The Republican and the "Truth Pill" - An Interview

A MeanMesa Fiction

The prospect of an interview sat well with the Republican political strategists when it was first proposed.  A few of the details of the plan had been conveniently left out of the original presentation, but the central body of the idea was simple enough.

The "talking points" managers would send along a lower echelon spokesman -- meaning a representative with plenty of deniability in case things went off the tracks --  the interview could occur, and then the video and audio of the session would be returned to main GOP Psychological and Ideological Consistency  Purity Branch for approval and censorship before any release.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the proposed interview would be the introduction before it began of a recently developed "truth pill" to the subject.  After that, careful attention could be paid to answer the question of whether or not the "talking points" this subject had been exposed to during the routine indoctrination process had been a success, that is, had penetrated so deeply into the Republican subject's mind that the responses he might give during the interview would reflect the mind numbing consistency the party valued so highly.

Two anticipated points were made in the agreement.  First, nuances would count.  Pre-packaged story lines had a habit of breaking down in interviews when follow up questions were asked.  Second, not only would the topic of the interview be announced beforehand, but all of the discussion would deal with strictly political questions disguised as material issues rather than any troublesome matters of substance.

Lower Echelon GOPCon Operative (image source)

Interviewer:  "Good afternoon.  Thank you very much for coming."

GOPCon spokesman:  "I guess so.  This interview is anonymous, right?"

Interviewer: "Well, yes, of course.  The video of the interview will be sent to the, uh, Psychological Purity Department or something, but once it's there, only experts with GOPCon Security credentials will have access to it.  Did they mention the 'truth pill' when they were telling you about it?"

GOPCon spokesman: "Uh, yes, they did.  Does it have any, like, side effects?  Is it illegal?"

Interviewer: "No, of course not.  In fact, it's so subtle that you probably won't even notice it.  Are you ready to take the 'pill' and get started on the interview?"

GOPCon spokesman: "Okay.  Does it really make you tell the truth?  I mean, does it work?"

Interviewer: "It seems to work.  All of our tests leading up to this interview indicate that the pill works just fine."

The spokesman, clearly becoming quite nervous, gingerly swallowed the pill offered by the interviewer.

Interviewer: "The interview topic we agreed on with the Purity Department is about Libya.  Are you ready to discuss the questions which seem to keep coming up about the military action in Libya?"

GOPCon spokesman: "I suppose so.  That's what the big boys at Consistency told me we would talk about.  By the way, will the video show my face or just the back of my head?  I would hate to have my colleagues know that it was me if I were to say anything wrong."

Interviewer: "Your face will be 'fogged.'  No one will be able to see who I'm interviewing."

GOPCon spokesman: "What about my voice?  Someone might recognize my voice and know it was me."

Interviewer: "We're going to change your voice so no one will recognize it, either.  Now, can we start the interview?  The pill ought to be kicking in about now."

GOPCon spokesman: "Okay, I guess.  I'll have to say that I'm a little nervous.  Is that a side effect of the pill?"

Interviewer: "No, of course not.  It's completely normal to be a little nervous going into a video taped interview.  Just relax.  You'll do fine."

GOPCon spokesman: "Okay.  What's the first question?"

Interviewer: "Let's start with the big picture.  Are you in favor of what action has been taken in Libya?"

GOPCon spokesman: "I guess it's alright.  One big problem I have with it is that it started too late.  We should have taken action sooner."

Interviewer: "Okay.  I think we waited until we could get the UN resolution passed so it would be a multi-lateral effort.  Why do you think we should have started sooner?  In fact, would you have supported military action undertaken by the US alone?"

GOPCon spokesman: "The reason we didn't start sooner is because Obama is a weak leader, indecisive.  Now he's trying to blame his own failings on waiting for the UN."

Interviewer: "But now that things have started, wouldn't you say that the operation was going along fairly well?"

GOPCon spokesman: "Not really.  For one thing we don't have a clear idea of what the mission is supposed to be.  No one knows what Obama is trying to do.  The American people deserve some kind of explanation."

Interviewer:"Doesn't the UN resolution cover that?"

GOPCon spokesman: "No, everyone knows that you can't trust the UN.  Americans know that something 'fishy' is going on, and they want Obama to come clean with them.  The American people have spoken."

Interviewer:"Why are you suspicious about the role the US is playing?  What more would you need to know to make you support the effort."

GOPCon spokesman: "There's nothing that can be told to us which would make Obama's leadership failure seem any better.  Plus, Obama said that he wanted Gaddafi out of Libya, but then he said that he wasn't sending our military to kill him.  See?  The story just doesn't make sense."

Interviewer: "But the UN resolution was about protecting the people of Libya from Gaddafi's military slaughter.  It seems like the intervention is accomplishing that.  Wouldn't you agree?"

GOPCon spokesman: "No.  We're starting a third front with the invasion of Libya.  We're already in two wars, and now, we're in another one."

Interviewer: "But there's not going to be an invasion.  The Libyans don't want, and the 'no fly' folks have said they weren't going to do that."

GOPCon spokesman: "See.  After the invasion, the US is going to be stuck there for years -- just because of Obama's lack of leadership."

Interviewer: "He said that it would be a matter of days, not weeks.  Doesn't that mean anything?"

GOPCon spokesman: "No, it doesn't.  Obama was born in Africa.  I'm pretty sure that he's invaded Libya based on orders from the Marxist insurgents in Kenya where he was born.  Plus, there's no exit strategy.  Americans don't know how we're going to get all those troops out after we've finished.  In fact, we don't even know what has to happen before we call it a  victory and finally start bring the troops home."

Interviewer: "Uh, okay.  Do you agree with the House members who are complaining about not debating the action before it began?"

GOPCon spokesman: "I do.  There should have been a long, serious debate in the House before Obama committed any US military assets.  This was another case of Obama's leadership failure."

Interviewer: "But would you still have thought that was a good idea if Gaddafi's Howitzers were flattening Benghazi while the debate kept going on longer and longer?"

GOPCon spokesman: "All that was just an excuse for Obama to extend government control even deeper into the lives of Americans.  Plus, his trick has forced us tax payers to foot the bill for the invasion without having any say.  We Republicans believe in the value of debating Obama's leadership failure even if it means that Gaddafi kills the Libyans in Benghazi.  This would demonstrate, once and for all, that Obama can't lead the nation."

Interviewer: "Do you think that a House debate on military action would have finally supported the President's policy?  I mean, they might have decided that the intervention in Libya was actually something that America wanted to do."

GOPCon spokesman: "Americans have spoken out loud and clear.  They don't trust Obama after all the other socialist things he's done, and they don't want him running loose, invading another Muslim country just because he can."

Interviewer: "But the polls are showing that a strong majority of Americans -- 70% or so -- support the policy.  Doesn't that mean anything?"

GOPCon spokesman: "See.  That's why something like this has to be debated in the House.  Plus, there's no exit strategy after the invasion.  Americans are tired of that."

Interviewer: "But, couldn't a debate like that turn political?  I don't think House Republicans are ready to have a quick debate to just settle the question."

GOPCon spokesman: "That's right.  The debate is more important than the question.  There's an election coming up, and the American people have spoken, loud and clear.  The Republicans in the House have their voice.  They're tired of Obama's flip flops and hypocrisy."

Interviewer:"But what about the Libyans who are fighting for their freedom and democracy? Isn't that important?"

GOPCon spokesman: "That's just another trick.  No one knows who these people are, whether they are 'good Muslims' or 'bad Muslims.'  Obama's just rammed another big government take over through without caring whether the thing ends in our favor or not.  Plus, Christian Americans already don't like Muslims.  That's another problem that Obama has -- trying to keep Americans from knowing that he's a Muslim."

Interviewer: "Shouldn't we just be willing to help people not be massacred while they are fighting against the odds for their freedom?"

GOPCon spokesman: "It's hypocrisy.  Why aren't we helping people in Bahrain or Yemen or Syria?  The governments in those places are shooting people in the streets, too. Obama probably wants to start bombing all across the region.  No one knows what he's doing and he isn't saying.  He's not listening to the American people."

Interviewer:"But don't you think that there's a difference between firing on protesters in the street and Gaddafi unleashing his air force against defenseless civilians in his own cities?"

GOPCon spokesman: "See.  That might be a difference if Obama weren't a hypocrite. Plus, there's no exit strategy for after the invasion.  Plus, there's French all over the place.  They want to take credit for starting this war instead of us.  This is just another power grab to further Obama's socialist agenda.  In fact, Libya is just like ObamaCare with death panels and big government."

Interviewer:"Uh, okay.  I think we've covered this pretty well.  Thank you very much for helping with the 'truth pill' test and for a great interview."


The video's review by the Purity of Psychology Control Board at the GOP "talking points" office was, generally, good. 

Great News - Tea Bags Have Already "Reformed" the "Governemnt!"

Ever wonder what, exactly, all your Tea Bag friends are thinking about what's going on in Washington?  Even spookier, have you ever wondered why they are thinking those things?

For a "journey into weird," take a look at a couple of "news" items MeanMesa has extracted from the most recent Freedom Works "Newsletter."

Aside from the fact that what is said here is not true, the "word salad" is just sophisticated enough to be not only barely palatable, but out rightly delicious to the hill billies on the Freedom Werks email list.  Once their sweet little bellies are properly filled with this drivel, this bunch of hill billies will be on their way to "fixing" the entire country.

For them, the good news is two fold.  First, there's no need to actually know what's happening to any extent beyond the Freedom Works-Glenn Beck-Sarah Palin "talking points."  Second, everything, absolutely everything, which must be done to get us out of this mess is so simple even a third grader could solve it!

Oink! (image source) (NOT Photoshopped!)

Of interest here, notice that the road weary, inflammatory Tea Bag statements in this  excepted material are entirely consumed with politics at the exclusion of problems or policy, not to mention accuracy.

From Freedom Works, "Freedom Working" Newsletter

Friday, December 17, 2010

Tea Party Stops $1.3 Trillion Pork Bill Yesterday, on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, pressure from grassroots activists forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw his pork-laden Omnibus spending bill (1) from further consideration. Not only was the bill chock-full of earmarks, but it also sought to provide funding to key provisions of Obama's health care law. Its defeat was an early holiday gift and a story Hollywood couldn't have scripted any better. When the Sons of Liberty stormed Boston Harbor that 16th day of December in 1773, they set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the American Revolution. This year, the Tea Party movement proved that there has been a seismic shift in the politics of spending. This victory wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the tireless efforts of activists like you, who helped usher in November's congressional landslide. Your desire to fulfill the timeless vision of the Boston Tea Party continues to sustain and grow this decentralized, grassroots movement. Read More >>
Federal Judge: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate of Obama's health care (2) law on Monday, finding the measure which requires citizens to purchase health care by 2014 to be unconstitutional. This is a big early victory in a long fight which will now move to federal appeals court and will likely be finally decided by the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who spoke at FreedomWorks' 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, has been instrumental in the fight against Obamacare. "I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli told CNN. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution." Already, support for Cuccinelli has been voiced by thousands on our FreedomWorks Facebook page. Please become a fan of FreedomWorks on Facebook to "like", "comment" and "share" our stories. Don't forget to click the suggest friends link to invite your friends to join our page. This is critical in helping us spread the word about lower taxes, less government and more freedom. Read More >>

The June 29th Coincidence

A short, wretched fiction: the tale of two neo-con radio hosts gasping in unison about the Supreme Court firefighters decision. 104

Scene 1: Kentucky. The electronic media lab which was contracted to tally the Ohio votes in the 2004 election grew still after the votes were “certified.” Once the election had been “won,” the White House blanketed the place with its usual cover. The “special magic” of the place had not been needed after Mr. Blackwell’s contract was, uh, “completed.”

However, with the GOP disaster in 2008, the place exploded into a new life and a new mission. It was now the official “Neo-Con Talking Points Factory." Our “visit” occurs on June 29, 2009, the day the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Connecticut fire fighters was announced. The shift supervisor rushes into the “war room,” grasping a crumpled email in his hands.

Supervisor: “We’ve got new marching orders from the top! We have to trash Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination! Get on it, Schmidt!”

Schmidt: “I’ve already been through about a thousand of her rulings. There’s nothing there -- there’s nothing even a little bit stinky.”

“The ‘activist judge’ thing was too complicated for our base. She’s only had rulings overturned a half a dozen times on appeal. The ‘rascist’ pitch connected with a few bigots down south, but they were already in our pocket before we started.”

“Have you got any more ideas?”

Supervisor: “Only one, Schmidt, only one. It’s a long shot, but we have to try something! We get paid to follow orders.”

“Go back through this thing again. It’s a damned perfect storm. Firefighters from Connecticut, not promoted because they were white. Our base on the street can understand something like this, sort of.”

“Roberts delivered the verdict they paid for, 5-4, but he’s already started asking how many more favors he’s got to produce to pay back for the GOP cover during his own nomination hearings. I mean, he appreciates not having to answer questions about that conflict of interest case with the insurance company, but now he’s bucking a little, you now, getting nervous, complaining.”

Schmidt: “Wait a minute. I'm getting it now! What if the Supreme Court decision was unanimous instead of 5-4? That paints a picture of Sotomayor’s ruling as radical -- outrageous, you know, out of the ball park! Something like that could get some traction in the base.”

Supervisor: “Yeah, it could, but the problem with that idea is that the ruling was 5-4, not 9 - zip. Throwing something like that might be a bigger trick than any of the stuff we usually do. Anyway, the Supreme Court ruling has already been all over the media.”

Schmidt: “That’s my point! The hill billies don’t understand anything about the Supreme Court anyway, but they love white men getting discriminated against. The ‘grudge’ crowd who think that Obama is out for their jobs and their guns will glue on to something like this like pigs at a wiener festival.”

“We could fire up a lot phone calls to the Senate against her. You and I both know that facts don’t matter with our voters. We can rewrite the whole story! Make the Supreme Court ruling 9 - 0. That would mean that even the liberals voted to over turn her ruling.”

Supervisor: “God! That’s just crazy enough to work. So few of our base know what the Court actually did, we can put this out and just look stupid to a few of the smarter ones. Call Hannity and Limbaugh! Hit 'em hard, but make it look like a coincidence.”

The June 29th Coincidence

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, June 29, 2009.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062909/content/01125109.guest.html
Rush Limbaugh discussing the Supreme Court decision in the firefighters case.

"RUSH: Now, the Sotomayor case. I want you to hear the State-Run Media describe the bad news. There's no question Sotomayor was overturned. Her court decided in favor of the City of New Haven and the black firefighters that didn't score as well on tests. Summary judgment without a trial, and they have been upbraided for this by not only the majority in the Supreme Court today (it was Anthony Kennedy's opinion) but also by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent. And this is why brilliant legal analysts are saying this decision when you get down to it is actually 9-zip, not 5-4 when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote about the mistakes and not even hearing the case, not even taking the constitutional questions. And the reason for this is... I go back to what I said at the beginning, and I stand by this."

Sean Hannity Show, June 29, 2009, courtesy of RealClearPolitics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/29/ricci_interview_hannity_transcript_97240.html
Sean Hannity interviewing Karen Torre, attorney for firefighters.

"HANNITY: Karen, I know this is a 5-4 decision, and by any objective measure, people would say well, this is a pretty close case, but in essence, when you look at it, really, it's almost 9-0 because even those in the minority found that the Second Circuit with Judge Sotomayor had really botched this case. Is that your reading of it?"

I guess we shouldn't really be that surprised when great journalists arrive at the same conclusion at the same time on the same day a week before the confirmations hearings start in the Senate.