Now a follow-up to my earlier post about the Obama administration’s pivot to economic illiteracy in the buildup to Wednesday’s State of the Union — and the eagerly anticipated parlor games during which everyone must drink for every invocation of green jobs, fight, as I’ve said before, and other tired rhetoric.

If you want a cheat sheet for how Obama is likely to spin his power grabs and energy rationing as “jobs” schemes — however implausibly (again, note that the cap-and-trade bills have two years of assistance for workers the legislation would put out of work) — check out pollster and Word Doctor Frank Luntz’s newest effort. The poll was conducted at the behest of Environmental Defense, possibly as part of Frank’s rehabilitation for some of his previous, indelicately phrased counsel that made the rounds to great uproar from the elites. Luntz should know that some greens will never forgive and forget — but they do pay an awful lot for polls! (How’s that workin’ out, Pew?)

However, maybe one can find love in all the right places: In addition to the gig, Luntz secured a smooch from EDF as the ”prominent Republican pollster” — a necessary part of their of all the unlikely sources! angle — but a tad disingenuous given that they paid for (and, as it would seem from the language, designed the poll). Although the poll’s cover sheet [PDF], showing the names only of Luntz’s firm and News Corp, might give one the impression that the EDF is calling attention to a poll they stumbled across on the Internet, they did announce that Luntz’s results were “unveiled . . . this morning at a news conference with EDF President Fred Krupp.”

While EDF opted to tout its summary of the poll, the details are available, and the details reveal that this is about as close to a push-poll as you can get. See, for example, slides 14 and 15. How ever could they forget to ask whether cap-and-trade’s promise to cure teenage acne was among the many great (if phony) reasons to support it? That’s no less plausible than the rest. But the comments on EDF’s blog touting the survey are particularly amusing.

According to today’s Greenwire, which did not mention that the work was performed for EDF, or anyone for that matter (if ExxonMobil had hired Luntz for the poll, would Greenwire have noticed?):

“Republican pollster Frank Luntz said his recent research shows Americans are willing to support Obama and Capitol Hill lawmakers on the issue if they explain their work on climate change as more about economic recovery, job creation, and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Asked what Obama’s speech writers should add to the State of the Union, Luntz replied, ‘We can reach consensus if we truly want to. We can improve our national security. We can provide a healthier environment. We can create good, permanent American jobs. We can employ technology and innovation right here in this country. Why not?’”

“Why not?” is of course purely rhetorical for PG readers, but for first-time visitors — “why not” is because that claptrap is demonstrably not true. In those countries that Obama has told us to look at to see what’s happening there (Spain, Germany, and Denmark), government efforts at green-jobs creation have led to some pretty spectacular economic smash-ups — as has been well documented in this space.

Green jobs mean pink slips. Green jobs means trading real manufacturing jobs that exist in response to demand and market forces in exchange for temporary — mostly installation but otherwise still “bubble” — jobs that are ab initio and in futuro wards of the state. Thanks to the Blue-Green Alliance, if successful, they will mean the biggest new entitlement possibly in our history.

So, knowing the poll-tested spin, let’s turn back to Wednesday’s rhetoric and parlor games. The intrepid can add a visual element and demand that participants must act now when Obama does his angry-dude-don’t-mess-with-me, head-down-in-thoughtful-but-riled-up pose, cueing the glare-up-to-the-cheap-seats-a-little-outta-the-corner-of-my-eye-to-show-you-I’m-serious stance. It’s hardy nuanced, so not much subjectivity is involved. Your call. But if he points to a windmill worker I’ll buy the house a round. My house, that is. It’s that likely.

My dark horse for the night is “fat cat,” as that term shot to the keyboards of Obama’s speechwriters as the Coakley Crash loomed imminent. Please allow me to note my coinage of the term “Climate Fat Cat,” — not as a phrase likely to appear in Obama’s speech, but as the term of art for those SotU listeners most anxiously awaiting the president’s new push for wealth transfers — to them, from the ratepayer and taxpayer.

So, as I’ve said before, in his Wednesday speech Obama will fight (eyes to the cheap seats, on three) fight for green jobs — which, upon, scrutiny turns out to be nothing more than catering to his campaign financers pushing this agenda — Goldman Sachs, Exelon, GE, and the rest of the global-warming rent-seekers who provided the “indispensible” lobbying muscle to drag the cap-and-trade rationing scheme over the finish line in the House.

As the White House pivots to economic illiteracy — I suppose doubling down is also appropriate — remember the Climate Fat Cat. He’s going to be more visible in the next few months. The public is going to learn more about the truth behind the green veneer, and find out why some of America’s biggest companies are spending so much to make sure you get stuck with cap-and-trade, “green jobs,” and other costly climate measures.