Coprophagic constituents…

…and the candidates who feed them

I recently was exposed to a 30-second campaign ad for Democrat candidate for Texas Senate, Molly Cook. I say “exposed,” because viewing this, like so many other campaign ads, is like walking into a toxic waste disposal site without protective gear. My initial exposure was auditory only, and this is what got me thinking. The reason it sparked my cognitive conundrum was that it (again, like so many other campaign ads) appeared to have no point. This particular commercial contains all of seven sentences. Here is a transcript:

When I clock in for work, I know every second  counts. I'm Democrat Molly Cook, and in the ER, it's those seconds that can save a life. And the clock is always ticking in Texas. Will today be the day we're racing to save her after a miscarriage? Repairing the damage of a gunshot wound? Keeping neighbors alive after the power goes out? I'm Molly Cook, and I'm running for Texas Senate because we don't have anymore time to wait.

What gem of genius are we to glean from these statements? What political prowess does Cook purport to possess? Are we to kneel before her nursehood as if it confers upon her some magical powers? What more do we know about her than that she is employed in an emergency room? Should that bring us comfort or cause us to question? Was she involved in the medical mendacities of the Covid era? We have no idea from this commercial anything about Molly Cook other than she is a nurse, and she is a Democrat.

Of course, this was my impression from that minor exposure. Since then, I have again experienced the crucible of this communiqué, several times, and my most recent exposures have been visual as well as auditory. What I have learned by my eyes having been engaged in addition to my ears is that there are newspaper clippings overlaying the images with her fourth, fifth, and sixth statements.

As she ponders, “will today be the day we’re racing to save her after a miscarriage,” a headline from the Texas Tribune declares, “Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of the nation’s strictest abortion measures.”

While she asks, “Repairing the damage of a gunshot wound,” the screen displays a statement from the Houston Chronicle that, “the number of Houston kids killed by gun violence is rising, data shows, reflecting a national crisis.”

Along with her query of saving neighbors lives during power outages, the Austin American-Statesman is quoted: “In final tally, state officials say 246 Texans died in February from freeze and power loss.”

Presumably, we are to read between the lines. But at best, this is disingenuous. What has miscarriage to do with murder? Such a conflation is typical of politicians, but no person or law would deny medical care to a woman who miscarried her baby. Not to mention, there are few instances (from what I can find) wherein a miscarriage is a life-threatening issue.

As for gunshot wounds, why is that the sole type chosen for focus? What about people who come in with knife wounds? Having been beaten with a blunt object? Pummeled with hands and feet? Surely some of her patients are suffering wounds from violent crimes committed with other weapons?

And what, pray tell, is she going to do to save Texans from freezing? Can she single-handedly stop the weather? Will she promise to provide heaters, ponchos, or blankets to them at the taxpayers’ expense?

All of this is nothing but a gossamer veil laid over three leftist lunacies: infanticide, gun control, and “green” energy initiatives (the same failed initiatives that caused the Texas power grid to fail for many citizens, leading to the deaths cited in the ad). There is no substance here; it’s all blather and buncombe intended to stir emotions without daring provoke meaningful thought. This is not unique to Molly Cook or even the Democrat party.

Most political ads, regardless the length of time or number of words, are similarly vacuous, yet so many voters eagerly gobble up (and regurgitate) the talking points like coprophagic canines consuming all the excrement emanating from candidates’ primary facial orifices. Such inanity is not unintentional. Politicians don’t want their constituents to think - they desire a visceral response. The objective is akin to that of cheerleaders working the crowd into a frenzy at a sporting event: “When I say ‘gun’, you say ‘control’!” By eliciting an emotional response, cognition is overridden and support is won without the effort necessary to actually address any issue.

So long as the people are willing, like poop-eating pups, to unquestioningly swallow a candidate’s crap, ads like Molly Cook’s will achieve their goal - reflexive party-line voting based on obfuscation and prevarication. We need the political and psychological equivalent of Stop The Poo Chew if ever we are to break the cycle. Otherwise, the people will continue to be exposed to this poisonous plugola and be further afflicted with useful idiocy.