Sue Lowden brought the chicken to the debate because she wanted to be involved in discussing health care, but had nothing relevant to say. She has been handed her head for it, and now she can only join the debate by presenting something relevant to the discussion.
Since she is a conservative politician appealing to conservative voters, her ideology automatically blocks her from championing anything useful or relevant, so she is in a real quandary.
Her choice is either (1.) to drop out of the conversation completely and quite wasting the public air space (impossible for a politician when the political environment is skewed towards solving the problem of so many people with no access to health care) or (2.) to present something actually relevant to the discussion instead of attempting to derail it. Her potential electoral base and her funders will abandon her if she chooses option (2.)
For years conservatives have simply chosen to spout the kinds of inanities she is now in trouble over. The result has generally been to fill the political atmosphere with fear, uncertainty and doubt and to drown out any effort to actually solve any of the problems of health care. The election of Obama as President has changed to political atmosphere so that addressing this set of problems has become a national priority and the nay-sayers and conservatives have made themselves irrelevant.
American people are considered more important than growing the wealth of the fat cats. Sue Lowden is on the wrong side of history. It's morning in America for Americans at last!
Sue Lowden is American political conservatism hard at work avoiding solving the many of the real problems America face.
Besides drowning the political discussion in irrelevancies, another conservative tactic is to shift the discussion to one of moral failure and to suggest that the only solution is for people to look into their hearts and become morally pure.
The two tactics are similar in that they (1) have no measurable cause and effect connections between the problem and the proposed solution and (2) they both allow the wealthy to continue to build their wealth without regard to the needs of the workers or the customers who are being exploited to allow them to build up that wealth and the power that goes with it.