Thursday, May 11, 2006

How to Beat the Democrats

Well, one method is to simply beat the Democrats. Bark Bark Woof Woof pointed this out in a recent and typically sharp post.
In other words, if you have nothing you can run on yourself, you run over the other guy. Scare the crap out of the electorate with wild tales of Democrats running the House and Senate, recklessly bringing the budget into balance, wontonly demanding oversight of the government as if Congress acutally had a role in something like that, foolishly restricting the government's role in monitoring every uterus, radically allowing people who are in love to actually be left to make their own lives together, and care in a liberally irresponsible manner for the health, rights and privileges of every citizen.
Dead straight, mate!

This dovetails nicely into a highlighted article at Townhall today (that is to say an article they are pushing on their front page) by Lorie Byrd, entitled "All Investigations, All the Time."
Even though Democrats are now speaking publicly about it, I doubt that this all-investigations-all-the-time agenda will be the main focus of their campaign ads leading up to the November elections. This is why I hope that Republicans will make it one. I wonder how many voters, even those disillusioned with the current Republican majority, would want to vote for Democrats just to see them tie up the Congress with investigations through at least 2008.
Tie up Congress with investigations?

Isn't that little like tying up Publix with grocery selling? Or tying up the local Shell station with gas-purchases? Or tying up "Make Me a Commentator!!!" with badly edited commentary involving many references to television shows that are no longer on the air?

But I do realize when you put the words "tie up" it sounds bad. So why don't replace them with more honest. "I wonder how many voters, even those disillusioned with the current Republican majority, would want to vote for Democrats just to see them do their duty in the congress with investigations through at least 2008." Reads a bit better, doesn't it?

No comments: