Here’s the problem: ‘energy exploration’ instead of drilling for oil; ‘death tax’ instead of inheritance tax; ‘job creators’ rather than the richest two percent; ‘healthy forests’ and not logging.

energy exploration

Beginning in the 1990s, Republicans discovered that words have power and can shape emotion. Change the words describing a thing, and you can change how a person feels about that thing. You want to frighten people about health care reform? Refer to it as a ‘government takeover of health care’ and start talking about ‘death panels.’

frank luntz

There was nothing new about that idea. Politicians and preachers have been using that trick since the glory days of Greece. What was new was that Republican strategists (and most notably Frank Luntz) began to stress the important of playing on emotion over the formulation of policy. Symbolism began to trump ideas, scandal replaced debate over political positions. Instead of identifying weaknesses in the policies of Democrats, Republicans began using emotional arguments to frighten voters and turn them against their opponents. Even the smallest gesture can be re-interpreted this way; let’s not forget how the Obamas’ post-inaugural speech knuckle dap was turned into a ‘terrorist fist jab.’

terrorist fist jab

The Mitt Romney presidential campaign is the natural result of this approach to politics. He has essentially abandoned any attempt to formulate realistic domestic or foreign policies, opting instead to build a campaign around a few phrases, a handful of buzzwords, and the dissemination of scandal. His policies on jobs revolve around a deliberate misinterpretation of the statement “you didn’t build that.” His foreign policy is the president didn’t use the word ‘terrorism’ to describe the assault on the consulate compound in Benghazi. When that attack was raised during the last presidential debate, Romney didn’t didn’t discuss what sort of security might be appropriate for Benghazi, he was only interested in what words Obama used on what day. Everything is interpreted through a lens attuned to scandal, fear-mongering, and dog-whistle racism.

And hey, it’s working. Frank Luntz is right when he says most people make decisions primarily on emotion, not on intellect. Tonight, when you watch the debate, Romney will talk about being ‘resolute’ and ‘being a staunch friend to Israel’ and ‘standing up to Iran’ and Obama’s mythical ‘apology tour.’ He’ll use a lot of strong words, a lot of emotional words, and almost nothing of substance. He’ll be more concerned with looking and sounding presidential than in offering a coherent view of how the United States should act in the world as it is today. In the world of modern Republicanism, substance is secondary.

Marc Thiessen was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He also wrote speeches for Donald Rumsfeld when he was Secretary of Defense. He’s the author of a book (I hesitate to call it ‘non-fiction’) entitled Courting Disaster; How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack. In part, the book argues that the use of torture (redefined as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’) is legal, moral and effective. Thiessen is associated with the Government Accountability Institute, which is a conservative group that claims to investigate government fraud. He also writes opinion pieces published in the Washington Post.

Recently the Government Accountability Institute issued a report claiming President Obama has ‘skipped half of his intelligence briefings.’ That claim is based on the number of times the president, after reading his daily intelligence briefing, decided he didn’t need a more detailed in-person follow-up briefing. Let me clear about this: there were, in fact, NO skipped briefings; there were only briefings that were sufficiently clear that President Obama didn’t require any additional information.

Marc Thiessen

Thiessen, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece, repeated the ‘Obama skipped half of his intelligence briefings’ claim. Thiessen not only neglected to report the facts on which the misleading claim is made, he failed to note his relationship with the group that made the claim. Right wing bloggers picked up the claim and began to repeat it, without bothering to check its accuracy. American Crossroads SuperPAC, one of Karl Rove’s political attack machines, featured the claim in a pro-Romney campaign advertisement, noting the Washington Post as the source in order to validate the claim. Bloggers, right wing pundits, and contributors to FOXNews began to complain that the ‘mainstream press’ was deliberately ignoring the story.

And now there is a portion of the U.S. population who believes President Obama actually skipped half of his intelligence briefings.

If you ever wonder why a third of the Republican Party believes the president is a secret Muslim, or that he’s a socialist, or that he was born in Kenya — this is why. This is how the Republican Party works these days.

Researchers who deal with deadly snakes have learned to make themselves immune to snake venom. Gradually, over time, they repeatedly expose themselves to small doses of the venom, building up a tolerance for it, until eventually they can withstand a level of poison that would kill a normal person.

Folks, that’s what’s been happening to us in US politics. For the last four years we’ve listened to Republicans and right-wing extremists call President Obama anti-American. We’ve heard them claim he’s an illegal alien with foreign values. We’ve listened to them say he’s a secret Muslim out to destroy America. We’ve heard them claim Obama is a Communist and an atheist and a Socialist with terrorists for friends.

On occasion somebody in the Republican leadership will issue a weak rebuke, but for the most part they don’t discourage this sort of talk. More often, they encourage it or participate in it. The result is the American populace have developed a tolerance for this sort of poison.

So yesterday, when Gov. Mitt Romney, publicly stated that President Obama was in sympathy with the terrorists who assassinated a US ambassador and three other members of the US consulate in Libya, we heard reporters and pundits call those remarks “unfortunate” and “inaccurate” and “ill-timed” and “unpresidential,” and a “discredit to his campaign.”

Think about that. A candidate for the office of President of the United States accused the sitting president of sympathizing with the perpetrators of a concerted assault on a United States embassy, which resulted in four deaths of embassy personnel. What Romney said was so despicable that it should, by itself, render him unelectable.  And the news media calls that statement “unfortunate” and “inaccurate.” I’m telling you, America has been snake-bit, but we’ve been exposed to so much venom that our system tolerates it.

And you know what’s worse? You know what is even worse than the outrage deficit that allows Romney to get by with appalling shit like accusing President Obama of treason? I’ll tell you.

What’s worse is we’re not supposed to say that racism plays any part of the hatred the right wing feels for Obama. Because calling somebody a racist is offensive.

There’s a lot of apologizing going on right now in the Republican party.

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin has apologized for his comment about ‘legitimate rape.” Frank Szabo, who is running for the office of Sheriff in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, has apologized for saying if elected he’d arrest doctors who perform abortions and would resort to deadly force to stop them if necessary. Marilyn Davenport of the Orange County Republican party apologized for sending out an email with a photograph of President Obama’s head on the body of a chimpanzee. Congressman Paul Ryan, who is running for Vice President of the United States, has apologized for accusing U.S. military commanders of being dishonest about their budgetary needs in their testimony to Congress. Mitt Romney, running for President, apologized for saying he was not concerned about the very poor.

Everywhere you look there’s a Republican apologizing — and not meaning a word of it. Has Akin had a change of heart? No, he hasn’t; he still wants to make it illegal for a woman to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Has Szabo changed his position on shooting doctors who perform abortions? Not really; he now says “I recognize it [abortion] is legal, and for that reason deadly force against an abortion doctor is not justifiable.” Only for that reason; otherwise, I guess he’d just have to shoot their sorry asses. What about Ms. Davenport? Is she really sorry about sending out that photograph? She’s only sorry “if anybody was offended” by it, because she claims there’s nothing racist about it.

Does Ryan now believe the generals were telling the truth when they testified under oath that they didn’t need the increase in military spending that Ryan wants them to have? No, he doesn’t. He says he “misspoke” when he accused them of dishonesty, and “I was clumsy in how I was describing the point I was trying to make.” He still believes, though, that “what we got from the White House was more of a budget-driven strategy and not a strategy-driven budget.” In other words, he still thinks the generals were lying, but only because they’re cowards and not because they’re mendacious. And what about Romney, is he really concerned about the very poor? Yes, he absolutely is. He’s concerned they’re getting too much support from the government — support he believes ought to be going to…well, people like him.

When these folks say “I apologize,” it appears they actually mean to say “I’m very sorry that what I believe is so unpopular it might hurt my chances to get or maintain the power and authority I need to impose those beliefs on people who disagree with me.”

They’re a sorry bunch, the current Republican party — and they’re not afraid to say so.