Amnesiac John Spratt

[Pangloss]

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"

 

See this is where you lose me, when you go and take what sounds like an objectively interesting point and twist it into a biased statement. Do politicians reach out and attempt to compromise and get chopped off? Yeah I buy that. Do I think Democrats are consistently behaving better than Republicans? No, I have no reason to think so. You haven't shown anything other than extremely selective circumstantial evidence to go by. Jon Stewart isn't qualified to pass that judgment, and that's all you offer -- ridicule.

 

I know you're not a huge fan of Democrats either, but you don't speak for moderates. What you do is pretend to speak for moderates in order to convince people that Republicans suck more than Democrats. That is a very different thing.

 

 

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

 

Then explain to me how accusing someone of having amnesia is outing them on a disease that has nothing to do with amnesia. That's not a connection that was made by this ad.

 

Why would they do that? Does it actually make SENSE to you that Republicans would say "look at this cripple, he must be stupid too!" Do you really think that schoolyard bullying is a tactic that the RNC thinks will score with conservative voters? Seriously? How stupid do you think conservatives are, padren?

 

See this is what happens when you start from an assumption of stupidity based on all the ridicule heaped on by bascule, Jon Stewart, etc -- it makes you find it believable that nobody at the RNC is intelligent enough to know that Parkinson's isn't Alzheimer's, or that it would be a bad idea to suggest that an Alzheimer's sufferer might be losing their memory. So it makes SENSE to you that they might do this deliberately. You go right on to ignore the fact that this is a routine political tactic -- it makes MORE sense that Republicans are stupid, because you get told this 24/7 by the likes of bascule and Jon Stewart.

 

Not only shouldn't you FALL for that, you should get MAD AS HELL about it.

 

 

Quite clearly, the contention is that Republicans conflated Parkinson's and Alzheimer's

 

Great, then you should be able to point out the passage where they do this.

 

 

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

 

I know EXACTLY why it's such a hard little piece of consensus. iNow said it above:

 

the narrative is too important

[padren]

Then explain to me how accusing someone of having amnesia is outing them on a disease that has nothing to do with amnesia. That's not a connection that was made by this ad.

 

Now consider watching this guy on TV, you're goal is to make him loose, you've used the "amnesia smear" before[1'], 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?

I know I'd see the connection, and I'd consider weighing the benefit/loss ratio. I'd consider how an obtuse connection would probably backfire, especially for those that actually know what Parkinson's does, and what level of subtly would be needed to dial it in to have an impact while not overdoing it.

 

Heck, if I was working for a campaign against Cheney in '04, I know I'd weigh how to seed a candidate with phrases like "I really respect the man, I'm glad he's feeling better and am looking forward to the debate tonight" to constantly and innocuously embed doubt about his health. Entirely deniable of course - you're just glad someone is in good health - who could see that used to twist opinion?

 

Would I decide to use those tactics? I sure hope not, I don't believe I would. But connecting the dots is a simple automatic process, it's impossible not to see how to arrange things for maximum impact.

 

Why would they do that? Does it actually make SENSE to you that Republicans would say "look at this cripple, he must be stupid too!" Do you really think that schoolyard bullying is a tactic that the RNC thinks will score with conservative voters? Seriously? How stupid do you think conservatives are, padren?

Palin's approval ratings are still 60s amongst Republicans aren't they? The same woman that writes "Energy, Budget cuts, Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" on her hand at a speaking engagement?

 

Aren't we always bothered by how much politicians get away with on both sides Pangloss? Apparently Democrats are stupid enough to overlook the fact that Spratt keeps forgetting his own stances on issues, and it takes the GOP to drive the point home. Are Republican's any sharper?

 

To be precise though, I am not suggesting an obtuse bullying tactic would be beneficial, or were they accused of using one. To be successful, you'd want to use phrasing just ambiguous enough that people who don't know the full effects of Parkinson's may think there's a connection, and those that do know better would assume there's no way people would connect that.

 

It's really not hard to apply layers into a statement.

 

See this is what happens when you start from an assumption of stupidity based on all the ridicule heaped on by bascule, Jon Stewart, etc -- it makes you find it believable that nobody at the RNC is intelligent enough to know that Parkinson's isn't Alzheimer's, or that it would be a bad idea to suggest that an Alzheimer's sufferer might be losing their memory. So it makes SENSE to you that they might do this deliberately. You go right on to ignore the fact that this is a routine political tactic -- it makes MORE sense that Republicans are stupid, because you get told this 24/7 by the likes of bascule and Jon Stewart.

Pangloss, Jon Stewart does not exist in a vacuum, he couldn't have done it without eight very long years of Bush being himself, McCain's descent from a respectable candidate to circus sideshow, and of course the indomitable Mrs. Palin.

 

For what I hope is the last time, I'd like to say for the record that "People at the RNC know that Parkinson's isn't Alzheimer's" nor has otherwise ever been suggested. I also acknowledge "it's been" used before (see [1] in this post were I quoted myself from my previous post) so don't say I am ignoring that.

 

If the Republicans say something questionable and we don't give them the benefit of the doubt, it makes them look bad, so it couldn't be intentional since they aren't stupid. So we have to give them the benefit of the doubt... which makes them look good... which defies the whole initial argument in the first place. Either they are innocent because "they aren't stupid enough to get caught doing that" or they just aren't caught, and they are innocent anyway.

 

Isn't that pretty self-reinforcing?

 

Not only shouldn't you FALL for that, you should get MAD AS HELL about it.

Where were you when Republicans had the power to do anything at all - build the shining example of their winning ideology for all to admire - and ran this country straight into the ground?

 

There is nothing Jon Stewart could possibly say that would make Republicans look worse than what Republicans have done in their last two Presidential terms. I'd love to see something vaguely intelligent come out of the party - I really don't like the democrats that much, and am honestly disturbed by the lack of an intelligent counter-balance. It's not Jon Stewart's fault that I'm still waiting.

 

 

Still, that is all a tangent that I didn't mean to get off onto - yes I believe the Republicans are in fact overwhelmingly intellectually lost and have been clamoring to trite demagoguery as a safety line since the end of McCain's run.

 

That is not to say the party itself is stupid, it just makes stupid choices as a result of being intellectually aimless. The main reason this is all beside the point is that while your contention is correct that the RNC would have to be stupid not to know "Parkinson's isn't Alzheimer's." My contention however, is that they do know the difference, and know how to create a subtle conflation which requires a degree of intelligence.

 

So really, the talk of stupidity is interesting, but largely beside the point.

 

Great, then you should be able to point out the passage where they do this.

Same passages you've read before Pangloss. For the same reasons I wrote above and bothered to quote myself regarding.

 

And again: I am asking you to acknowledge the assertion, not whether the assertion has merit. This is a very important distinction. Just because you don't see the merit in someone's assertion, it doesn't mean you can claim they are asserting something else entirely.

 

Does that clarify why I find this process frustrating?

I know EXACTLY why it's such a hard little piece of consensus. iNow said it above:

 

Wait what? I don't follow what you mean by this.

Edited May 21, 2010 by padren

[jryan]

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.

 

So are you asserting that there is actual statements making fun of Spratt's Parkinson's that he failed to mention while accusing them of making fun of his Parkinson's? Your burden-of-proof-o-meter needs some calibration.

 

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.

 

Again, you are assuming that Spratt didn't include any of the offending verbiage in his complaint about the offending verbiage but included verbiage that isn't at all what he claimed it to be. Which would make him stupid.

 

Given that I don;t think he is stupid I simply assume that everything that he was offended by was in the complaint. As such, he has failed to meet his responsibility when making such a serious allegation. I have no choice but to judge his claim by the information offered.

 

I judge him to be a completely wrong in his assessment based on the information provided. If you are suggesting we need to consider information that is NOT provided and that you only assume exists then ... I want us to consider the emails that Spratt sent to his staff informing them that he was going to spin this non-issue into a victimization based on his medical condition.

 

Since we are in fantasy land I might as well....

 

 

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.

 

YES HE DOES! Criminey. How is that so hard to understand? If someone makes a claim and provides no compelling evidence to support their claim then rejecting their assertion is your only logical conclusion.

 

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?

 

Sure we can. Because this isn't a case for CSI or Criminal Minds. This is a guy claiming that he was ridiculed for having Parkinson's and he provided no compelling evidence to support that claim when, we can only assume, he had access to all pertinent information.. Indeed, he would have to have access to be offended at all!

 

The only logical conclusion is that he has provided what offended him, and I judge him to be either very mistaken for seeing offense -- other than standard political offense -- where none could logically be derived.. or an opportunistic slime ball. Since he IS a politician I am leaning towards the latter.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I know I'd see the connection, and I'd consider weighing the benefit/loss ratio. I'd consider how an obtuse connection would probably backfire, especially for those that actually know what Parkinson's does, and what level of subtly would be needed to dial it in to have an impact while not overdoing it.

 

What does my weight have to do with this discussion??!?!?!1

 

Heck, if I was working for a campaign against Cheney in '04, I know I'd weigh how to seed a candidate with phrases like "I really respect the man, I'm glad he's feeling better and am looking forward to the debate tonight" to constantly and innocuously embed doubt about his health. Entirely deniable of course - you're just glad someone is in good health - who could see that used to twist opinion?

 

How dare you bring up that affair I had in Reo! That has nothing to do with this discussion!!!1

 

Would I decide to use those tactics? I sure hope not, I don't believe I would. But connecting the dots is a simple automatic process, it's impossible not to see how to arrange things for maximum impact.

 

This is a back handed smear about my erectile dysfunction isn't it? Does your slime know no depths?!

 

Palin's approval ratings are still 60s amongst Republicans aren't they? The same woman that writes "Energy, Budget cuts, Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" on her hand at a speaking engagement?

 

I can't believe you outed me! I thought you said it was just between us!

 

Aren't we always bothered by how much politicians get away with on both sides Pangloss? Apparently Democrats are stupid enough to overlook the fact that Spratt keeps forgetting his own stances on issues, and it takes the GOP to drive the point home. Are Republican's any sharper?

 

My affiliation with the Soviet Union was only briefly in the mid-70s in Vietnam... how dare you call me a Communist!

 

To be precise though, I am not suggesting an obtuse bullying tactic would be beneficial, or were they accused of using one. To be successful, you'd want to use phrasing just ambiguous enough that people who don't know the full effects of Parkinson's may think there's a connection, and those that do know better would assume there's no way people would connect that.

 

Oh so you're pulling the race card again?! Racist!

 

It's really not hard to apply layers into a statement.

 

Back to the erectile dysfunction again? Typical....

 

Pangloss, Jon Stewart does not exist in a vacuum, he couldn't have done it without eight very long years of Bush being himself, McCain's descent from a respectable candidate to circus sideshow, and of course the indomitable Mrs. Palin.

 

Well, sure Jane Fonda sat on my canon. But those were different times and I have no idea what relevance that would have to the South Carolina congressional race.

 

And so on.

 

I figured I might as well take Spratt's tactic on this debate. Let's assume that the we don't have the full context and that my offense is completely founded. I await an apology!

Edited May 21, 2010 by jryan

[padren]

So are you asserting that there is actual statements making fun of Spratt's Parkinson's that he failed to mention while accusing them of making fun of his Parkinson's? Your burden-of-proof-o-meter needs some calibration.

As I said many many many times, I am not concerned with burden of proof right now. How can I address burden of proof for an assertion when nobody is willing to even acknowledge the assertion's contents to begin with?

 

Cart, horse, etc.

Again, you are assuming that Spratt didn't include any of the offending verbiage in his complaint about the offending verbiage but included verbiage that isn't at all what he claimed it to be. Which would make him stupid.

Because we all know people never use subtly.

Given that I don;t think he is stupid I simply assume that everything that he was offended by was in the complaint. As such, he has failed to meet his responsibility when making such a serious allegation. I have no choice but to judge his claim by the information offered.

I guess if you are committed to snap judgments, than you'd have no choice. I thought there was value in actually assessing where each party was actually coming from to try to sort out what actually happened, leaving blanks blank until they can be filled out.

I judge him to be a completely wrong in his assessment based on the information provided. If you are suggesting we need to consider information that is NOT provided and that you only assume exists then ... I want us to consider the emails that Spratt sent to his staff informing them that he was going to spin this non-issue into a victimization based on his medical condition.

Good for you. That is your right to judge him as completely wrong based on the information provided. I respect that. It's perfectly reasonable to consider that Spratt indeed did calculate how to spin this non-issue into a way to play the victim card.

 

Of course, if I was to discuss this in the way you and Pangloss have up until now, I'd have to reframe your assertion as something it's not since there's no evidence of your assertion. I know! You are saying that Spratt believe's Parkinson's is Alzheimer's! Then I can say "Wow you would have to be stupid to think he's that stupid" and you can then tell me "No, I didn't say he believes that, I said he was making something out of nothing" where I can then say "We don't have to even consider that possibility or conceptualize it in the least unless you provide a full conclusive body of proof" and then in the next post, I can criticize you for continuing to assert that Spratt believes Parkinson's is Alzheimer's and how you won't let such a silly idea go.

 

Yay - intellectual eddies are fun!

YES HE DOES! Criminey. How is that so hard to understand? If someone makes a claim and provides no compelling evidence to support their claim then rejecting their assertion is your only logical conclusion.

Hey - that's fine. I've never argued against that. I've only argued against gross simplifications of his claim! That's it. Not a thing more.

 

He deserves to have his claim considered or thrown out for what it is, and that is quite simply is that the language in the email intentionally leveraged his current illness. Consider that and decide it's baseless claim. I'd prefer to call it an entirely unsubstantiated claim, the problem is it's impossible to prove what the RNC was thinking, whereas baseless implies that his argument has no basis at all.

 

Sure we can. Because this isn't a case for CSI or Criminal Minds. This is a guy claiming that he was ridiculed for having Parkinson's and he provided no compelling evidence to support that claim when, we can only assume, he had access to all pertinent information.. Indeed, he would have to have access to be offended at all!

For the love of God, can you please get the bloody facts straight??? Why am I repeating myself on something so trivial??

 

He's not saying the email ridiculed him for having Parkinson's. He's saying the email implied he had a medical condition causing a deterioration of his memory, which leveraged the fact he has Parkinson's.

 

Can you see how that is an entirely different claim?? Do these words create the same image in your head or something? Are they interchangeable in some weird way? Can your mind not model how entirely different these claims are?

 

Why are we still stuck here?

 

The only logical conclusion is that he has provided what offended him, and I judge him to be either very mistaken for seeing offense -- other than standard political offense -- where none could logically be derived.. or an opportunistic slime ball. Since he IS a politician I am leaning towards the latter.

Well thank you Mr. CSI/Criminal Minds. Frankly this is the closest you've come to being open minded, as you say you are only leaning towards the latter. Previously, your comments sounded like the jury was in and their findings were conclusive.

 

Btw, I do agree that he has likely provided what offended him. I've even laid out why I think his assertion is reasonable, even if I don't think there's enough evidence to conclude any wrongdoing by the RNC. In fact I've laid it out repeatedly since it appears to be so hard for people to conceptualize for some reason.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not exactly raising the bar on civil discourse there jryan. I don't think I can even comment on any of this.

[jryan]

Not exactly raising the bar on civil discourse there jryan. I don't think I can even comment on any of this.

 

Neither can the RNC.

[Pangloss]

Why would they do that? Does it actually make SENSE to you that Republicans would say "look at this cripple' date=' he must be stupid too!" Do you really think that schoolyard bullying is a tactic that the RNC thinks will score with conservative voters? Seriously? How stupid do you think conservatives are, padren? [/quote']

 

Palin's approval ratings are still 60s amongst Republicans aren't they? The same woman that writes "Energy, Budget cuts, Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" on her hand at a speaking engagement?

 

It's funny you mention Sarah Palin, because if I'm not mistaken she has a child with a mental disorder. So no, it's not reasonable to leap to the conclusion that she would think it okay to ridicule someone with a mental disorder for having a bad memory.

 

 

To be precise though, I am not suggesting an obtuse bullying tactic would be beneficial, or were they accused of using one. To be successful, you'd want to use phrasing just ambiguous enough that people who don't know the full effects of Parkinson's may think there's a connection, and those that do know better would assume there's no way people would connect that.

 

It's really not hard to apply layers into a statement.

 

I agree it's not. It's also not hard to suggest ill intent between the lines of a comment. It's true I don't know that the RNC wasn't trying to suggest that the man's age-related dementia makes him ill-suited for elected office. Nor do you know that his response wasn't deliberately calculated to add a dimension to the RNC statement that wasn't actually there.

 

 

Where were you when Republicans had the power to do anything at all - build the shining example of their winning ideology for all to admire - and ran this country straight into the ground?

 

You me know better than that. I was right here bailing on them and declaring my votes for John Kerry and Barack Obama. Not to mention criticizing the war in Iraq, opposing the religious right, and objecting to profligate spending.

 

I did support the Bush tax cuts, for the same reason that I support their continuance under Obama -- effect on middle-class wage-earners. I was deficient in not criticizing the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, but I followed the conversation and learned from members (lead by bascule) and their criticisms.

 

Finding the right path is an ongoing process. But I digress; I think you get the point.

 

 

And again: I am asking you to acknowledge the assertion, not whether the assertion has merit. This is a very important distinction. Just because you don't see the merit in someone's assertion, it doesn't mean you can claim they are asserting something else entirely.

 

Does that clarify why I find this process frustrating?

 

The problem is that the assertion is not only unsupported, it has no basis in fact at all. It's not reasonable to even suppose that someone who accuses a man in a wheelchair of being forgetful might be bullying them for their disability.

 

That's what you're doing here.

 

 

He's not saying the email ridiculed him for having Parkinson's. He's saying the email implied he had a medical condition causing a deterioration of his memory, which leveraged the fact he has Parkinson's.

 

No, he's saying that the email ridiculed him for having Parkinson's, even though the email doesn't mention it or even suggest that he has a memory disorder. He's leveraging the fact that most people won't know that Parkinson's is not generally associated with memory loss except by age association, and hoping that they'll give him a pass on his errors.

[padren]

It's funny you mention Sarah Palin, because if I'm not mistaken she has a child with a mental disorder. So no, it's not reasonable to leap to the conclusion that she would think it okay to ridicule someone with a mental disorder for having a bad memory.

 

I wasn't trying to imply she would. I was saying she's an individual that despite saying incredibly stupid things maintains a high approval rating among Republicans.

I agree it's not. It's also not hard to suggest ill intent between the lines of a comment. It's true I don't know that the RNC wasn't trying to suggest that the man's age-related dementia makes him ill-suited for elected office. Nor do you know that his response wasn't deliberately calculated to add a dimension to the RNC statement that wasn't actually there.

I agree entirely. That's why I think it's premature and perhaps inevitably impossible to judge either the RNC or Spratt.

 

You me know better than that. I was right here bailing on them and declaring my votes for John Kerry and Barack Obama. Not to mention criticizing the war in Iraq, opposing the religious right, and objecting to profligate spending.

 

I did support the Bush tax cuts, for the same reason that I support their continuance under Obama -- effect on middle-class wage-earners. I was deficient in not criticizing the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, but I followed the conversation and learned from members (lead by bascule) and their criticisms.

 

Finding the right path is an ongoing process. But I digress; I think you get the point.

Yeah but I thought you may have forgotten.

More seriously though, I was drawing the conclusion that you can't always judge the RNC as to whether they would act in a certain way based on whether it would be "stupid" to do so. Just like the Democrats, they've proven quite a capacity for such acts.

 

The problem is that the assertion is not only unsupported, it has no basis in fact at all. It's not reasonable to even suppose that someone who accuses a man in a wheelchair of being forgetful might be bullying them for their disability.

 

That's what you're doing here.

Maybe it's more of an issue of semantics. I'd say that someone can assert that 2+2=5, and the right thing to do is to first clearly agree what we are taking about: Someone suggesting that two plus two equals five. Regardless of how warrantless the suggestion may be, or how impossible, is it disingenuous to say "This guy says numbers can mean anything!" or otherwise entirely miss characterize his claim.

 

No, he's saying that the email ridiculed him for having Parkinson's, even though the email doesn't mention it or even suggest that he has a memory disorder. He's leveraging the fact that most people won't know that Parkinson's is not generally associated with memory loss except by age association, and hoping that they'll give him a pass on his errors.

 

Here's his actual statement.

"As an apparent tactic to draw attention from my opponent’s support for privatizing Social Security' date=' the NRCC claims that I also supported privatization, when just the opposite is true. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I organized the opposition in our caucus to the Bush Administration’s proposal.

 

"The NRCC accuses me of 'amnesia,' [u']a sly, underhanded reference to the fact that I am in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease[/u]. I found their assertions beneath contempt, and did not reply, but given the coverage of this story, I need to respond.

 

"I did not decide to run for re-election until I had seen my neurologist, Dr. Marc Stacy at Duke, and asked for his evaluation. The symptoms of Parkinson’s disease vary greatly from case to case. Mine consist of a tremor in my right hand and a slightly stooped posture, and do not include any loss of mental capacity, and especially amnesia.

 

"Dr. Stacy was pleased with my status and the slow progression of my illness, and found me mentally and for the most part, physically fit. He told my wife Jane that 'if she was looking for a reason for me not to run again, this was not it.'

 

"There are many reasons to run again, but I would never consider it if I did not have the energy, motivation, and mental ability to do this job, and do it well."

 

When you say "he's saying that the email ridiculed him for having Parkinson's" that sounds to me like you are claiming that he says, somewhere in the email the Republicans ridicule him for having Parkinson's. The only thing I see is him saying that the NRCC accuses him of having amnesia, and alleges that is a sly (and underhanded) reference to his Parkinson's.

 

Are you saying those mean the same thing? It appears to me to be a large distinction. Until this thread I had no idea if Parkinson's caused memory loss - I don't know anyone who has the illness, and have never had need to research it. I know I've never heard of it being a primary symptom, but until this thread if someone said "My buddy Jack has Parkinson's and it's really taking a toll on his memory" (which I acknowledge the email did not say!) I'd honestly file that in my head as "Oh, Parkinson's impairs memory, I didn't know that before." without realizing it was inaccurate.

 

For this reason, which is entirely based on my personal experience, I don't think it's that unbelievable that people wouldn't confuse the two. It's a uncommon and rarely researched illness. Unless I'm confusing it with something else I think it has to do with the nervous system degenerating, but I've never heard one way or the other about memory impairments.

 

 

Since it's reasonable that people could confuse the two, it is within the realm of reasonable possibility that the NRCC may try to do so intentionally. Based on what I've seen, I'm unconvinced that is the case. I think it is just as likely that Spratt is overreacting, by which I mean I don't have enough evidence to weigh the odds of either.

 

I don't however, think his claim is ridiculous, nor do I think it's accurate to paraphrase that he said he was "ridiculed in the email for having Parkinson's."

 

Does that help clarify?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Neither can the RNC.

 

Why would they?