Amnesiac John Spratt

[Pangloss]

I love this. Democrats have now convinced their base that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia and the RNC is supposed to feel really bad about that.

 

That such a ploy seems to work with the Democrat base and the news media is more of an indictment of the Democrat base's and the news media than it is an indictment of the RNC.

 

Exactly.

 

If he'd said that he shouldn't be attacked for his memory loss because he had a leg amputated we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But because people think that Parkinsons = Alzheimers, he thinks he can get a pass on what really amounts to nothing more than standard politics.

[jryan]

Well Pangloss, the leg is full of nerves, and the brain is mostly nerves, so losing a leg is like losing a part of your brain which can lead to memory loss which is like Alzheimer's which is no different than Parkinson's ... you monster.

[padren]

I love this. Democrats have now convinced their base that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia and the RNC is supposed to feel really bad about that.

 

That such a ploy seems to work with the Democrat base and the news media is more of an indictment of the Democrat base's and the news media than it is an indictment of the RNC.

 

The issue is that the RNC should feel really bad about convincing voters that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia. That's the whole reason people are upset by this.

 

What is contested is whether that was the RNC's intention. Is there some subtly that I'm missing?

[Pangloss]

Wait, why is it that you feel that the RNC is the one convincing voters that Parkinsons equates to Alzheimers?

[jryan]

The issue is that the RNC should feel really bad about convincing voters that Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia. That's the whole reason people are upset by this.

 

What is contested is whether that was the RNC's intention. Is there some subtly that I'm missing?

 

 

You're missing it. The Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia connection was made by Spratt. The RNC said Spratt had amnesia and Spratt claimed that they were therefor making fun of his Parkinson's because they were really talking about Alzheimer's.

 

But he apparently DOES have amnesia because he forgot that "OMG MCCAIN MAY HAVE ALZHEIMER'S AND DIE IN OFFICE BECAUSE HE'S OLD AND HAS HAD CANCER BEFORE!" was an actual central platform of the 2008 Democrat leadership the and the Obama ticket .

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also... a quick glimpse of the DNC and the news media in action circa 2008:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/08/ftl.mccain.health/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-18-mccain-health_N.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN21506232

http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2008/10/third-presidential-debate/

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1779596-2,00.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/mccaskill-to-st.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/story?id=4913763&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072203201.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/questions-surro/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/09/mccains-age-and-past-health-problems-could-be-an-issue-in-the-presidential-race.html

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=648861

 

... and that was a 3 minute Google check.

Edited May 20, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

So no conservatives have anything bad to say about the Republican party making statements like this, and just want to blame the victim.

 

Wow. I weep for this country.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wow. I weep for this country.

Now you're turning into Glenn Beck.

[jryan]

It seems to be a matter of you begging the question, bascule. We would have to assume that your and Spratt's interpretation of the RNC statement were accurate before we would have a reason to react as you have.

 

Since the RNC did not say any of the absurd things you and Pratt are claiming they implied I am not going to waste my emotions on such things.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now you're turning into Glenn Beck.

 

 

Oooooooouch.

[bascule]

Now you're turning into Glenn Beck.

 

[padren]

You're missing it. The Parkinson's=Alzheimer's=Amnesia connection was made by Spratt. The RNC said Spratt had amnesia and Spratt claimed that they were therefor making fun of his Parkinson's because they were really talking about Alzheimer's.

 

You are shooting the messenger - all Spratt did was call the Republicans on making this connection themselves. Now you may think the message is bad - and you are entitled to that opinion. Obviously a lot of people, including Spratt concluded that the connection was made by Republicans in their statement.

 

I don't even care who's right and who's wrong. What I find absurd is condemning Spratt for his actions and condemning the Republicans for their actions and talking over each other then the only real issue is a disagreement on what the actual actions by both were.

 

Do you have any evidence that it was Spratt that made the connection, and not the Republicans? If not, it may be a little too early to denounce him as a victim card player. Even if it was an honest misunderstanding, Spratt would be entirely justified in calling the RNC out on what he honestly believed was a smear to mislabel his disability.

 

Do does anyone else have any evidence that the Republicans intentionally designed this statement to be misleading in the manner that Spratt claims it was? If not, it may be a little too early to denounce them for it.

 

 

But simply stating "You are missing it because in objective reality, these people obviously intended (A) and this person obviously recharacterized it as (B)" when those are not objective facts does not advance the conversation.

Filling in the blanks with your version of events and repeating it as if it was fact does not make it so.

 

Seriously, lets just examine the case to determine what actually happend - what was the original context of the original statement? Did Spratt make any comments that could imply he was not responding in good faith?

Lets answer those questions first. We can either find reasons to agree or agree to disagree. Our respective views on what does or does not bother us about this case will make a lot more sense after that.

[jryan]

Spratt made the connection first because what he claimed was a completely absurd conflation that was never said until he said it. There is no more difinitive proof than that.

[padren]

Spratt made the connection first because what he claimed was a completely absurd conflation that was never said until he said it. There is no more difinitive proof than that.

 

Sorry, did Spratt make this claim sometime before the Republican email? I was under the impression it was in response to it. That it cited the text in that email as the basis for his argument.

Would you at least concede that "seems completely absurd to me" does not equal definitive proof?

 

It's also a pretty useless point in a debate or discussion, when others obviously feel it is not absurd. If that's your stance, I can't blame you for saying "Yeah, I've already made up my mind on this one" but considering that others haven't, you may want to either supply evidence for your view, or let others discuss it without interjecting your personal opinions of what is or is not definitively and objectively absurd.

[bascule]

Well, clearly Pangloss, ParanoiA, and others do not have a Republican approach here. I think I'll adopt it myself.

[jryan]

Sorry, did Spratt make this claim sometime before the Republican email? I was under the impression it was in response to it. That it cited the text in that email as the basis for his argument.

Would you at least concede that "seems completely absurd to me" does not equal definitive proof?

 

It's also a pretty useless point in a debate or discussion, when others obviously feel it is not absurd. If that's your stance, I can't blame you for saying "Yeah, I've already made up my mind on this one" but considering that others haven't, you may want to either supply evidence for your view, or let others discuss it without interjecting your personal opinions of what is or is not definitively and objectively absurd.

 

Wrong. Spratt has made a gratuitous assertion. Logically such assertions can be gratuitously dismissed.

 

Spratt is simply making claims about a fictitious subtext to the RNC message. He made it up. There is nothing in that email that equates Spratt's poor record with his Parkinson's, period.

 

That is the definitive proof. The idea that Spratt's Parkinson's is affecting his mental abilities or his performance not only didn't exist before the RNC message, it didn't exist after it either... until Spratt invented the controversy from whole cloth.

 

The burden of proof here is on Spratt to show where the RNC meant their message in the way Spratt has played it and bascule believes to be accurate. But they can't because there is nothing connecting Spratt's condition to the RNC email message but wild speculation.

 

All Spratt has at this point is an email that doesn't say what he says it does.

[padren]

Wrong. Spratt has made a gratuitous assertion. Logically such assertions can be gratuitously dismissed.

What are you basing this on? Do you have a copy of the email in it's entirely so we can examine it? I understand you feel like some authority on the matter, but I need more than your assurance.

Spratt is simply making claims about a fictitious subtext to the RNC message. He made it up. There is nothing in that email that equates Spratt's poor record with his Parkinson's, period.

 

That is the definitive proof. The idea that Spratt's Parkinson's is affecting his mental abilities or his performance not only didn't exist before the RNC message, it didn't exist after it either... until Spratt invented the controversy from whole cloth.

Again, would like to see the email in it's entirely. I'm not exactly ready to just call it that Spratt is making it up, since based on what I read already I can see how he got that impression. I suppose I could call that "definitive proof" too if I wanted, but I know it isn't. It's an opinion based on a small amount of information.

The burden of proof here is on Spratt to show where the RNC meant their message in the way Spratt has played it and bascule believes to be accurate. But they can't because there is nothing connecting Spratt's condition to the RNC email message but wild speculation.

 

All Spratt has at this point is an email that doesn't say what he says it does.

 

I see, so Spratt has to prove the intention behind the Republican message before we can consider the possibility, but we can all assume Spratt's intentions are exploitative and he's making it up.

 

It works both ways, if you insist we need to keep the jury out on Spratt's allegations against the RNC, then we can't just jump to judge Spratt either, can we?

[Mr Skeptic]

The article on Politico has some more quotes from the email. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0510/DCCC_GOPs_Spratt_attack_went_too_far.html

 

I couldn't find the original email though, but this appears to be mostly innocent. Yes, maybe they did do it on purpose to highlight his aging-related disease. On the other hand, maybe they didn't consider that aspect but others did/would and Spratt felt he had to point out that Parkinson's doesn't cause amnesia. Perhaps he concluded that it was in fact an attack on him, or maybe he just figured since he was defending himself (from the random dumb associations) he might as well make it look like the Republicans were hitting below the belt.

[Pangloss]

Saying that an opposition candidate or politician's memory is failing them is a common political tactic. It's also entirely warranted when the person in question said something specifically to warrant that comment, such as "I can't remember how I voted on that issue", or in this case that the health care bills (which are quite large) were "difficult to remember". Unless it can be shown that Andy Sere was specifically referring to John Spratt's Parkinsons there is no objective basis for a complaint of exceeding the normal boundaries of electioneering.

 

Bascule, it disturbs me if you are going to deliberately ignore the fact that Parkinsons and Alzheimers are not the same thing just to make an ideological statement.

[bascule]

Saying that an opposition candidate or politician's memory is failing them is a common political tactic.

 

To me there's a substantial difference between a tactic such as "his memory must not quite be what it used to because he's forgetting about... [some political point]" versus claiming a politician has a specific medical condition such as amnesia.

 

Bascule, it disturbs me if you are going to deliberately ignore the fact that Parkinsons and Alzheimers are not the same thing just to make an ideological statement.

 

Perhaps you missed my response earlier in the thread:

 

Bascule:

The NRCC' date=' knowing that Spratt has Parkinsons decided to run a smear campaign designed specifically to scare people away from voting for him by painting him as medically incompetent to do his job. They used the term "amnesia" to make the smear tactic a little more blurry but effectively are attacking him on the grounds he has a medical condition (that people know about) and claiming it has led to a medical inability to serve his state.[/quote']

 

I don't know if the actual intent of their campaign was to highlight Spratt's Parkinson's, but in light of the fact he does have Parkinsons, making repeated claims that he's suffering from "amnesia" is in extremely bad taste. My main issue is they're claiming Spratt has a medical condition he doesn't, which is a lie. Don't vote for John Spratt. He's suffering from amnesia. I'd like to find the original email so I can read their statements in context, but without the context, it's certainly not clear that they're "joking" about the amnesia or however else I'm supposed to interpret their statements in a way that would elevate them about boldface lies.

 

If you wish for me to specifically denounce a collusion between amnesia and Parkinsons, I'll happily do that after you denounce the NRCC for issuing a statement that John Spratt has amnesia when he assuredly does not. It disturbs me you're deliberately ignoring the outright lies the Republicans are perpetrating here.

 

And for the record, I would certainly not put it past the Republicans to use claims of "amnesia" to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Spratt's Parkinson's. But I will happily put that aside if we can simply reach the middle ground that these statements on behalf of the NRCC are a low blow and in extremely bad taste.

[Pangloss]

To me there's a substantial difference between a tactic such as "his memory must not quite be what it used to because he's forgetting about... [some political point]" versus claiming a politician has a specific medical condition such as amnesia.

 

They didn't claim that he has a medical condition. Nor is his medical condition generally known as one which affects memory.

 

Candidates love to accuse incumbents of amnesia. It's part of the landscape. Look at all the flak Charlie Crist has taken lately from Marco Rubio over "forgetting" that he took federal stimulus money, saying that he thought it was a great idea even though now he says he's opposed to it. What is that if it isn't "amnesia", and why isn't that fair game?

 

 

Perhaps you missed my response earlier in the thread:

 

...in light of the fact he does have Parkinsons, making repeated claims that he's suffering from "amnesia" is in extremely bad taste.

 

Why? Parkinsons is not Alzheimers. It's a nerve disorder not a memory disorder.

 

 

And for the record, I would certainly not put it past the Republicans to use claims of "amnesia" to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Spratt's Parkinson's.

 

How could they, when Parkinsons is a degenerative nerve problem, not a memory disorder?

[iNow]

Are Republicans sinking to the level of Rush Limbaugh? (who chastized Michael J. Fox and falsely alleged that Fox was faking symptoms)

If you're going to attempt to justify it, can you give me a bye for saying the Republicans are destroying the political discourse in this country? Because by doing things like this, they really are.

Seriously though, all I'm looking for here is a "Yeah, that's a low blow, and in poor taste. Perhaps the Republicans can do better."

 

Instead, I'm getting a "Not only have the Republicans done nothing wrong here, but John Spratt is a douchebag and is leveraging these malicious attacks for political points"

So no conservatives have anything bad to say about the Republican party making statements like this, and just want to blame the victim.

I will happily put that aside if we can simply reach the middle ground that these statements on behalf of the NRCC are a low blow and in extremely bad taste.

No, Bascule. It is very unlikely that will happen. As evidenced by the lack of response to your repeated point, the narrative is too important, so it's easier to ignore your central request so the narrative can live on.

[Pangloss]

He's trying to convince everyone that Parkinson's Disease is the same thing as Alzheimer's, and you're accusing ME of having a narrative?

[iNow]

He's trying to convince everyone that Parkinson's Disease is the same thing as Alzheimer's

I suggest you read his posts more closely if that's your current perception of them. That might be a strawman of his point, but not the actual one being made.

[Pangloss]

Well you've decided to inject yourself into his dialog for the purpose of insulting me, so how about you tell me instead? He's trying to convince everyone that Parkinson's Disease is the same thing as Alzheimer's, so where do you get off accusing me of having a narrative?

 

Or do you want to just sit back and lob Mr. Pot shots?

[bascule]

No, Bascule. It is very unlikely that will happen. As evidenced by the lack of response to your repeated point, the narrative is too important, so it's easier to ignore your central request so the narrative can live on.

 

Thanks for consolidating my points there. This really feels like a microcosm of the current political landscape. The Democrats reach, and reach, and reach, and ask for reciprocation for concessions, and in the end the Republicans are just like "f*ck you, we're just going to f*uck up the political process long enough that people vote for us, because clearly the solution when tweedle dee fails is to put tweedle dum in charge"

 

And sorry for an equivocation of the American political parties, but for many "moderates" in this country that's their underlying voting model. Because Pangloss voted for the non-retarded candidate twice in a row, he no longer needs to ride the short bus. jryan, on the other hand, is pretty much a lifer. Oh, I'm sorry, did I imply Pangloss and jryan are retarded? You must've misinterpreted me. It's just rhetoric.

[padren]

He's trying to convince everyone that Parkinson's Disease is the same thing as Alzheimer's, and you're accusing ME of having a narrative?

 

You don't seriously believe that do you? Not once has anyone stated something so ridiculous.

 

Quite clearly, the contention is that Republicans conflated Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, since people without Parkinson's or relatives who have it, do not typically know very much about Parkinson's and it's effects, and upon seeing a candidate clearly showing signs of an illness taking a physical toll, have tried to imply it's taking a mental toll on him as well, and are trying to ascribe a voting record they simply don't like to one caused by illness.

 

The man is starting to show physical signs of an illness, and now they ascribe his "inability" to illness, where no such link exists.

 

Now consider watching this guy on TV, you're goal is to make him loose, you've used the "amnesia smear" before, do you really think it's so impossible that you wouldn't at least consider how you could make those work together? Realized how illness often makes people uncomfortable and have concern for a person's ability... and realized that perhaps using the amnesia phrasing in this case could be leveraged for a little more mileage?

 

Honestly I don't care if you find that contention ludicrous or not. You can contend there is no way that the email in question could be taken that way if you like, and there is no way anyone could be so cynical. But please, at least acknowledge that is the contention. It is not and never has been that Parkinson's = Alzheimer's.

 

This is a real trivial fact and I have no idea why it's so hard such a little piece of consensus.