Harry Reid and Chris Coons.
Where do the Democrats get these whimps?
It's no news Harry Reid sounds and looks like the anemic priest of a small, forgotten parish, which deserves and desires obscurity, and his little wisp of a mumbling voice. It's not his fault he's a frail, kyphotic old man, but there's no way he ought to be the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. He's simply too spent and gasping to lead anyone.
So Sharron throws a punch to his gut--You live in the Ritz Carleton and I live in a middle class neighborhood in Reno, and he cannot slip the punch and, worse yet, he cannot even counter punch.
Then she accuses him of being on the take--How'd you get so rich coming to the Senate poor and now you're a millionaire? And the best he can do is whimper about that being a low blow.
For anyone who has watched the news for the past year and seen Harry Reid approach the podium with all the force of a kitten and deliver his near whisper of a response to the thunder from the right, you just have to ask--are we really sad to see the Democrats getting swept from the field?
Now Christine, is a different matter, and more of the same. She is the perfect example of Shakespeare's, "In speech, there is logic." That's a phrase I did not understand and my father had to explain it: Simply saying something, that something takes on a reality. You can say, 'The sky is red," and people will nod. You can say, "Every wrong with this country is the Democrats' fault," and people will nod. If it's a lie, it doesn't matter, as long as you stick to it, keep repeating it.
Or, as that wonderful philosopher from The Wire, Slim Charles, tells Avon Barksdale, the drug kingpin, who has got into a war with a rival drug lord and is now realizing the pretext was all wrong. "That's the thing about war: Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then you fight on that lie."
Now Christine can calmly explain why she likes the idea the people who donate to her campaign can remain anonymous. You see, it's like this, people who contribute to me are contributing to an unpopular cause, so they get harassed. This allows them to send me money with worrying about recriminations from their fellow citizens."
So, it's scoundrel time again.
But does the Amherst educated Chris Coons, blow her out of the water?
Does he says, oh, for example, "So, what Ms. O'Donnell is saying is that people who support her should not have to show the courage of their own convictions. If their motivation is to injure the strength of this country, of the United States Senate, then they should be able to do this with perfect impunity. Good Lord, we do not allow United States citizens to make contributions to Swiss bank accounts anonymously because we know that secrecy can be used to hide pernicious behavior, can launder money from drug sales. And now Ms. O'Donnell is arguing for the laundering of money, the turning of possibly ill got gains into political clout, at worst, and at best her stance is she wants to allow the fat cats in the Republican party, who have never wanted to admit they use their money to keep everyone else down, she wants to protect these closet oligarchs from exposure."
No, he whimpers.
And when they try to do a Katie Couric on Ms. O'Donnell, by asking whether or not she can name a single Supreme Court decision, she slides by with a smiling endorsement of her hero, Clarence Thomas, well, whatever he says, I'm for that and I'm against those he voted against.
Shouldn't be hard to top that, right? But is Mr. Coons prepared? Nope, he can't think of a Supreme Court decision either, except the one they've asked about earlier having to do with allowing for secret campaign donations.
What about Bong Hits for Jesus? Or if you cannot come up with a case, at least say, look, when I can predict how John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will vote on any given case with social implications--Well, Thomas is easy, he just dittos Scalia--but when I can do that, is there any doubt this is a court with a social agenda, doing just what conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have always complained about--legislating from the bench?
These two women are angry, and they don't care much whether or not what they say is a distortion or makes any real sense. All you have to do is pinion them.
But these two men, Democrats sans balls have either been listening to advisers who tell them never to appear angry, or they are so bereft of testosterone maybe they should not be sent to the Senate after all.
The fact is, the one Democrat with balls who comes to mind is Barney Frank. I'd have preferred to see him on stage with either of those Republican beauties.
Can you not just see him listening to Sharron Angle ranting on about how the Senate has no business creating jobs--that's up to the private sector? And can't you just see Barney Frank, erupting with one of his, "On what planet do you spend the majority of your time?" Are you not the lovely lady who wants to privatize Medicare and eviscerate Social Security? Do you really want to deny children health insurance coverage because of pre existing conditions? Do you really want to throw a kid, just out of college, still looking for a job, to the wolves of the insurance industry who won't give him health insurance? That's what you call, "Obamacare." What you want is no care, except, of course for people like you, you who have government health insurance.
That's what Barney Frank would have done to Sharron Angle.
Well, maybe this upcoming election is something which will help the country, ultimately. You'll sweep out the mice among the Democrats.
Unfortunately, we'll have a bunch of Republican Senators, Angle, O'Donnell, and don't forget Ayotte of New Hampshire, who'll be voting on Supreme Court nominations and they'll be putting more Scalia's in place, guys who'll be there doing their nasty best to keep those in power in power, for the next two decades.And they'll be giving the millionaires their tax breaks so they can dominate the national life and discourse and buy whichever Senator or Congressman they wish, confident of the secrecy of that buy.
And if you thought the Supreme Court could not affect national politics, being a group of learned professors of law who simply stroke their chins and look august in their black robes, remember who put George Bush in the White House in 2004 and who put the money in the campaigns of the lovely ladies of the Senate.
No comments:
Post a Comment