue specific?

If there are groups that oppose you on an issue, you can go the long way around and debate them on the merits and build a base of support. Or you can take the expedient route and just convince a certain segment of the voting population that those who oppose you eat quiche. Enough said.

That seems to be the philosophy of USA Next. In an effort to discredit the AARP (a organization that opposes the President’s plans for Social Security reform), USA Next (with the help of consultants who worked on the swift boat ads) has gone straight to the core of issue.

They released an internet ad suggesting that the AARP is strongly in favor of gay marriage and is opposed to supporting the troops.

Translation: They hate god and America, so how can you trust them on the issue of Social Security? This revelation should come as quite a shock the the tens of millions of American seniors who thought the core policy of the AARP was to get them discounts at the Sizzler.

Are these kinds of tactics too ridiculous to be effective? Well, they’ve worked before. Remember, the nuts over at the USA Next (and their swift boat pals) know this is nonsense. It’s part of a strategy.

At the very least, the AARP and its supporters will spend a few cycles ripping this ad instead of ripping the President’s Social Security plan.

Google has added movies (with theaters and playing times) to their search offerings. As usual, the results are clean and simple. They also include reviews from IMDb (owned, as is A9, by Amazon). Interesting stuff.

Here is a look at my search for movies playing at theaters in and around SF.

Now that we’ve been re-educated on the reasons we entered Iraq (for those scoring at home, it’s gone from the threat of WMDs to the policy of spreading freedom and democracy and basically putting the world’s thugs on notice), isn’t fair to ask why we’re not doing much of anything when it comes to Darfur?

Nicholas Kristoff:
During past genocides against Armenians, Jews and Cambodians, it was possible to claim that we didn’t fully know what was going on. This time, President Bush, Congress and the European Parliament have already declared genocide to be under way. And we have photos.

Is our policy on such matters (leaders who participate actively or passively in the killing of their own people) clear? Where is the Crawford Cowboy?

Michael Tomasky on the Dems:

... They should begin by realizing that talking about “positioning” isn’t enough. It’s a second-step question, and it skips the first-step question, which is, what do we believe? Then, once they have a handle on what they believe, they can talk about positioning. Admittedly, it’s a harder question to answer, but they’ll have a hard time selling themselves to 51 percent until they’ve answered it.

It’s true that Dems need to give a long and introspective look at what it is that they believe in (and if the answer is that they believe in the GOP’s winning message because it won, then drop me off at the next stop).

But let’s not for a second ignore the importance of positioning and messaging in the age of marketing. The fact is that almost any program can be sold if the marketing and framing is done right (see the re-election of George W Bush for details).

Shares of TiVo we’re up on rumors that Apple might be looking to take them out.

It’s not clear that Apple would make such a move (although the combination would be nothing less than orgasmic and give Apple a higher customer satisfaction rating than Cocaine had in the 80s), but TiVo is in trouble and they’re trading on the cheap.

I’m surprised someone from post IPO lock-up Google who’s really into television hasn’t already bought TiVo for fun. A lifetime subscription for about $300 million seems reasonable to me.