How can you possibly be that stupid?

by Gary Boatwright, Wed Mar 30, 2005 at 11:22:49 AM EST

Ever since I read a diary at Boadicea this morning, I've been thinking. Always a bad sign, but since I am not in a persistent vegetative state, it seems to be a naturally occuring biological reflex that I cannot control. I wish I could say the same for the Democratic party.

The diary I am talking about is Republicans cannot be trusted.

The comment I added was:

This would seem to be common knowledge, but for some reason is not the conventional wisdom: Republicans can not be trusted with our money, our health or our Constitution and they lie to the press.

If we sent Democrats to speech therapy classes, do you think they could learn to repeat that simple declarative sentence?


For the last couple of months the left blogosphere has been burning up with framing exercises in an attempt to influence public perception on important issues in our national dialogue. I'm wondering if the problem isn't much simpler than that. Do we have a framing problem or do we have a problem with good old fashioned straight talk?

During the Republican primary, McCain's campaign was referred to as the "Straight Talk Express." Even now, the media refers to him as "Straight Talk McCain." Unfortunately, they credit him with being a straight talker even when he's lying through his teeth about Social Security.

Why in the world can't a single Democrat muster up the gumption to utter the simple declarative sentence:

Republicans can not be trusted with our money, our health or our Constitution and they lie to the press.

That doesn't seem so difficult, now does it? That brings me to the subject of a second diary I am either cross-posting, pimping or blatantly stealing from Boadicea: How can you possibly be that stupid!

The dialogue between some Bonehead Scarborough Wannabe Hack and Dr. Cranford is picked up with this exchange:

CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I've seen them die. And this is all bogus. It's all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It's totally wrong.

DANIELS: Well, with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about, so let's ask you about that.

Notice the three short declarative sentences. Does anybody have any question about where Dr. Cranford stands in this discussion? The interview ends on a rather pleasant note:

DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan -- Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?

CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible -- you don't have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?

The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?

My comment in response to this diary is:

You are one busy lady boadicea. It sure would be nice if a few Democrats learned how to be as blunt as Cranford was. Why is it so hard for them to tell the media "You really must be stupid."? It should be a standard talking point for every member of the Democratic party on every issue.

Once they got the hang of "You must be really stupid." they might be able to progress to "Bush is a monumental liar." and "Republicans are more corrupt than the mafia." When the host asked them, "How can you say that?", they could come full circle with "You must be really stupid."

Doesn't that pretty well summarize the essence of the entire Democratic campaign for 2006? Do any of them really need to know much more than these two short, simple declarative sentences?:

Republicans can not be trusted with our money, our health or our Constitution and they lie to the press.

and

How can you possibly be that stupid?

It would be helpful, but not absolutely necessary, if they could also say Bush is a humongous liar. and Republicans are more corrupt than the mafia.

All of which begs the question:

Is each and every member of the Democratic party in a persistent vegetative state or are they really that stupid?

Since Chris signed this petition, I hope we will be hearing more about it later today.

Tags: (all tags)

  • 13 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

13 Comments

Shadow_head_small
What doesn't follow
Given "Republicans can not be trusted with our money, our health or our Constitution and they lie to the press."

Conclusion: Don't vote Republican.

What doesn't follow is that the Democrats are worthy of a vote. What is needed is a campaign to convince the voters that 1) when a Democrat says something, he or she truly believes it and is not just saying it for political purposes, and 2) believe the right things.

Exemplary of this is Social Security: people know that the Democrats believe in Social Security and related programs because of the vehemence with which they fight for it.

Triangulation can only go so far. Ultimately people judge a party on its values. First, you have to say what they are. Secondly, (and this is the real stumbling block) if you have the wrong values, change! What helps a party in the long run is if it not only grudgingly accepts balanced budgets and fiscal discipline, but actually wholeheartedly believes in them. That not only does it acquiesce on toppling dictators, but that they (liberal democrats) are lined up around the block to get the first shot at a Hussein or a Mullah or a Milosevich! That not only does it talk about the classic virtues, but it acts upon them even when the political consequences are unknown.

I don't think the Democrats are far from power, but I do think that 1) relying on Republican blunders is not a strategy and 2) you have to be ready to use the power once you have it. Can we say what kind of budget 51 democrat senators and a democrat president would have passed in '05? If not, how can the party be taken seriously as an alternative? Because it shouts louder? Because it fights dirtier? We can do better.

by Paul Goodman 2005-03-30 12:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How can you possibly be that stupid?
You probably could have guessed that was coming. I can't imagine why you believe the Democratic party should be held to a higher standard than the Republican party.

What helps a party in the long run is if it not only grudgingly accepts balanced budgets and fiscal discipline, but actually wholeheartedly believes in them.

And the Republican party has the advantage on this issue how?

That not only does it acquiesce on toppling dictators, but that they (liberal democrats) are lined up around the block to get the first shot at a Hussein or a Mullah or a Milosevich!

So based on the increasing unpopularity as well as the increasing expense in American lives and treasure of the Iraq War, Democrats should be as dedicated to wasting our lives and national treasure in irrational foreign invasions as Bush?

That not only does it talk about the classic virtues, but it acts upon them even when the political consequences are unknown.

Please identify the "classic virtues". Are you perhaps talking about these classic virtues? Feel free to explain how either the Bush administration or the Republican party can even pretend to aspire to more than three out of the ten.

Can we say what kind of budget 51 democrat senators and a democrat president would have passed in '05? If not, how can the party be taken seriously as an alternative? Because it shouts louder? Because it fights dirtier? We can do better.

I can say with absolute reliability that 51 Democrats could easily produce a better budget than what the Bush administration has proposed. It is hard to believe that even the Bush administration has not only done so poorly, but is actually focused on making the budget deficit as well as the unfunded liabilities in both Social Security and Medicare even worse.

Democrats have to stop giving the ludicrous positions of Bush and Republicans the benefit of the doubt that they deserve serious consideration. Their standard reply to Republican nonsense should be exactly what my reply to you is:

How can you possibly be so stupid!

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-30 12:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Are you really that supid?
So how much flexibility and creativity is possible with this tactic? Please also clarify for me how "we can do better"? So far this session I have yet to see any sign that the Democratic party is capable of the political equivalent of chewing gum and walking at the same time. Thus, my diary.

The only accomplishment that Democrats can be given credit for is not caving in to Bush on Social Security yet! I would argue that even that small accomplishment is more due to the pressure of the netroots community than any internal discipline or courage on the part of the Democratic party.

Please show me any evidence, however minute, that the Democratic party is capable of "doing better than that".

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-30 01:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What doesn't follow
I agree. Disengaging the reader/listener from the Republican omnipotent world view is the first step. One Dems really only recently have made any significant commitment too. Significant, not universal.

I particularly noticed with the last election that there was an element of cheering for "my political team" like it was a football contest.  While that may not be ideal, it is understandable-even historical.  The blog Jolly linked to arose from my frustration at seeing and hearing so many people who voted for the Republicans in 2004 express shock and distaste at the machinations in the Schiavo case when it seemed to me they'd been perfectly clear about their intent all along.

The second step-without which the first one is futile from a pragmatic political perspective-is to make the Democrats distinctively appealing. And that doesn't necessarily mean a shadow budget. Swing voters didn't vote for Republican policies-they just didn't trust Democrats or think we were strong enough to protect them.

So, I think we agree about "doing better". (If I misunderstand, feel free to set me straight.) To me it means fighting Dems fighting FOR the avg Joe and Jane as they believe they are.

But first, we have to pry their fingers off the crack pipe offered by the PNAC Imerium.

by boadicea 2005-03-30 01:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What doesn't follow
Well spoken Boadicea. Unfortunately, Democrats don't seem to have the ability to express themselves lately.

As a matter of fact, I'm wondering if Reid and the DLC have given marching orders to cave in to Bush. Can you name one single thing that any Democrat has done to stop any legislation aside from flap their gums?

Did Republicans sit around their office waiting for the chance to inject weary platitudes into the Congressional record when they were the minority?

In fact, why shouldn't I assume that Harry Reid is actively collaborating with Karl Rove to get his entire wish list through Congress? What would have been done any differently?

I'll argue that the only keeping Bush from passing Social Security destruction is public pressure generated by the blogosphere. What the hell have Dems actually done to oppose that? Not much. A few town hall meetings? Has the Democratic party spent a dime on advertising? Republicans have. Blog Pac has. What the hell are the Democrats doing?

When was the last time you saw either Charlie Rangel or Barney Frank on cable or the weekend Funny Shows? Has Reid silenced the Dems best opposition voices?

I keep listening for opposition, and all I hear is the dog that didn't bark. Something is afoot!

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-30 01:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not worried about Reid
I think Reid did well to steer the Senate Dems clear of the SS mess.

And he has organized (hell, did I say "organize" about Democrats? Wow.) a pretty strong response regarding the "nuclear" fristing being threatened by the Senate Repubs.

The bankruptcy bill was politics as usual. I don't like it, but I understand it.

I'm distinctly unhappier about the crossovers on the Schiavo bill. Given the reaction to its passage by the public, I think that the Dems who voted made themselves easier to challenge from both sides them when they run again. Even those who may have been following their conscience will be painted as political vultures.  

I think the measure of Reid and the Senate Dems will be taken when the Schiavo denouement has finally had its sad conclusion and the Republicans try to use it-as they will-to force through those judges that have not been confirmed.

That's when we'll have no question of just what Pool Hall Harry is made of.

And, let's face it, someone who's faced down the Mafia gambling families and assorted thugs has nothing to fear from a little parlimentary scuffle.

by boadicea 2005-03-30 02:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not worried about Reid
We should have had a few crossovers on the Schiavo bill. It's a difficult moral decision and different people come to different conclusions on that. I believe Jesse Jackson is still down there.

What's frightening is how few crossovers they had.

by wayward 2005-03-30 06:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not worried about Reid
That bill was rushed, ill-informed, and political.  People can indeed come to different conclusions on the case (as little business as it is of any of ours). Maybe some of these Senators and Reps would still have voted for the bill no matter how long deliberations took. But they were afraid of being on the wrong side of the "culture of life" so they just assumed that in 15 years all the participants in the medical and legal battle were less informed than they were in the 48 or so hours they  took to ram this through.

To rewrite a law specifically for this case to take jurisdiction away from the state courts was a blatantly political intrusion into a private tragedy-which is why the blowback is so very vicious and I believe will be longer lasting than many people hope.

The difficult moral decision was that of Michael Schiavo and, to a lesser extent, the Schindlers. It was of the GAL and the Judges  who so painstakingly sifted through the available evidence to try to discern Terri's wishes. It was of the physicians(7 out of 8 anyway, the 8th being Dr. "I Have a Letter that says Nobel Prize" Hammersfuehr (?)) who examined Terri as her condition deteriorated and they had to tell her grieving family that there was no hope of recovering the daughter, sister, and wife they so clearly loved.

It had absolutely no place on the floor of Congress.

by boadicea 2005-03-30 06:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
true that
JB, during the dean campaign he said over and over again "you can't trust republicans with your money". then he went on to explain why you COULD trust dems with your money.

same thing happened with mccain - he was a straight talker and he was the first pol i ever donated to. there is something about talking straight that has crossover appeal. sensible people on both sides of the aisle know that most of the time, politicians are lying through their teeth or dissembling. when someone finally gets up there and says something honest and straightforward, it strikes a chord. i think that is part of bush's appeal. he has this "straight talker" image (short declararive statements, for ex) even though he's a total bullshitter.

by annatopia 2005-03-30 01:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: true that
That's why Democrats have to take Bush's image head on. I am completely baffled that Democrats are uniformly so chicken shit about challenging Bush on anything.

The same goes for McCain. It's time to start calling it the Bullshit Express. I don't know why that is so difficult for Democrats. I really don't.

Same with the media. When Joe gives them a bullshit, ignorant question, they should respond exactly the way Dr. Cranford did to Daniels. I'd be tickled to death to see or hear a Democrat say straight out "Are you shitting me?"

It would have to be on live TV or to the print media so Joe or whoever couldn't edit it. They could at least fake having something resembling a spine and core principles they are willing to defend.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-03-30 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
speaking of bullshit
have you read on bullshit yet?  my god, jon stewart had the author, HG frankfurt, on his show last week.  and their discussion gave me one of those "lightbulb moments". all this time i've been saying "bush is a liar" and wondering why that doesn't resonate. and while stewart & frankfurt were talking, it all hit me like a ton of bricks. bush isn't a liar; he's a BULLSHITTER. that's why he gets away with it - he's a GREAT bullshitter. and the only time he ever seems flustered is when someone calls him on his bullshit.

so i started thinking about it some more, and i realised that's why dean and mccain resonated with me (and with so many on both sides of the aisle who can't stand the bullshit aspect of politics). they cut through the bullshit (even if it was only a phase with mccain). and voters appreciate that. just tonight another friend of mine revealed that while he was a repub who voted bush, he supported dean and would've voted for him. my friend is just the type of person we could peel off the GOP - he's voted that way his whole life (almost by default) but realises it's all bullshit. and when he sees a straight talker it appeals to him.

ok, sorry, i've really rambled on. my point is, check out ON BULLSHIT. it really made the entire bush presidency make perfect sense to me.

by annatopia 2005-03-30 07:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: speaking of bullshit
Sounds like required reading.

The lib equivalent of Tranny Annies "How to Talk... If You Must."

by boadicea 2005-03-30 09:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: speaking of bullshit
tranny annie? i've never heard of that!  off to google...
by annatopia 2005-03-31 02:27PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------