My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.


Memo To Cara DeGette: Return To Logic Class 

Your writing is without a point.

Cara DeGette at Colorado Confidential has written an "expose" on the issues stances Bob Schaffer took when he was a congressman. She highlights these points without comment:

• "Republicans defend gun rights. Democrats point guns at 6-year-old Cuban kids."
• "Republicans defend religious freedom. Democrats incinerate religious zealots and their children."
• "Republicans enjoy free speech. Democrats enjoy desecrating the Virgin Mary's image at public expense."
• "Republicans are for a clean government. Democrats set big forest fires in New Mexico."

Now, I suppose in the circles DeGette runs in, these are all code for nefarious and evil intent on the part of Schaffer. Perhaps it is merely understood, in the same way that some people can tell just the punchline of a joke and elicit a chuckle from their friends.

But if this is meant to be at all persuasive of the general public, I'd have to say it seems to . . .well, lack a certain something. What is it that I'm searching for ? A word, an idea . . . .Oh, yeah

SHE HAS NO ARGUMENT for any of these.

Does Schaffer support gun rights? Yes, and more power to him, especially after what we've learned earlier this year from New Life. Do Dems point guns at 6 year olds? Anybody remember Elian Gonzalez? Sure, take a kid who has a relative to live with and who is already on our property, remove him at gunpoint to ship him back to the land of one of the worst dictators left in the world, but let's welcome all those people who travel here without anywhere to go or anyone to be with from our "friends" to the south.

DeGette clearly forgot to include on her list that Republicans still have a sense of irony.

Religious freedom? While I might have worded this one differently than Schaffer did, clearly Republicans are the more apt to let people of ALL faiths speak their mind in the public square, while Dems are more inclined to censor any speech that's not "inclusive" enough. And, let's not forget the Branch Davidians, who, while insane and problematic, probably didn't pose enough of a threat to the general public to warrant their termination.

Free speech? Schaffer probably had a better argument here before McCain/Feingold, but I think the point is clear. We respect and defend free speech because it contributes to the public discourse and the political life of the country; Democrats want to discourage open and free political debate while creating forums and using National Endowment for the Arts money to be as vulgar and offensive as they can.

And, lastly, I think it's pretty tough to say anybody is "for" clean government these days. But when you consider that William Jefferson is still in the House, and a part of the leadership, I guess you have to pin that tail on the donkey.

But, again, what's most laughable is the complete lack of an argument from DeGette. Maybe it no longer matters in the Democratic world to actually articulate your points and defend them with reason--certainly, Barack Obama seems content not to actually make an argument about anything.

But if this "professional" is to be the standard of argument we should expect from the Udall campaign, then I feel better about Schaffer's chances.

In the meantime, DeGette should try to get some editorial assistance. Or, at least a friend willing to say to her "Yeah. And?"

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?