What is it with Republicans and crying wolf?

[gulliver]

1. According to Republicans Clinton's '93 tax increase was going to bring down the economy. Record prosperity followed.

Wolf was cried by the Republicans, but no wolf appeared. Indeed, a warm puppy appeared with a little keg of barrel proof bourbon, a tin of caviar, and some crackers.

2. Then, a Presidential Daily Briefing to George W. Bush said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The warning was ignored. Bin Laden did exactly what the PDB said he would do.

The Republicans did not cry wolf, but there ended up being a huge wolf. Not only did the Republicans not cry wolf that time, they ignored the CIA crying wolf.

3. Color-coded warnings started flashing on our TVs. We're all gonna die today! If not, then probably tomorrow! Be on the alert!

Republicans cried wolf repeatedly. Nothing happened.

4. Saddam had WMDs and was trying to get nukes said the Republicans. The President of the United States, in the god-damned State of the Union Address, under heavy lighting, in front of both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and millions of people worldwide said the sixteen words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Republicans cried nuclear wolf repeatedly. The forest was set aflame. Hundreds of thousands of villagers died in the blaze. The entire world looked on in pity and disgust as we humiliated ourselves and broke our treasury. In the end, we got the pelt the Republicans wanted. It wasn't a nuclear wolf pelt, though. It was an old, flea-bitten, toothless coyote.

5. A hurricane wolf attacked New Orleans. The Republicans did not cry wolf before the attack, during the attack, or after the attack for several days. The wolves had their way.

Republicans didn't cry wolf that time. Sure enough, there was one.

6. Then, a recession wolf attacked. Millions of lives devastated. The Republicans did not cry wolf. Indeed, the wolves were happy that the Republicans were in charge of wolf control. It was Republicans who took down all of the wolf fences and wolf guard stations.

Republicans did not cry wolf, and we're all being eaten by wolves as I write this. Surprise.

Now the Republicans are crying wolf on health care reform and climate change agreements. They are shrieking hysterically, waving misspelled placards, dribbling spittle on their computer keyboards. But maybe we aren't the stupid villagers we once were.

If us villagers needed a guarantee that there is no wolf, there is no better indicator than that the Republicans say there is one. It's when the Republicans are quiet that we need to worry.

[ixion]

1. the GOP has a very limited bag of tricks

but what tricks they do have seem to be very effective. Insighting fear (crying wolf) is one of their most common. And since most GOP teabaggers are actually cowards at heart, the trick works on them every time.

[ClassWarrior]

2. I'd say ALL of the GOP teabaggers are actually cowards at heart. That or opportunists.

NGU.

[petersjo02]

5. In this case, I think it should be...

"inciting."

[ixion]

9. yeah... typo...

thanks.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. And remember, Social Security and Medicare were going to turn us in to Commies.

Their prediction track record sucks. History and facts have not been kind to their arguments. That's why they try to re-invent history like Hitler was a Leftie and Conservatives passed The Civil Rights Act.

The same people yearn for the good ole days of the fifties need to be reminded of the top marginal brackets of the 40s, 50, and 60s.

[GoCubsGo]

4. That's all they have.

The real question should be, why do so many people keep believing them?

[flyarm]

6. what is it with dems selling us out is the better question!

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/11/harry-reid-slips-lifetime-limit-into-senate-bill/

Harry Reid Slips Lifetime Limit Into Senate Bill
By: Jane Hamsher Friday December 11, 2009 8:34 am

When President Obama gave his speech on health care on September 10, he promised that there would be no limit on lifetime benefits under the health care bill:

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.

Harry Reid didn’t agree evidently. Reid, who is solely responsible for crafting the bill that he introduced in the Senate, decided that there should be a limit on lifetime benefits. So when people get sick and have huge bills for things like biologic drugs that cost $50,000 or $100,000 a year, whose bills could become “unreasonable” because Congress is granting drug manufacturers “indefinite monopolies” (per Henry Waxman) that prevent generics from coming to market to compete with them, Harry Reid thinks they should eventually be cut off:

A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates.

The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote.

[unblock]

7. what is it with democrats wasting time on actual intellectual arguments?

republicans have figured out a successful rhetorical strategy of going for short, repetitive, high-emotion sloganeering. it's highly effective as is evidenced by the simple fact that they're STILL taken seriously being effectively proven wrong time and time again and have zero intellectual credibility.

they cry wolf or ignore wolf cries, having nothing to do with being "correct", but because it suits then rhetorically. and it works.

the real question is why can't democrats figure out how to give SOME thought to this kind of emotional appeal? i'm not saying we should abandon the intellectual high ground; hardly! but a bit of salesmanship to go along with actually being on the proper side of the issues would go a LOOONG way toward solidifying our majority.

[gulliver]

8. I agree. The post itself is intended to display rhetorical strategy.

It's just a line of attack based on the fable and the Republican history of hysteria and incompetence. There are lots of others, of course. I kind of like what Grayson does and Obama too. We aren't nearly vicious or clever enough in our attacks for my taste. The Republicans need some of their own rhetoric handed back to them with hot sauce, but hold some of the dumb.

[upi402]

10. If the TV say it is so, then it is so

Do not question TV authoritay!!!
:eyes: