Alarmed due to developments with Congressman Akin's recent comments on a woman's biological response to "legitimate" rape, GOP representatives are distancing themselves from Akin and suggesting he retire from politics. Stepping into the controversy with his expertise on the How-Dumb-Can-We-Be-And-Get-Away-With-It Index, GOP expert strategist Karl Robozscoff is attempting to control the current GOP hysteria over the crisis.
Karl Robozcoff has been a GOP analyst and strategic advisor for many years, back through the Bush junior administration and prior, and has become a venerable source of wisdom for GOP candidates on how to get elected. Most importantly, Karl says, according to one of his spokespeople, "how we manipulate and spin events takes a deft touch, not repeated foot-in-mouth, as we are seeing." The Machiavellian precepts underlying the Robozscoff philosophy "certainly advocate opportune brainwashing. But," his spokesperson breathed solemnly. "subtly, subtly."
In terms of recent election cycles, the Akin example has embarrassed the GOP by dropping scoring to the lowest historical levels on the How-Dumb-Can-We-Be-And-Get-Away-With-It Index. Despite today's lowering standards of intelligence in America, Akin's gaffes on how a woman's body functions, which hit lows of minus 40 and minus 50 on the Index, have the GOP's face red. Even stray dogs in the parks of the nation's capitol are guffawing and sneezing. No, according to Karl's spokesperson, in contrast, a 60 to 80 plus rating on the Index is almost certain to succeed as brainwashing-but not lower.
For example, specious logic must be used very carefully, to avoid unintended traps, such as the following syllogism: Akin is a GOP politician, Akin is stupid, GOP politicians are stupid. Karl Robozscoff cautions this kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc has certain qualitative problems for the more thoughtful who might be dissecting it.
Along these lines new conservative suggestions that spermatazoa in and of itself should be granted the rights of personhood, or the equivalent of the zygote, must be evaluated carefully. Proponents for this view argue that clearly this is spermatazoic intention, known as "the holy spray" in certain GOP circles. This view continues that spermatazoa is the sacred material by which the woman's "quiver" is filled with "arrows," so to speak, in keeping with a woman's role as servant to the Lord (and to the male). Karl suggests he will research this particular development and get back with full diagnosis.
He also cautions on recent renewed enthusiasm to debunk Mr. Obama's birth certificate and place of origin. Now that the president's birth certificate is fully available for anyone to see, it's no use making false claims about it when actually looking at the certificate, plus a routine Google and Wikipedia search, can dash these claims to pieces. An outright falsity, such as that his father could not have been born in Kenya since that country "didn't exist" until 1963, is a tortured effort to bend gullible readers into thinking the name "Kenya" had not been applied to Kenya's territory for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to 1963.
Moreover, the slippery slope tactic must be used carefully, lest the reader or listener blink and hesitate, thence to ask, where's the evidence? It might not be convincing, for example, to assert that because the president's grandmother worked in a Honolulu courthouse she went ahead to manipulate a social security number for the president. Then again, according to the Robozscoff principles, it could be worth the try.
Karl's spokeperson advises that, if going ahead with renewed efforts on this ploy against the president and his grandmother, it's important to use language such as "an intensive investigation has revealed." Additionally, freely add and sprinkle phrasing such as "in this great nation," and refer to "citizens" and "patriots" frequently in the paragraphing. He agrees that making this claim should work toward the plus 80 percentile range of the How-Dumb-Can-We-Be-And-Get-Away-With-It Index because most people will not question the assertion.
Why won't they, other than simple laziness and the dumbed-down state of the American electorate overall? Because, the Robozcoff manual answers, the language "intensive investigation has revealed"--using passive voice to avoid identifying who, when, how, authority's name, source, date, etc., which would be normal when actually thinking about the assertion--will be adequate schmoozing and brainwashing to assure a strong positive rating on the how-dumb-we-can-be-and-get-away-with-it index profile
Worth a try, Karl would say, but keep alert to use the red herring strategy if seriously challenged by any skeptics.