I’ve gotten both a bit of praise and a touch of flak over my response to one particularly idiotic and/or deranged liberal’s idea of (and I am really not trying to snicker over this) “put(ting) a humorous spin on the idea that a vast percentage of conservatives simply support the President regardless of whatever he does.”
To no one’s great surprise, Lair Simon had his response — and gave it a smidgen more dignity than it deserves by passing the question on to his regular panel of purring pundits. I sent my own response to the e-mail, published here, but looking back at it, I regret sending it.
No, I don’t regret the sentiment in the least. But I got distracted halfway through, and my train of thought was derailed. I switched thoughts halfway through a sentence, and it kind of comes across as meaningless. The intent is clear, but the actual wording is a bet messed up.
I was all set to let this go, but I come from a long line of Yankee packrats. I hate to throw anything away. And I hung on to the e-mail while it kept percolating in the back of my brain. And finally I figured out a way to use it to my own ends.
I think I’d like to flip the conceit behind this moron’s little “inspiration” and turn it back on Bush’s critics, with my own question:
How many orphans would George W. Bush have to save from a burning building before you would admit that he might not be evil incarnate?
And for laughs, I might start a betting pool on how long it would take for the following responses to show up:
1) If Bush had enforced tougher safer standards, the orphanage would never have caught fire in the first place.
2) If Bush hadn’t cut spending on public services, the fire department would have shown up faster and would have done the rescuing.
3) Karl Rove probably started the fire so Bush could look all heroic, just like a modern Reichstag.
If someone else feels like running with this, be my guest. I really don’t feel like investing that much energy into it.